Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.06.11THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Planner Swan Jacobs City Engineer Marr Kindig City Attorney Karmel Mink Consultant Spangle Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame.Planning Commission, from the regular meeting of May 30, 1973, was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Kindig. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. HEARINGS 1. CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, MAY, 1973 BY WM. SPANGLE & ASSOCIATES; CONTINUED FROM REGULAR MEETING MAY 30. 1973 2. RESOLUTION NO. 5-73 APPROVING THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT Chairman Kindig announced public hearing on this element. He stated that as a result of questions and issues raised at the last meeting revisions have been made to the plan, copies of which were mailed to the commissioners. He requested report from City Planner Swan. The City Planner referenced his memo of June 8 to the Commission which pointed out some areas of possible consideration at this meeting. He stated that he, the City Attorney and the Consultant met and went over the questions and issues raised and all agreed on certain revisions which are incorporated as Exhibit A of Resolution 5-73 approving this element. Actual reprinting of the Element would be done at a later date, incorporating all changes. If approved, Resolution 5-73 will go to Council for their public hearing. He also referenced partial Commission minutes of May 30, 1973 covering that meeting's discussion of the Element. City Planner Swan noted two misprints on Exhibit A. Paragraph 633 - "prohibit" should be changed to "provide." Paragraph 641 - addition of "treatment" after "wastewater." There followed some discussion of Exhibit A. Commissioner Sine wished Paragraphs 662 through 671 referring to development of architectural guidelines deleted in their entirety. Commissioner Cistulli objected, citing problems experienced with Eichler Homes in the past. The Chair invited Consultant Spangle to comment. Mr. Spangle gave sources on Bay pollution as the Government report to the Bay Conservation Commission and their report on fish and wildlife to BLOC. He commented he had been asked to define "conservation easement" and gave two examples. One is for the purpose of protecting vegetation, natural water drainage and wildlife. It can be drawn to fit any particular circumstances, and includes such transfer of rights from the owner to the City as are necessary to accomplish these purposes. Purpose of this kind of easement could be the prohibition of removal of vegetation in more than 20,6 of the area or removal of trees, prohibition of excavation and fill, prohibition of littering. Essentially this is a transfer of the rights of the property owner and the easement becomes a part of the recorded parcel map. Another type of conservation easement is the kind used in Monterey County. This cites some standards and includes a limitation on structures being built within the easement, prohibition of all advertising and planting of vegetation except certain varieties. This is a combination of conservation and City easement. With regard to architectural guidelines, Mr. Spangle thought this was a matter of decision that the City would have to make. In his opinion it would be advantageous so that there would be some point of reference that could be given to developers and builders for them to have an idea of the kinds of things the City is trying to achieve with regard to appearance of buildings. The City Planner added that actually the Conservation Element contemplates architectural guidelines in only three areas - Area 16, mixed residential/commercial use between Howard and Peninsula; Area 19, residential/office use mainly along Bellevue; and Area 9, between Broadway and Mills Creek. Chairman Kindig requested audience comment. Mr. David Keyston, Anza Pacific, thanked the Commission and staff for considering points he had raised and thought many constructive changes had been made in the plan. He disliked the objective of restoring the mudflats, but more seriously questioned if it is appropriate to make the Conservation Element supersede the General Plan. He felt the General Plan as originally adopted protected the rights of properties and individuals. He did not feel the Conservation Element did, and thought the General Plan should supersede it. Mr. Robert Delzell of 1345 Desoto distributed to Commission and staff a revised version of Paragraph 606 - "Objectives." His revision entailed the addition of the following two objectives: b. To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and stimulate the health and welfare of the citizens of Burlingame. C. To achieve a balance between population density and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities. He felt both of these deserved a place in these objectives since they are a national policy at this time. - 3 - He also wanted an addition to Paragraph 644, relating to shorebird sanctuary. This would change the second sentence to read "Mudflats, marsh land, and clean water are essential ingredients of this environment." Mr. Delzell went on to say he thought there should be something in the plan regarding earthquake hazard, since the City owes it to the people to say something about the inherent dangers of building on mudflats. He noted that Paragraph 607(h) regarding geologic hazard had been deleted. The Chairman commented he believed this would be fully covered in the forthcoming Seismic Element the City will adopt. City Attorney Karmel agreed, saying that a full Seismic Element must be adopted at a later date, but the City is not required to write this Element until the State comes out with Guidelines. The City Engineer again questioned Paragraph 623 which deals with remedial work programs by the City, the most urgent of which is rehabilitation of the creek systems. He stated the majority of creek systems are on private property, and questioned if this paragraph obligated the City for these programs. If so, he would take exception. Mr. Spangle replied that in his opinion it did not obligate the City to any specific work, but is intended to identify major programs that should be undertaken. Some programs might be initiated by the City Council or Planning Commission, but before they could be instituted would have to be on the staff budget. The City Engineer protested he still objected because in the past there have been landslides in the hills and the City has been sued. He did not want the City to have to pay for remedial work on private property. City Attorney Karmel suggested the deletion of the words, "by the City" in this paragraph. Mr. Spangle agreed. There followed a period of Commission discussion. Commissioner Sine urged the adoption of this resolution since the City is faced with a deadline, stating he was satisfied with it on the whole but wished the reference to architectural guidelines deleted since he is unalterably opposed to this. Commissioner Taylor approved Mr. Delzell's approach and would like to see the two items he suggested added. City Planner Swan commented on the item about population eontrol .that this is something separate from conservation. He noted that the projected growth in Burlingame is not large. Commissioner Taylor thought the principle was that of density control rather than population control and that the planning of density control is a part of the Conservation Element and should be considered at this time. Commissioner Mink agreed in principle but thought this was the wrong place in the General Plan. He questioned why Paragraph 604, which deals with the conservation ethic was included since there is similarity between the low density items in the General Plan and this paragraph. Mr. Spangle replied that 604 was primarily explanatory and really stated that conservation is something that will require the understanding of people. He thought the two statements suggested by Mr. Delzell are generally consistent with the concept of the Conservation Element but he would agree that the addition of (c) "To achieve a balance between population density and resource . . ." would pose some problems. Commissioner Mink stated he could accept (b) if it were stated "To prevent or eliminate damage to the environment . . . ." He did not think (c) was appropriate. Commissioner Taylor agreed. Commissioner Mink was of the opinion that the phrase "architectural guidelines" relates to bulk and size and is a broad limitation, not limiting detail. Commissioner Sine thought guidelines in general for a specific area possibly might work, but actual control would be completely unworkable. Commissioner Mink stated he liked the idea of guidelines but did not like the idea of implementing them. Mr. Delzell again stated he would like to see the City adopt a strong statement about density and he felt it appropriate to be put in the Conservation Element since he did not find strong references to this in the General Plan. Commissioner Mink felt such a statement should be in the General Plan, and Chairman Kindig agreed, since this specific element under consideration is conservation and all items of open space, conservation and the General Plan should be considered together. Commissioner Taylor felt the revisions in Exhibit A reflected accurately the Commission's viewpoints at the last meeting. Commissioner Mink moved the adoption of Resolution 5-73 as submitted by Staff with these changes: Paragraph 606, Page 8, to be rewritten to include "To prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and stimulate the health and welfare of the citizens of Burlingame; Paragraph 623, Page 16, the phrase ". by the City ." be deleted; Paragraph 644, Page 21, second sentence be rewritten to read, "mudflats, marshland, and clean water are essential ingredients of this environment." Other changes as shown on Exhibit A. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Kindig commended Mr. David Keyston for his in-depth study and comments on the Conservation Element. He then commented that these various elements of open space, conservation, and the forthcoming seismic element contain so many areas of interest to city commissions and other organizations that copies should be forwarded to them. RECESS There was a short recess at 9:10 P.M. after which the study meeting convened. 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE BUBBLE MACHINE - REVIEW REVISED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE 2. SIGN PERMIT FOR -SIDED, 70 SQUARE FEET PER FACE,_IDENTIFICATION SIGN FOR THE BUBBLE MACHINE Chairman Kindia established that the annlir-ant wnc not present and - 5 - requested a report from the City Planner. City Planner Swan stated that Standard's letter of May 30 requested the hearing be continued to June 25 and the Commission had agreed to this. However, the plans were changed, and he wished to acquaint the Commission with the revisions. He distributed copies of the revised plans and there was discussion. City Engineer Marr protested that Page 6 of the EIR contains statements about untreated effluent reaching the Bay, and he could not recommend that this report be adopted with these statements. There was Commission comment that since the applicant was not present to explain changes, possibly this should be continued to the next study meeting. However, it was set for hearing June 25 as previously agreed. The City Planner stated that a telephone message had been left with The Bubble Machine that an EIR and application would be necessary for the sign for the study meeting in July. None had been received yet. He noted that information about the sign was circulated with the Staff memo. The sign permit was not set for hearing. 3. DRAFT EIR-19P BY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES FOR ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW REBUILDING A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND A NEW CONVEYOR CAR WASH IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1000 BROADWAY BY ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY (PLUS 4A. SIGN PERMIT) The City Planner told the Commission that a fee for the EIR had been received and distributed the draft EIR. Chairman Kindig asked for applicant representation. Mrs. Faye Beatty of Environmental Impact and Engineering Association and Mr. George Peavey, construction manager for ARCO were present. In response to Commission questions, Mrs. Beatty stated that expected traffic would be 285 cars per day, hours would be from 6 A.M. to 10 P.M. Mr. Peavey went over the car wash plans in detail and answered Commission questions about them. He commented that the entrance driveway on Broadway would be several feet farther south than the existing driveway. The size of the sign will be 46 square feet. There was Commission comment that the sign will have to have a separate environmental impact report and will not be considered a part of this application. There followed considerable discussion which centered on the driveway exiting on Rollins Road. It was agreed that this driveway should be moved 10' north and reduced to 15' in width. The question of only one restroom was raised, and suggestion made that to be legal, there must be two restrooms. Mr. Peavy indicated that length of time required to wash a car is one and a half minutes, although that could be speeded up to 55 seconds. The problem of preventing cars exiting from the car wash from turning left to exit on Broadway also came up and Mr. Peavy stated that this would be done. There was a question if the EIR gave specifications with regard to water flow, and Mrs. Beatty indicated she did not have the exact specifications. The City Engineer commented that such items are required for the building permit and detailed plans should show them. Chairman Kindig scheduled hearing on special permit for car wash and its EIR for the June 25, 1973 meeting. The City Planner reported that there was no EIR on the sign and he had seen no material on it. Mr. Peavy stated that exact detail had not been worked out on the sign, and the Commission agreed to consider the sign permit at the July study meeting in order to allow ARCO time to compile data. 5. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 7-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN AN R-1 DISTRICT AT 1510 NEWLANDS AVENUE BY BRUCE STEWART, AGENT FOR OWNER, RICHARD GARCIA The City Planner reported to the Commission that it was suggested in May that a determination be made as to how many of the units are non -conforming and how many legal. He stated that there is one legal unit and the rest are illegal. Mr. Stewart has compiled in- formation and he and the present owner need information from the Commission as to how to proceed. The City Planner suggested consider- ation be given to recommending a special contractual agreement between the owner and the City Council. (Negotiate a settlement between the owner and the City without the hassle of a public hearing.) He felt variances would not change the situation, and a one lot reclassification would only sanctify what is already existing. Mr. Bruce Stewart told the Commission that both the buyer and seller are willing to cooperate, and are willing to put money in escrow to bring the building up to building code. However, the building is on an R-1 lot. The property has been in existence in its present state for 12-13 years. Bringing the building up to building code standards would enhance the property. Building Inspector Calwell reported that the structure could be brought to code as far as the building is concerned, but not as far as zoning and parking regulations are concerned. Even with the removal of one unit in.the rear, the parking would still be 1 to 1. The setbacks are all right, but fire glass would have to be put in one side of the building. There was Commission discussion. Some comments were: There could be two variances, one for land use and one for parking code. One opinion was that this would be agreeable; despite the fact there is no building permit, the structure is well built. It would be necessary to hold a public hearing, and the feelings in the neighborhood toward a variance of this kind cannot be estimated. It was suggested that a variance be made contingent upon the remodeling. The City Attorney agreed that the variance route could be followed. Chairman Kindig announced this would be set for hearing for two variances, one for parking and one for land use, on June 25. The question of an EIR was raised. City Planner Swan thought a negative declaration could be made on this particular project. Chairman Kindig directed Mr. Stewart to confer with Mr. Swan before the next meeting. - 7 - 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR S.F.O. EXPRESS AIR FREIGHT TERMINAL IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1358 ROLLINS ROAD No representative of this applicant was present. The City Planner told the Commission the applicant had been instructed to file this application several months ago when he had applied for a business license. The use involved is expansion of loading dock and office space. The applicant was not present, and the City Planner suggested the application be continued. The application was continued. 7. VARIANCE TO ENLARGE A 3-BEDROOM HOUSE WITHOUT SATISFYING OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS AT 518 CORBITT DRIVE BY JOSEPH L. MC G RATH Mr. McGrath told the Commission his problem was simple. He had a sundeck on his house which merely acts as a repository for dirt, rainwater, and leaves. He wishes to enclose it so that it can be used as a sunroom. When he applied for a building permit he was told he needed an additional garage. He has a one -car garage and a 39 foot driveway. Three autos in the family are parked one in the garage and two tandem on the driveway. He is not going to rent the room or put more autos on the street. He had plans prepared, which were distributed to the Commission. In reply to a Commission question, he replied it would not look very good if he covered part of the driveway in front of the house for a garage or carport. There was some discussion and the EIR was discussed. The City Planner informed the Commission that a negative declaration had been prepared and posted on this. However, he noted that the plot plan should be developed in detail to show the distance from front property line to front building line. The application was set for hearing on June 25, 1973. RECONVENE There was a short recess at 10:35 P.M., after which the meeting reconvened. 8. TENTATIVE MAP FOR 3.85 UNIMPROVED ACRES MOL (APN 26-101-09)" PORTION OF EASTON INDUSTRIAL TRACT BETWEEN NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE AND ROLLINS ROAD ZONED M-1; OWNER, ALFRED L. MARSTEN; APPLICANT, HERMAN CHRISTENSEN 9. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT ON APN 026-101-09) No fee and no report Herman Christensen addressed the Commission, distributing plot plans of the project. It is proposed to erect six office -warehouses one story in height on this site. A water main connection would be made with the existing water line which deadends on North Carolan. Mr. Christensen said they would dedicate an easement for the water line and also dedicate a 28 foot easement for street access from Rollins Road to North Carolan. The site lies between North Carolan and Rollins Road and there would be access from both streets. He thought the development fitted in with the existing zoning. The Chair questioned Mr. Christensen why he wanted a dedicated easement rather than a dedicated -street. Mr. Christensen gave the argument that this is a street - 28' wide with 14' lanes. City Engineer Marr referenced the subdivision of this property which was approved in 1957. At that time it was supposed to have a dedicated street from the deadend of North Carolan swinging around to Rollins Road. The City Engineer felt there still should be a dedicated street, citing the property improvements involved, such as a new water main, sidewalks and street lighting. He wondered if the applicant's reluctance involved parking and questioned the turning radius. He thought there should be a subdivision similar to that of 1957. Mr. Christensen protested that the 28' proposed easement would serve the same purpose as a dedicated street but the title is not held by the City. His reasons for wanting this were that they propose 90 degree parking in front of the buildings; landscaping out to the passage way; experimentation with different paving colors. Mr. Christensen stated that the site would not be subdivided and that all of the buildings would be self-supporting for parking. City Attorney Karmel commented that a dedicated street ordinarily belongs to the city. When the city accepts the street it accepts all the burdens that go with it: traffic control, maintenance, etc. It would be important for the Commission and the applicant to under- stand that if this property were ever subdivided into five lots, by the time the fifth came in the city would require a proper street. City Planner Swan reported that no information had been received showing a draft EIR is being prepared. This EIR has been requested on three occasions. He noted its importance, adding that one of the first requirements to be included in the EIR is an analysis of truck movements through this property. There must be adequate turning radii for industrial property. Mr. Christensen said that they are purchasing the property under an option. An EIR would cost from $2,500 to $3,000. There would be no objection at all to furnishing an EIR if some indication could be received from the Commission that this development would be considered favorably. There followed a period of Commission discussion centering around the facts that an EIR is definitely required; a risk of $2,500 or $3,000 on a project of this size is minimal; and that alternative plans have not been presented. In effect, all information has been too sketchy. Mr. Christensen said that the 3rd week in July is the extension of the option, so there is a time problem; and alternate plans have been considered and discarded. He commented that he had been trying to fight his way through the labyrinth of regulations on building development on this project, and the development proposed is essentially what the land was originally zoned for. At the same time the project will open up North Carolan. There was much more discussion as to the reasons for the EIR, and the unsatisfactory plans with no alternates. M C ri tens n a a protested the only reason he did not want to deSica e he s ree� � the City is that he wants 90 degree parking. Chairman Kindig stated he could set this for public hearing on June 25 but an EIR was required and he would prefer to schedule it for another month with alternate plans to be considered. There was commission comment there should be several alternate plans. Mr. Christensen agreed; stating he had no choice. 10. VARIANCE TO ADD ONE SOCIAL ROOM ATOP THE 116-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 3133-3155 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 BY SKYLINE TERRACE APARTMENT 11. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SKYLINE TERRACE APARTMENTS VARIANCE The Chairman advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting this be continued to the July meeting. 12. SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A POPE SIGN 47 FEET IN HEIGHT AND A POLE SIGN 36 FEET IN HEIGHT IN A C-2 DISTRICT AT 200 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND 1123 HOWARD STREET BY CUMMINGS & COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR ARATA PONTIAC (AND SIGN PERMIT FOR 36 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN) 13. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ARATA PONTIAC PROJECT SIGNS Mr. L. E. Goble of Cummings and Company Sign Service told the Commission that Arata Pontiac wishes to install at 200 California Drive a 15' x 11' pole sign 47 feet in height, a 6 x 6 single face sign, and a 4 x 4 service sign. At 1123 Howard, three existing signs are to be taken down and replaced with one 11' x 111, 36 feet in height. He displayed plans for the signs and a large color sketch. All signs are lighted. There was some discussion, and Mr. Goble was asked if the height of 47 feet was"necessary. He stated that it could be dropped to 36' if necessary. He displayed photographs of the building. Chairman Kindig questioned what should be done about the sign EIR. The City Planner responded that this leads into other questions: who does the EIR, and what is the responsibility of the Planning Commission regarding signs. He requested an explicit determination about who would prepare the draft EIR for the applicant, what department should administer Title 22, the sign code, and who should bring sign applications to the Planning Commission. He thought that signs were a responsibility of the Building Inspector and not the Department of Planning. The City Planner does not have the manhours of time required for sign administration. . Commissioner Sine agreed that it is most essential that the Planning Commission act this evening on some procedure on sign permits, since the Staff has received no certain direction on them. He had only one request on the present application - that a representative of Arata Pontiac be present at the public hearing. Chairman Kindig announced this application as set for hearing at the public meeting of June 25, 19 3. - 10 - 14. SIGN VARIANCE FOR AN 8' x 12' REAL ESTATE SIGN IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 2 ADRIAN COURT By RICHARD LAVENSTEIN & COMPANY Mr. Lavenstein told the Commission he was interested in developing property on Adrian Court. This is to be called the "Airport Business Center." He distributed brochures describing this development. This development is to be along the lines of the Christensen site with small offices, warehouses, etc. He requested a 12'x 8' real estate sign to replace the present 12' x 8' sign on the property which is in a poor location for advertising. This will not be a permanent sign and will be taken down when the building is leased. He displayed photographs of the location. Chairman Kindig scheduled this application for hearing on June 25. 15. PROCEDURE AND FEES FOR SIGN PERMITS 16. DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT GUIDELINES FOR SIGN REVIEW. Chairman Kindig suggested that the staff write a procedure for signs including guidelines, size and administrative procedure for sign review and present it to the Commission for study. Commissioner Mink agreed that this should come from the staff since they are the ones who are going to administer it. He felt that Mr. Spangle's guidelines and the City Planner's memo of May 22 were helpful to him. City Engineer Marr said the main problem is the 32 square feet regulation which requires Environmental Assessment on every sign of this size. He suggested the possibility of a negative report instead of an EIR. Commissioner Mink suggested that possibly 32 square feet was unreasonable for certain areas of the city and Mr. Spangle's guidelines would help in determining the areas in which larger signs could be permitted. Commissioner Cistulli disagreed, feeling the same size should apply to the whole city. Commissioner Mink thought different sizes would be appropriate, especially the commercial districts and the M-1 district. He _stated he would be willing to back off from the 32 square feet, and the staff and possibly the Council could give direction on this. Commissioner Sine still thought the 32 square feet and EIR should apply but with a graduated fee. He suggested $50.00 as a minimum and additional fees up to $200 for larger signs. City Attorney Karmel thought the 32 square feet ordinance should be amended with the idea it could still be kept at that size for some areas. This would reduce the number that would come before the Planning Commission and delegate some to the Building Department. The City Planner reported that the biggest problem is the EIR for which there is no procedure and for which he does not have the staff or time to handle. He suggested recommendation be made to the Council that they buy the service of someone to process signs until this procedure is worked out. Commissioner Mink agreed that the time of a City Planner should be spent in dealing with major issues of planning rather than the minor technicalities. The City Engineer agreed that the City Planner is not staffed to do the EIR's and neither is the Building Department. Commissioner Sine concurred on allowing outside personnel to do the work for which the applicant would pay a fee. The Commission agreed to have the City Planner draft a resolution for guidelines for sign review to be recommended to the City Council. 17. STAFF REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN REVISIONS City Planner Swan informed the Commission he had had no time to work on this. 18. CITY PLANNER REPORT The City Planner reported that tentative procedures for environmental impact reports would be transmitted to the Council this week. He stated that the 1973 League Conference would be held October 23 in San Francisco. He told the Commission that the Metropolitan Transportation Committee meets June 13 in San Francisco. Copies of the Environmental Considerations of the Regional Transportation Plan were distributed for review and comments. This plan is to be adopted by June 30, 1973. LATE APPLICATION Mr. Florin Rhoads, 1530 LaMesa Drive, submitted a tentative parcel map for property which he stated was purchased 5 years ago. His legal possession was not included in the legal subdivision and he wished to get this changed. The City Engineer commented this amounts to a parcel map because he is making two parcels out of one. He also stated that Mr. Rhoads wished to abandon a sewer easement that is on the property and to have the City accept an additonal sewer easement. The City Engineer noted this can be accomplished only by the City Council. Chairman Kindig suggested Mr. .Rhoads confer with the City Planner on this matter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary