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