HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.11.26THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
November 26, 1973
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT 'COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli None
City
Planner Swan
Jacobs
City
Engineer Davidson
Kindig
City
Attorney Karmel
Mink
Fire
Chief Moorby
Norberg
Fire
Inspector Pearson
Sine
Taylor
CALL 'TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called
to order on the above date at 8:05 P.M., Chairman Kindig presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
Minutes of the special meeting of October 13, 1973; the regular meeting
of October 24, 1973; and the study meeting of November 12, 1973 were
approved and adopted.
1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE UNCLASSIFIED PROPERTY LEASED FROM THE
SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT FOR PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING
LOT, IN 1800 BLOCK ON EAST SIDE OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY B.
CARL SNYDER
Architect deWolf was present, representing Mr. Snyder.
Secretary Sine read recent correspondence which included:
1. Memo dated 11/21/73 from Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik
which questioned drainage plan, availability of access across adjoining
property, site distance problem due to greater curvature of property
than shown on applicant's plan, width of entrance. Memo noted grading
plan was needed and other construction details.
2. Memo of 11/21/73 from Park Director Hoffman. This recommended
underground storm drainage to protect city planting strip, assumption
of maintenance of the planting strip by the developer, location of
fence close to property line, planting of missing trees and shrubs
and suggested protection of 4 existing eucalyptus trees on the
property.
City Planner Swan noted recent receipt of revised plan and displayed
it to Commission.
Mr. deWolf addressed the Commission. He told. them the revised plan
incorporated all the changes which were requested in the two memos
received. Alternates to this plan would incorporate parallel
parking and the use of crushed rock instead of blacktop. He stated
Mr. Snyder had received letter from the Burlingame Traffic Director
approving the south entrance and north exit and approving in principle
- 2 -
the location of the crosswalks, with the stipulation that the
Traffic Director will make the exact placements when the lot is
finished. He went into other details of the plan.
City Engineer Davidson questioned drainage procedures but noted he
needed a chance to review the revised plan. He disapproved the 10'
width of the entrance driveway on the plan and questioned the street
visibility because of curvature to the NE which does not show on
the plan.
Commissioner Sine objected to continuing with the hearing since
the staff had not had adequate time to review revised plans; and moved
the hearing for this application be continued to the December regular
meeting. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried by
voice vote. Discussion followed. Commissioner Cistulli brought up
the possible widening of California Drive from Broadway to Murchison;
and Commissioner Taylor wanted a factual study of the actual curvature
of California Drive and its traffic hazards.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE UNCLASSIFIED PROPERTY FOR RESTAURANT AT
1190 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BROADWAY DEPOT OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC BY
JAMES L. LLEWELLYN.
Mr. James L. Llewellyn was present.
City Planner Swan advised the Commission that the area leased from
S.P. includes the depot structure only. He stated the applicant
had indicated parking close to the depot on the plan, and had stated
he is willing to pay the 250 validation fee for each space for his
customers. The lease agreement has been received and submitted to
the City Attorney for review, but has not yet been executed.
Mr. Llewellyn confirmed that he validates an average of 17.-.spaces
near the restaurant and carries insurance on the parking lot.
Commissioner Sine commented that the previous restaurant permit had
been granted with no different requirements for parking, and the
present application could only be given the same treatment. He
cautioned he would like to see a definite guarantee of non -transfer
of ownership on this permit so that future confusion would-be eliminated.
There was Commission question as to why the negative declaration of
environmental impact had not yet been prepared. The City Planner
replied that this could not be done until complete information was
received. At this point, the City has only the draft lease, not
the executed document. Chairman Kindig questioned if the application
could be approved with the request that a negative declaration be
filed. It was the City Attorney's opinion that it seems permissible
for the Commission to take its action conditional upon the negative
declaration being filed and becoming final.
Commissioner Mink moved the granting of special permit to use
unclassified property for a restaurant to James L. Llewellyn at 1190
California, effective for a period of two years, with renewal
conditional upon a review of parking arrangements at that time.
This permit is to contain the same regulations as previous permit
granted to Mr. Pena, and is subject to the filing of a negative
declaration.
- 3 -
Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried unanimously
on roll call vote.
Mr. Llewellyn was instructed to confer with the City Planner on
the negative declaration.
3. REVISED DRAFT. EIR--20P FOR AIRPORT MARINA PROJECT.
Chairman Kindig emphasized to the audience that this part of the
hearing would be for the purpose of considering the EIR only. The
variance application and the sign would be considered later. He
commented he had checked through the revision, and thought that all
corrections had been included.
Mr. Del Davis, whose company prepared the EIR, told the Commission
he felt it unnecessary to go through the entire EIR again, but would
be happy to answer specific questions.
Chairman Kindig inquired if any in the audience had comments or
questions about the EIR. There was no response, and the public
hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Mink commented that if the EIR reflected his views on
the sign, he would consider it appropriate.
Mr. Davis informed the Commission that since the traffic figures
developed had surprised most staff and public officials, he and the
City Planner were conducting another traffic count to verify their
accuracy. This count had been started Thanksgiving Day and figures
will be forthcoming. The Chairman remarked that any motion to approve
the EIR should contain reference to the restudy of traffic.
City Planner Swan recommended the EIR be accepted.
Commissioner Mink agreed that new traffic information should be
substituted in the document. Commissioner Taylor thought the
EIR was now fairly representative of the views of the Commission.
He moved EIR-20P be recommended to the City Council for adoption,
subject to the addition of further information accumulated on traffic.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous
roll call vote.
City Attorney Karmel addressed the Commission for purposes of the
record. He stated he wished to dispel any feeling on the part of
the public that the City might have "rubber-stamped" this EIR.
He reported that the EIR as originally submitted had been extensively
reworked at the direction of the Planning Commission after a three-
hour meeting held on the 13th of October, 1973 with City staff,
City Council, and applicant present. The revised EIR as adopted reflects
changes suggested on that occasion and reviewed at the Planning
Commission's last study meeting. Mr. Davis prepared this final EIR
in consultation and cooperation with various members of the City
staff, including the Planning Director and the Director of Public
Works.
- 4 -
4. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SETBACKS FOR PARKING STRUCTURE AND SPECIAL
SIGN REGULATIONS FOR PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE AIRPORT MARINA
HOTEL AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-050 & 250) ZONED
C-4. FOR AMFAC, INC. BY RUTHROFF AND ENGLEKIRK.
Secretary Sine read letter of November 5, 1973 from Lyle Guslander,
Senior Vice President of Amfac, Inc. This letter made the following
commitments:
1. Amfac acknowledges they cannot hook into existing sewer line.
They will remedy this situation, and submit plans for approval
of Public Works Department.
2. The exterior walls of the parking structure will be treated
architecturally.
3. Parking will be provided in accordance with current City ordinance.
4. Amfac will provide a landscaped bike path, 30' strip, along the
Bayshore and give a public easement thereto.
5. The existing roof sign will be turned to face the north at
approximate right angles to old 101 highway.
6. If traffic signal is desired one block north of parking structure,
they will commit $5,000 to erect it.
7. The new building will have an automatic sprinkler system. They
will sprinkle all of existing building when other hotels in area
are required to do this.
Mr. Jim Ruthroff, of Ruthroff and Englekirk, addressed the Commission.
He introduced Messrs. Paul Fratessa, Ruthroff and Englekirk; Win.
Tighe, president of Fred Harvey; Frank Liptman of Amfac; and Thomas
Sturgis, manager of the Airport Marina Hotel.
Mr. Ruthroff summarized previous developments, and emphasized that
they are anxious to build a project which is desirable to the
City. The new project will be a ten -story building housing 224 rooms,
and at a height of 10516" will actually be lower than the top of
other buildings. They have reached an agreement with BCD[C on
establishing the 30' bike path on the bayfront. This will be developed
and maintained in accordance with bicycle path standards of the City.
Mr. Ruthroff stated they had determined that the required number of
parking spaces per code was reasonable and had decided to adopt
these standards. Their request for removing requirements for
setbacks on the garage structure is an effort to reduce the height of
the structure. This garage will contain an elevator. He commented
it has been acknowledged that the roof top sign presents a considerable
visual impact, and the hotel agrees to turn the sign from facing the
hills of Burlingame to an angle 900 north. In conclusion, Mr. Ruthroff
declared they felt they had striven to present to the city the best
effective development of the property.
Chairman Kindig announced that any action taken by the Planning
Commis3Lon_on this application would be in the nature of a
recommendation to the City Council. He then requested audience
comment.
- 5 -
There were no comments in favor. In opposition, Attorney Benjamin
W. Frankel of 2075 Pioneer Court, San Mateo,spoke on behalf of his
clients, Mr. and Mrs. William F. McClenahan. He read a letter to the
Commission setting forth that the McClenahans are owners of the light
industrial building complex property on Burlway Road and adjacent
to the proposed parking structure. They object because of the
adverse visual impact of this garage on people working on Burlway
Road, and the probability of additional traffic load on Bayshore
Highway. They urge the parking garage be reduced in size, with
required setback enforced.
Commissioner Mink questioned if it were not true that the
McClenahan development itself is non -conforming, being an M-1
operation in a C-4 zone without proper setbacks. Mr. Frankel
replied, "Yes, but it is there."
Mr. Victor Subbotin, Vice Chairman of the Parking Commission,
introduced himself as a resident of the community for 39 years. He
thought this development of the property would be made at the expense
of recognized standards and city ordinances; particularly the
parking ordinance. He objected that the project had not been
presented to the Parking Commission for its recommendations. He
stated he had reviewed the plot plan and believed the minimum
amount of parking spaces should be 900, whereas only 677 are being
provided. He had also reviewed the parking structure and objected
that the ramp slope indicates a gradient of 25% which is in excess
of national standards. Also the stall widths and turning radii would
preclude 900parking. He thought the first floor height, not indicated
on the plan, should be at least 1231 feet to allow for emergency
vehicles. He thought the structure should be given much more study
and recommended the setback variance be denied since it was a minor
problem.
There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Commissioner Norberg considered the circulation in the parking structure
very poor and questioned why the plans had not been revised as
promised.
Mr. Ruthroff replied that they wanted to determine if the setbacks would
be approved first; then plans would be revised in conformance with a
present study. He pointed out that if they are required to maintain
the setbacks, the structure would have to be 7 or 8 stories in
height. He added that the ramp definitely would not have a 25%
slope.
Commissioner Sine stated there should be a condition that the sign
be removed entirely, since moving it 900 would mean it would be
elevated 10' more.
Commissioner Taylor questioned the exact number of parking spaces.
Mr. Ruthroff stated the code requirements would be met of 562 for
the rooms and 118 for the restaurant, a total of 680 spaces. He
added he did not understand how the figure of 900 spaces was developed.
The City Planner confirmed they were providing parking as required
by ordinance.
- 6 -
Discussion followed as to whether action on the variance and sign
should be separate, with the City Attorney confirming that this would
be proper.
City Planner Swan read portion of code for waterfront commercial
district which states that attached signs shall be prohibited above
the roof line of the building. Mr. Ruthroff illustrated on the
model the angle to which the sign would be moved.
Commissioner Cistulli noted that the parking problem had been
solved, but he was not in favor of the sign at the top of the building.
Commissioner Sine questioned what the setbacks for the garage should
be off Burlway Road. The City Planner replied this was a matter of
interpretation - that if this area was considered front yard, the
setback should be 30'; if side yard, it should be 10'.
Commissioner Sine questioned why they did not follow desirable design
requirements of sloping buildings up from the Bay, and presented the
idea of getting the same room space by terracing the building. Mr.
Ruthroff replied that if they developed a terraced effect, it would.
mean reducing the number of rooms at each rising floor level. They
would then have to increase the number of rooms in the lower levels,
which would take up more site area. He said they are working closely
with BCDC, and this agency thinks they have a maximum encroachment
with their present plan. He suggested the possibility of City
liaison with BCDC if they wished to pursue the terracing idea.
Commissioner Taylor stated he thought Commission comments on the
sign were good. However, the Commission was being asked to consider
an application for variance on setbacks, and the height was the
concern of the City Council. Commissioner Sine agreed, but stated
he wished to bring out the facts for Council consideration.
Chairman Kindig called upon Fire Chief Moorby for comment. The
Fire Chief reported that the parking structure would have to be
sprinklered, but he still felt the present hotel structure should
be sprinklered along with the new project when it is added.
City Engineer Davidson referenced Amfac's letter of November 5 and
its statement regarding the "under capacity sewer line." He emphasized
that this sewer line is at capacity, not under, and requested that
Amfac's plans for the sewer be submitted to the City Engineering
Department. With reference to the letter's statement committing
Amfac to $5,000 in the event of installation of traffic signal, he
stated that this signal project is under way and bids will be taken
Wednesday, November 28, 1973.
Chairman Kindig stated he was not as concerned about the addition
to the hotel as he was about the garage. He did not like the top
story of the hotel being a restaurant and coming out 10' beyond the
building, but he thought the garage structure was unacceptable.
In his opinion, it overcrowded the land and blocked the view of
the buildings across the street and in back of it.
Commissioner Taylor had reservations about the garage and thought
the loss of setbacks was bad, particularly in view of the fact that
a C-4 use would have to be found eventually for the McClenahan
- 7 -
property.
Commissioner Norberg objected to the height of the parking
structure. He suggested a 9 story hotel with one story for restaurant.
Commissioner Mink commented he thought the discussion of height or
parking was not appropriate for this body, since the Commission was
in session to consider a variance for parking structure setbacks.
However the Commission did discuss the development of a public
easement along the shoreline. There was also some difficulty with
circulation for fire fighting apparatus. He recommended that the
30' strip along the bayfront should be landscaped according to require-
ments of the Park Department; and some system of subgrade or pavement
structure be built for an emergency fire access road sufficiently
strong to support the aerial tower and wide enough for the tower and
supports. He presumed that such a road should be reviewed by the
City Engineer, Fire Department and BCDC. Regarding the roof sign,
he noted it was proposed to take the sign off the old structure and
put it on the new portion at an angle facing away from the hills of
Burlingame. He cautioned that Amfac could keep this sign in its
present color and present location on the :-old building as long as
they wished. He questioned if the City would see some designs of the
architectural treatment of the parking structure. Mr. Ruthroff
replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Mink asked if he would
make a statement regarding the fire road. Mr. Ruthroff stated
Airport Marina had considered that and will provide such a lane that
would be accessible and capable of carrying fire engines. In response
to further question he stated that the color of the sign would not be
changed since the location was being changed. Mr. Liptman added
that "Airport Marina" is their logo in all their various hotels.
At this point, Commissioner Taylor stated he wished to make a motion
in order to get the whole project before the City Council. He
moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
variance be granted from setbacks for parking structure, and variance
from sign regulations be granted per Amfac letter of November 5, 1973
for Airport Marina Hotel. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, and
it carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR
NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,SINE"
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RECONVENE:
The meeting reconvened after a short recess at 10:00 P.M.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Cyrus McMillan, attorney for DFK Investments, reported to the
Commission that one of the principals was unable to attend this
meeting because of an emergency situation, and he wished the application
continued to the December meeting. The Commission approved this
continuation.
5. PARCEL MAP FOR BANK OF AMERICA PROJECT AT CORNER OF CHAPIN
AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REAL, (APN 029-121-430) BY GLEN D. HAGEY
City Engineer Davidson presented the cloth map for Commission inspection.
MERM
Chairman Kindig reviewed the facts of this map. The Commission had
elected to wait until foundations were in for this project before
approving the map which deletes lot lines and changes classification
of one portion from R-4 to C-1.
Commissioner Mink moved that the Chairman and Secretary be instructed
to sign the parcel map inasmuch as the applicant has completed the
necessary foundation work.
Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote.
6. FLORIN RHOADS PARCEL MAP, COUNCIL REFERRAL ON SEPTEMBER 17
TO THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND REPORT
Mr. Rhoads was given the privilege of the floor. He told the
Commission the Council had referred the map back to the Planning
Commission because they thought the Planning Commission might not
have covered every aspect of the creation of the lot. Mr. Rhoads
stated he thought every Commissioner was familiar with the map
except new Commissioner Jacobs. He requested that the Planning
Commission return the map to the Council.
City Attorney Karmel commented the map was sent back for
recommentation and report.
City Planner Swan stated he thought one Council question was if the
Planning Commission realized that the area had been purchased as a
lot with no frontage on an access road, and would require a resub-
division to make it a legal lot. He stated that a portion of Lot 8
must be added to Parcel B to provide access to a common drive and
P.U.E. and a lot line must be established between Parcels A and B.
Chairman Kindig remarked he had previously voted against this parcel
map because there were already too many lots fronting on this common
driveway. Commissioner Sine stated he had voted against it before,
and would again particularly because of a city code (Sec.26.16.080)
which specifies a cul-de-sac shall not be more than 250 feet long,
and this is 5001. He noted that at the time of the original sub-
division the thought was that this land was never to be developed,
and some of the area has been used to dispose of construction wastes.
A large part of the land is fill and, he felt, unsuitable for con-
struction. He felt that Mr. Rhoads was asking the City to relieve
him of a situation where he had ailandlocked lot.
Mr. Rhoads informed the Commission he felt resentful of certain
implications and wished to go into the situation in detail at a
study meeting. Commissioner Taylor interjected that this meeting
was not a hearing but for the purpose of making a report.
Mr. Rhoads then stated he thought thisies a question of legality
rather than opinion as to whether or not there was too much traffic
on LaMesa Court. He reiterated each lot is 1/3 of an acre, which
will accommodate a minimum of separate residences and each of five
lots will front on LaMesa.
There was some discussion as to whether another hearing should be
held. Both the City Attorney and the City Planner reminded the
=sAm
Commission that the Council only wanted to make certain the Commission
had considered all the facts in their opinion on this map. There
followed discussion as to how a vote on the report to Council
could be handled, with the City Attorney's opinion that Commissioner
Jacobs would be ineligible.
Commissioner Mink also commented that to his understanding the
Commission had been requested to add two new property lines, one
separating Parcels A and B and one adding a portion of Lot 8 to
Lot B for access to a cul-de-sac. It was also known at that time
that the topography of the land made it questionable as to the safety
of a building lot. The Commission felt this was the problem of the
Engineering Department. He stated the only new piece of information
was Commissioner Sine's remark that the cul-de-sac may not meet the
maximum length requirement for the City of Burlingame. He requested
clarification from the City Engineer who deferred the legal question
to the City Attorney.
City Attorney Karmel stated that Viewlands Estates with its 8 lots
has at least 4 lots which do not front on a city street. This is
the reason the common driveway was created, and this driveway was
acceptable to the City Council. Under a provision of the City code
on hillside developments where it is impossible or impractical to have
a frontage on a city street and still have a lot of required dimensions,
then the City may accept a common driveway such as this. The lot
in question fronts upon an existing legal common driveway. Whether
it meets the cul-de-sac requirement is immaterial. He added that
these two legal lots were already on record at Redwood City, and the
difficulty could be that the Council feels there has been a subvention
of city ordinance.
Commissioner Mink commented that these facts were known to the
Commission when the vote was taken on the parcel map.
In response to inquiry from Chairman Kindig, the City Planner
reported he had no further information.
Commissioner Mink moved the Planning Commission report to the City
Council that it was aware of the circumstances and facts when it
voted on the parcel map at a previous meeting.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion, and it carried on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG,CISTULLI,SINE,TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS
Commissioner Sine told Mr. Rhoads that any decisions he had made in
the past or would make in the future on the Planning Commission were
for the betterment of the City.
7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 AND 12, BIACK 6,
MAP OF SUB.#2, BURLINGAME PARK, (APN 028-315-050 AND--060) ZONED R-10
FOR MISS G. BERNICE BARNETT AT 1575 RALSTON AVENUE, BY H. G.
HICKEY.
City Planner Swan informed the Commission that the engineer had
- 10 -
revised the original map and had prepared schematics and two additional
diagrams. These outlined changes since the first document was
submitted. He gave the revisions to the Commission for their
inspection, and explained the detail of the changes.
Mr. Howard Hickey told the Commission that in his opinion this parcel
map would accomplish three legal lots with the necessary frontage,
noting that in this R-1 area the lots would be used for the construction
of new homes rather than apartments or condominiums.
It was the opinion of the Commission that these revisions should be
studied before a vote was taken on the map, and this application was
continued to the regular meeting in December, with consideration at
the December 10 study meeting. Mr. Hickey was asked to submit a
topographic map.
8. SIGN PERMIT FOR 40 SF POLE SIGN, 20 FEET IN HEIGHT AT 123
CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, FOR ARATA PONTIAC.
Mr. Glen Crum was present as representative of Cummings and Company.
Also present was Mr. Phil Pinto, manager of Arata`s body shop facility
at 123 California Drive.
Mr. Crum addressed the Commission, speaking to the permanence of the
facility and the need for the sign. He stated that the body shop
has been operating in that location for four years, the lease will
be renewed, and the facility definitely is permanent. As to the
need, the only sign is now a wall sign which addresses traffic
traveling south on California. There is a need for identification for
traffic going north, since the body shop is in between other businesses.
This will be a double-faced internally illuminated sign, no brighter
than other signs on the street.
The Chairman requested audience comment. There was none, and the
public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Sine noted that Mr. Arata was not at the meeting
although his presence had been requested. Both Mr. Crum and Mr.
Pinto indicated they had been authorized by Mr. Arata to represent
him.
Commissioner Taylor questioned why the sign must be 40 SF when 32 SF
would be permitted without a sign permit. Mr. Crum replied that this
was a prefabricated sign. The 40 SF was a standard size and the
next size would be 16 SF which would be only one half what the City
would actually permit. A 32 SF sign would be a special order.
Commissioner Sine thought action on this application should be
delayed because Mr. Arata was not present. Commissioner Cistulli
had personal knowledge that Mr. Arata was not able to attend, and
asked that the hearing continue.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Crum indicated that he would
remove the wall sign if this permit were granted.
Commissioner Mink moved that the sign permit be granted Arata Pontiac
for sign specified in Exhibit A with the condition that all other
identification signs be removed with the exception of traffic and
entrance and exit signs. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion
and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SMALL ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND ASSOCIATED OFFICES
IN C-2 DISTRICT AT 1101 JUANITA AVENUE (APN 026-092-010) FOR
G.E. FREY, D.V.M., BY AGENT, JOHN F. ROSS
Secretary Sine read letter of November 20, 1973 from Dr. G. E. Frey
transmitting plans and data, and stating this facility would operate
only as a small animal hospital and would not include boarding. Dr.
Frey went on to note self-cleaning kennels and location of hospital
ward next to California Drive, lessening noise. He added the building
would be redecorated and landscaped.
Mr. John Ross addressed the Commission. He stated Dr. Frey was
present for any questions. Mr. Ross told the Commission he was
aware of several petitions against this hospital in this neighborhood,
and had talked to several people who had signed the petition. They
were under the impression this was a boarding kennel. He emphasized
that it definitely would not be, and repeated that the building would
be soundproofed, with the animals housed on the California Drive
side.
Secretary Sine read communications opposing this use from Alice L.
Anderson, 1124 Rhinette; and M. E. Carson, 1125 Lincoln Avenue. He
also noted receipt of petition opposing containing 29 signatures, and
petition opposing containing 19 signatures. This latter petition
contained some duplication of names.
City Planner Swan told the Commission the plans were received on
November 20, which was inadequate time to post a negative declaration
which must be posted 10 days prior to hearing. He thought the
application should be continued. He added this site has only 5
parking spaces instead of the 7 represented. The entrance is on
Juanita and is directly across the street from an R-1 District. He
thought this use was questionable for this area.
Commissioner Cistulli protested the number of applications which are
continued and questioned why this should be on the agenda and noticed.
He suggested applications be scheduled and noticed only when all
information is in.
The City Planner stated the Commission had in the study meeting
indicated this application be put on the agenda; and the City
regulations require that negative declaration be posted.
Commissioner Mink moved this application be continued to December 26.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded and the motion carried by voice vote.
Mr. Ross suggested all applicants be informed of time schedule for
posting of negative declarations.
Chairman Kindig reviewed for audience benefit the fact that this would
be a hospital for injured animals and the work would be done by
appointment only, with no boarding.
- 12 -
11. SHORELINE BIKE PATH
City Planner Swan presented the concept that heavy traffic on Bayshore
Highway could be bypassed by means of bike path along the shore of
the Bay with the cost for construction and maintenance being borne
by property owners. This path is to be in the public access easement
along the Bay provided for in the recreational element of the General
Plan.
He distributed and explained a set of exhibits for this bike path.
The first sheet indicated the bicycle route adopted by resolution
of the City Council in May of 1972. He noted that at that time there
were no definite plans for the bayfront area. The second sheet was
a Tentative Route of Proposed Shoreline Bike Plan from San Francisco
Airport to Foster City.
The City Planner then referred to the plan prepared by Charles Eley
with details for a bike path from Avis to Broadway. He considered
this idea had sufficient merit to be recommended to the City Council.
It is located in the area which will receive impact of increased
traffic from the Airport. On the last sheet of exhibits the area
between Broadway and the easterly city limits of Burlingame was
encircled and noted Shoreline Specific Plan.
City Planner Swan stated he thought some statement of policy was
needed indicating a desire for a bicycle path along the shoreline.
Considerable discussion followed. Commissioner Mink moved that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that priority be
given to adoption and implementation of a Bayside bicycle pathway
compatible with the design suggested by Mr. Charles Eley and submitted
to the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame at their study
meeting of October 10, 1973. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion
and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
12. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - AIRPORT BOULEVARD
The City Planner posed the following questions to the Commission:
How much will Burlingame be impacted by traffic from the enlarged
airport? How much from other projects such as S.F. Towers? In
5 years? In 10 years? He noted all these projects and future ones
will generate traffic and we need some kind of information .to present
to the State Department of Transportation so that they can plan to
implement construction of freeway overcrossings necessary to handle
increased cars. He referenced diagram showing a suggested scope
of a Bayshore Highway - Airport Boulevard traffic study.
Commission members agreed that a traffic study was necessary;
Commissioner Taylor suggesting that as each new building is constructed
the traffic impact should be determined.
The City Planner concurred that a study is necessary to keep
abreast of the development that has already taken place and what is
being proposed. He referred to the Anza Pacific project which will
generate much traffic.
Mr. David Keyston told the Commission he endorsed the City
- 13 -
Planner's recommendation. He stated Anza Pacific realizes their
proposed plan will generate traffic for which the road system is
inadequate. They would like to participate in the study, and feel
it is a study that might rightly be initiated by the City. He
commented that a motion calling on the Council to proceed would be
appreciated.
There was discussion. Commissioner Taylor moved that the
Burlingame Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it
initiate a joint study with other agencies of the traffic and
circulation along the bayfront from San Francisco Airport to the City
of San Mateo. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, and it carried
on voice vote.
City Engineer Davidson reminded the Commission that Burlingame is
presently participating with the City of Millbrae and the S.F.
Airport for a traffic study for the intersection of Bayshore and
Millbrae Avenue.
13. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 1766 EL CAMINO REAL; NOVEMBER 19 LETTER
FROM FRANK R. KROHN.
Mr. Frank Krohn addressed the Commission and stated he was the
attorney for the Pacific Standard Life Insurance Company who wish
to determine the feasibility of a subdivision at the above location.
However, in view of the lateness of the hour, he considered it would
be appropriate to bring the matter to the next study meeting. The
Commission agreed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary