Loading...
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