Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.04.09THE CITY OF BU RLI NGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 9, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Taylor Jacobs Ki nd ig Mink Sine Cistulli CALL TO ORDER The monthly study called to order o presiding. ROLL CALL Norberg (excused - City Attorney Karmel illness) meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was n the above date at 8:00 P.M., Chairman Cistulli The above members were present. APP LI CATIONS 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW REBUILDING A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION WITH A CONVEYOR CAR WASH IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1000 BROADWAY BY ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY Chairman Cistulli announced this application for study and invited ARCO representative, T. T. Clausen, to explain their request. Mr. Clausen reported that Arco proposes to replace the existing service station unit with a conveyorized car wash and two pump islands. Service station functions of lubrication, oil changes, tire sales, etc. would be completely eliminated. Mr. Clausen displayed plans of the proposed installation, noting that the car wash itself will contain a recycling system which reclaims a large majority of the wash water, and detergent used is bio-degradable. In addition, the gasoline storage tanks will have a new recycling system, approved by the Bay Area Air Pollution District. He commented that no adv Pisting se traffic situation will be created by this plan. In fact one driveway near Broadway and Rollins Road intersection will be eliminated. He explained the circulation of cars around the pump islands, through the carwash, and exiting on WhiteThorne Way, over which Arco has easement rights. This circulation plan will be signed so that will be the only exit. He directed Commission attention to the planter areas and the parking on the west side of the lot. This plan will involve removal of a building on the adjacent lot purchased by Arco. There was Commission comment that there would then be two car washes in one block, considering Cable Car, and there could be adverse effects if Arco's car wash were unsuccessful and they had to apply for another use for this property. Mr. Clausen• voiced optimism that car wash business would be especially good in his location, - 2 - where traffic comes down the Broadway off -ramp. The station is not in the line of a stacking lane or left turn lane, but directly in the traffic pattern which seems to indicate easy access. There was Commission remark on the single rest room indicated on the plan. Mr. Clausen indicated he was not certain of the State Law concerning restrooms, and was warned that it probably requires two rest rooms. Mr. Clausen was questioned regarding the sign for the car wash and indicated that a 46 square foot sign, the same size as the present one,'was desired. He was informed that a sign application and EIR would then be required since the City now has a 32 square foot sign limit. Chairman Cistulli scheduled this application for hearing May 30, 1973, to permit preparation of the car wash EIR. 2. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 2-6 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 23 SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 22 AND 24 AND RESUBDIVISION OF BLACK 23, TOWN OF BURLINGAME FROM R-1 TO R-3A BY PETITION OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND REPRESENTED BY LEON RICHARDSON Mr. Richardson was invited to give reasons why he wished this re- classification. He presented a petition signed by property holders in the 100 block on Arundel requesting reclassification of their R-1 property, and told the Commission the property which he owns has on it an old house which he wishes to demolish and replace with a 5-unit apartment house. He noted that the rear of the properties on this block is R-3 zoned. He was asked if he would get the other property holders to the public hearing if it was set, and he agreed. On a question of plans, he stated he had given plans for the apartment house to the City Planner, and it was noted that even if the property were rezoned, he will still be subject to parking regulations. Chairman Cistulli set this application for hearing at the meeting of April 23. Commissioner Sine brought up the problem of public noticing. He felt that the usual noticing of the area with a 500' radius was not adequate in the case of a reclassification, and asked that the City Clerk be requested to noticelthe area from Humboldt to California Drive and from Peninsula Ave ue to Burlingame Avenue. He stated he would be willing to pay for the additional postage himself, as he had in one other case, which money had been refunded by the City. Discussion followed. The City Attorney stated that the request could be made, of course, but if it was felt that the present system of noticing as regulated by ordinance was not adequate, the ordinance must be changed if the City Clerk's office is to be held responsible. Chairman Cistulli stated the regular noticing procedure would be followed. 3. RECLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT LOTS 1 AND lA IN THE SAME BLOCK FROM R-1 TO R-3A ON THE INITIATIVE OF THE BURLINGAME CITY PLANNING COMMISSION There was some discussion of this application, which is to make these - 3 - two lots conform to the rest of the block, and it was scheduled for hearing at the public meeting of April 23, 1973. DIRECTIONAL SIGN PERMIT FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY JUNIOR MUSEUM AUXILIARY - "LA DOLPHINE", 1761 MANOR DRIVE, HILLSBOROUGH At this point Chairman Cistulli brought up this additional minor item which had been referred to the Commission by the Building Inspector. He introduced Mrs. Robert Frank, representing the San Mateo County Junior Museum. She stated this organization yearly puts on a "Decorator's Show House," which this year will be held at "La Dolphine," 1761 Manor Drive, Hillsborough. Proceeds from this show house go to the Junior Museum. This is a non-profit organization. Mrs. Frank requested the Commission to allow her to place ten small directional signs at various points in Burlingame, indicating directions to this show house. The two largest of these signs will be 2' x 31. She stated permission for directional signs had already been granted by Hillsborough. The signs will be up for the period April 27 through May 21. The signs are already made, being used from. year to year. It was established that this non-profit organization would not be charged a fee, but a sign permit must be issued. After some discussion, the Commission agreed to Mrs. Frank's request. Chairman Cistulli directed her to get a permit from the Building Inspector with the Planning Commission's approval. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION ESTABLISHMENT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1465 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-101-120) TRANS- PORTATION LIMITED AS LESSEE: BY OWNER, RICHARD LAVENSTEIN ET AL. Chairman Cistulli announced receipt of letter dated April 5, 1973 from Richard Lavenstein regarding this application. The City Planner, absent on business, had forwarded this letter with the notation the applicant had been informed this item was too late to be on the agenda. Mr. Lavenstein and Mr. John Harder were present at the study meeting, however, and requested permission to make a presentation. This permission was granted. Mr. Lavenstein told the Commission that a new 13,000 square foot one-story warehouse is being completed on this property. Mr. John Harder wishes to lease the entire building for his contract transportation company. Mr. Harder explained the proposed operation of this trans- portation company. The front of the warehouse will have office space, but most of the warehouse space will be used for storage of new station wagons used in his business. He proposes to have contracts with various public agencies, as well as blood banks and hospitals, for deliveries of material and passengers. He will have 12 station wagons to start and eventually may increase to 24. He would like to have a gasoline tank on the property, but can arrange for gasoline service elsewhere. There are 17 parking spaces in front of the building, which will be necessary only for employees, and should be adequate for them. Mr. Harder stated his drivers will'all be bonded for $50,000 each, and permit has already been issued by the P.U.C. There will be no individual pickups, only contracts, and companies contracted - 4 - will be billed once a month. He intends to lease the building for about five years. In response to a Commission question he stated the location is best for him because of its accessibility to the freeway, the airport, and various hospitals. There was some discussion, during which Mr. Harder stated he already had contracts and would be glad to present them upon request. He added none of his vehicles are considered as emergency vehicles. This application was scheduled for public hearing on April 23. 4. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, A PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE CITY GENERAL PLAN BY WILLIAM SPANGLE AND ASSOCIATES Commissioners had been provided the final report from William Spangle on "Open Space Element, City of Burlingame," for discussion. Mr. David Keyston, of Anza Pacific, wished to comment on this report and was given permission. He touched on several points, including his approval of Mr. Spangle's recommendation that air space should be protected through zoning regulations controlling building height, bulk and coverage, with particular attention to the area outboard of Bayshore Freeway. He approved Mr. Spangle's recommendations for undergrounding of utilities. At this point Commissioner Sine announced that the Underground Utilities Commission had been disbanded with only two priorities established: Old Bayshore Freeway and Occidental Avenue from El Camino to Barriolhet. Mr. Keyston questioned the suggestion contained on Page 14 of the report, "Extend limits of T-P zoning district to include all tidal waters," with regard to the lagoon in the City's park. He thought it might be well to consider all tidal waters, but noted that a tidal plain is very restrictive. He noted the suggestion to monitor water quality in the lagoon to prevent pollution, and stated this was already effected by the Mosquito Abatement District. He questioned, " an open space continuum from the buildings on the frontage road south of the Bayshore . . to future structures in the Anza- Pacific lands . ." There was discussion, and the concept advanced that this means maintaining a visual open space; a re-evaluation of open space in this area. Mr. Keyston referred to Area 16 on the Plan Diagram, stating that Anza Pacific is already committed to the State to build nothing more than 5' above ground level there, and he hoped to bring in a more detailed plan for that space. He thought that Area 17 could be kept free of structures. There was Commission discussion of the increasingly overlapping structures of City, State and BCDC in the Bayfront area. There was further discussion concerning building setbacks. Also stressed was the subject of pedestrian paths along the Bayfront and the fact that a consistent plan and specifications should be adopted by various agencies for this. Mr. Keyston felt part of the respon- sibility for this should rest with BCDC, and mentioned that the S.F. Airport had agreed to put up some money for a bridge from the Fisherman Restaurant to Charley Brawn's. Mr. Keyston was concerned with the recommendation on Page 17 regarding "Shoreline Lands (west)" which states, "Apply a shoreline - 5 - zoning regulation along the band extending inward from the shoreline. . ." He thought that C-4 district zoning was for this purpose. On Page 26, he commented on "Regulation through zoning with interim emergency action recommended in some cases.", with the statement that the City has already had a lot of interim zoning action. There was some further discussion. Chairman Cistulli set the public hearing for the Open Space Element for Monday, April 23, 1973. 5. GENERAL PLAN REVISIONS Chairman Cistulli broached this topic for Commission discussion with its components of circulation system, reclassification of residential areas, and consistency of General Plan with existing zoning. The Commission felt it would be best to explore this subject when the City Planner would be present to advise. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 26-73 - RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE MAKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS - REPORT BY BURRESS KARMEL City Attorney Karmel reviewed for the Commission the events of the past year affecting the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, with particular regard to activities since the Friends of Mammoth case in September of 1972 and the resultant efforts of municipalities to comply with the Act. He reminded them that on December 5, 1972 an emergency bill was passed which stated that by February 5 the State should prepare guidelines for preparations of EIR's and that by April 5 every public entity should adopt its own rules and regulations. This was the "120 day moratorium" during which time some cities ceased preparation of EIR's but Burlingame continued to prepare and consider them. The City Attorney reported that the State Guidelines were received on February 6 and consisted of approximately 40 pages single spaced. The next step was to distribute and interpret these guidelines. Circulation was made to department heads through the City Manager's office. Interpretation was a more formidable problem. However, the Council of Mayors appointed a committee of City Attorneys -to draw up a draft of an EIR ordinance so that the cities in San Mateo County would be relatively uniform in their approach to EIR's. The State Bar Association also had a course on EIR's which the Burlingame City Attorney attended. As a result of these activities, the Council of the City of Burlingame has adopted an EIR resolution; although with direction to make some changes. The City Attorney indicated some areas of concern he had with this resolution, particularly in the realm of appeals. He briefly outlined the EIR procedure as follows: Anything that the City approves is a "project." Projects are divided into two kinds - ministerial and discretionary. If what the City does is ministerial, such as a building permit issued under the building code for repairs, no EIR is required. Some projects fall into the class of categorical exemptions and no EIR is required. These include repair and minor alteration of existing structures, new construction of small structures such as single family houses etc. If a discretionary project, requiring an EIR, is found to have no significant effect on the environment, the City is authorized to - 6 - give a negative declaration. Discretionary projects which require EI R's include: zoning ordinance amendments, zoning variances, conditional use permits, tentative subdivision maps. The City Attorney discussed EIR preparation. Under the old act, the developer could not prepare his EIR, but now this may be done on a consultant basis. A draft EIR may be prepared by the applicant and may be approved by endorsement. In that way, it is done at the applicant's expense. If the City has it done, the cost will be passed on to the applicant. The City Attorney did not know at this point how the City would handle the staff time necessary for this. He felt that as far as the work of the Planning Commission is concerned, in matters that come before the Commission the EIR should be brought along with the application, and would stop at the Planning Commission level. If Planning Commission action is appealed to the Council, then the EIR will be appealed also. The City Attorney stated that Negative Declarations are to be filed with the County Clerk. This, to his thinking, is a method of giving public notice. He noted that public notice is not required on EIR's, but it might be done anyway in the case of Planning Commission hearings. He commented that basically an EIR is strictly an informational document, enabling public agencies to evaluate a project. Commissioner Taylor asked if it would be a fair statement that the Planning Commission acquires no new responsibility in connection with the EIR. The City Attorney stated he did not think so. The responsibility rema.-Ins with the Council. 7. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL - CONVERSION OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS TO CONDOMINIUMS Chairman Cistulli referenced the City Planner's report on this subject, and questioned the Commission if they wished to discuss it in his absence. There -was Commission comment that the City Council has requested a recommendation .no later than their meeting of May 7, and discussion should be initiated. City Attorney Karmel reported that a whole complete title was added to the State Civil Code dealing with condominiums in 1963. This concerns titles to air space. The last section of this title, "Chapter 2 - Zoning" he quoted: "Unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed, local zoning ordinances shall be construed to treat like structures, lots, or parcels in like manner regardless of whether the ownership thereof is divided by sale of condominiums or into community apartments as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code, rather than by lease of apartments, offices or stores." He stated it is apparently true that some cities are treating condominiums as something distinct from apartment houses. However, he felt this was an area of some legal difficulty, because if there is a rule for a condominium that is different if the same unit is a leased apartment, there must be findings that changing conditions require a different rule. Otherwise it cannot be justified. - 7 - Discussion followed, centered on the Planner's report which included comments on difficulties of conversion because of parking. Converting a non -conforming apartment building would have the effect of expanding non -conformity. The City Attorney remarked this would be a major concern because condominiums might have greater numbers of automobiles than apartments. He went on to suggest that if the Commission considered condominiums they consider them in their entirety, not merely the subject of conversions. He commented on the different types of condominiums - horizontal as well as vertical; condominiums for offices and stores; and other concepts. City Attorney Karmel stated he would have to look at the Subdivision Map Act as condominiums might affect it and also must investigate the features of this particular title. He stated conditions for a Board of Managers might be required to be recorded, and a subsequent filing on an annual basis of the individuals on the Board of Managers so that responsibility to local entities, such as fire and police departments, could be delegated. He suggested the Commission consider qualifications they might desire for new condominiums. Commissioner Sine remarked he had previously informed the Commission of this growing trend toward conversion of apartments into condominiums, and suggested the Commission might find it necessary to go back to the State Map Act for justification. The City Attorney commented on regulations which the City of Pacifica has established for condominiums. He went on to say that while different cities are regulating them, he questioned how it could legally be done unless a substantial difference is shown between apartments and condominiums. He gave as an example the difficulty of justifying a lh to 1 change in parking for a condominium converted from an apartment which previously had 1 to 1 parking ratio. He noted the State Civil Code does define what the common areas of condominiums are and what the owner actually buys, which is basically the interior walls. There was further discussion and a comment on the difficulty of enforcing contractor's liens against condominiums. The Commission agreed to schedule this referral for the meeting of the 23rd of April, and for further consideration at the meeting of April 30 if not completed. The City Attorney suggested that if a complete investigation were not completed in time for referral back to Council, a progress report could be submitted. 8. REVI SE SIGN CODE Chairman Cistulli initiated discussion on this subject. At the onset the Commission agreed that signs in excess of code requirements should come before the Planning Commission. There followed discussion of what the maximum size should be. Commissioner Sine suggested that since the City does now have the 32 square feet limit, it be maintained on trial for a year, and reviewed at the end of that time. He thought this would rule out many of the garish and unusual signs because the applicants would have to pay for the EIR. INUZ ? The City Attorney commented that the City not'only has the 32 foot sign limit, but another problem with signs has been created with the emergency ordinance on height limitations. With regard to the subject of fees, Commissioner Mink stated that if the City is to have a review limit, the City must support review activities by fees and the fees should be reasonable. The fees for EIR's were discussed with David Keyston commenting that some experts are charging as much as $6,000 for a large project EIR while other people were charging $200-300 for quick routine EIR's. Commissioner Sine suggested $100-150 for signs maximum. Chairman Cistulli suggested sign size be "ME to 32 square feet." Commissioner Taylor stated he liked the 32 square foot limit and everything larger should be reviewed. However, he did not want to find at the end of the year that the City was paying thousands of dollars for this procedure. The City Attorney suggested that the old form EIR's be used with the check list. Commissioner Mink stated he would like Council consideration of an appropriate fee schedule to cover the cost of administering this particular section of the code. At Commissioner Kindig's suggestion it was agreed to vote at a regular meeting on a recommendation to the Council that they investigate a fee schedule for signs including sign EIR's. The City Attorney asked the Commission's opinion on who should handle sign EIR's. it was the Commission's decision that this should be whomever the City Council or the City Manager determines. Special Permit - Alpha Auto Rental, 1669 Bayshore Commissioner Sine told the Commission that this organization had been parking its rental cars on Stanton in violation of its use permit. He ndted he had seen as many as 22 there, and some of these cars remained for a long period of time. The Police Department knows of this situation. He questioned if the Commission could cite them for violation of their special permit, and also made the suggestion that the Police Department could tow them away after 72 hours. After some discussion, it was agreed that this would normally be a policing matter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary