HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.10.30THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 30, 1974
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Francard None
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
City Planner Swan
Asst. City Planner Yost
City Engineer Davidson
City Attorney Coleman
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order on the above date at 7:40 P.M. by Chairman Mink.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of September 23, 1974 were approved and
adopted with the following correction: Page 12, Paragraph 3, 24"
projection instead of 241.
The minutes of the meeting of October 16, 1974 were approved and adopted.
1. ANZA MASTER PLAN - DRAFT TENTATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-28P - 90CIO-ECONOMIC CHANGES AND GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS.
Chairman Mink announced this third presentation by Anza Pacific for
hearing. He then called on Mr. David Keyston for comments.
Mr. Keyston informed the Commission he wished to have included as a
part of the presentation the Anza Master Plan Incremental Growth Table
as presented at the October 16 study meeting, as well as presently
distributed plan which illustrates this table. I:n addition a letter
is being supplied from Mr. Goodrich of JHK clarifying the 45% figure
as well as traffic generation figures in their report. This had been
discussed with the City Engineer and it was decidled it would not be
necessary for the traffic engineer to attend this: meeting.
Mr. Keyston then quoted from Conclusions of the original EIR as follows:
"Unlike growth -inducing developments, such as housing, this project
will not impose new demands for school, police, fire, recreation,
or services provided by the City or special service districts supported
by the property tax in our community." He noted the EIR Supplement
did outline the minor impacts in these areas. He. noted the report pointed
out that the general community impact would be mitigated because of the
project's distance from the major residential area. Freeway, parks, etc.
shield the project. He added the supplemental report pointed out with
respect to housing that Burlingame is an older community with little
area open to development. While a number of people will seek employment
in the project, it does not mean that pressure will be imposed for more
�m
housing. He believed these statements were still valid, and stated
Mr. Len McVicar of Ribera and sue and Mr. Robert Blunk of Blunk Associates
i were present for questions and comment.
Chairman Mink stated the incremental growth table, the drawing and the
letter from Mr. Goodrich would become part of the record. He then
called upon Mr. Charles Bigelow of Bigelow -Crain Associates for report
on the socio-economic and growth inducing impacts.
Mr. Bigelow reported to the Commission that comments provided in his
Memo Reports 1 through 3 identify that in terms of an EIR the draft
does not fulfill the legal requirement. In the event that the draft
is not looked at as an EIR, that can be put in context. But if not,
a number of additions would have to be made, for it to be legally
acceptable. He noted there is some question if the material is provided
for EIR purposes. With respect to socio-economic impacts: there is a
requirement to identify growth -inducing impacts. These impacts are
not, by the State law or code, restricted to the project itself. A
population of 40,000 up would be required to support the development.
As a consequence, the assessment that there is no growth inducing impact
is not complete. Regarding economic impacts he stated there is not
enough data in the tentative draft to provide a basis for completing
a.review of the economic impacts. More material must be added if the
draft is to be considered a formal draft. From a socio-economic stand-
point the assessment is negative. He then commented regarding the use
of an EIR and the use of the material presented for planning purposes,
stating the intent of the legislation is clearly to identify the impacts
of a project. The legal requirements are intended to help::the planning
process and to aid discussion. The preliminary assessment of the useful-.
ness of the EIR as a planning document is that generally the EIRs are
not being prepared in a format for planning purposes. The term EIR
is intended to be used in the planning process to the point that the
material provided provides several steps that could be used in planning.
Regardless of whether or not there is a legal requirement, there is a
positive value to the City of monitoring a project of this sort.
Commenting this is not a part of the contract with Bigelow -Crain, he
went on to identify some possible monitoring procedures:
1. Set performance standards, monitoring the water requirements as
the project grows.
2. Set performance standards for type of traffic flow that would go
in and out.
3. Economic reactions could be set up by tracing the changes in
sales,.going on in parts of the city as the project grows.
4. Develop a cost review framework to describe the financial impact
on the city.
There followed a period of Commission comment and questions. Commissioner
Taylor remarked a data base was necessary to use as basis for comparison
in tracking procedures. Chairman Mink amplified that current records
were needed for comparison with future information. Mr. Bigelow
agreed, stating that when a no project alternative is established, a
data base is established against which comparisons can be made. In
- 3 -
response to Commissioner Jacobs he stated that a number of impacts
were based on broad assumptions, and they have not been changed by the
supplemental material. He definitely stated, in response to question
from Commissioner Francard, that additional information was needed
on the housing element. Commissioner Jacobs then. remarked that in
Bigelow's report he cited the possibility of traffic impact on
Burlingame, whereas Mr. Keyston stated there would be no impact because
of the isolation of the project. Mr. Bigelow agreed that the Commission
was faced with two differing views, and thought the only alternative
was to set up a monitoring procedure defining the areas that would be
watched for traffic impaction.
Commissioner Taylor questioned at this point whether or not the
Planning Commission was required to adopt a legal EIR and why the
Commission was addressing itself to the information relating to long
range planning if it was not a part of the adoption of the project
itself.. Chairman Mink replied that Mr. Bigelow had submitted sufficient
testimony to lead the Commission to believe that the documentation
was legally insufficient, and the purpose of the request for submission
of this document should be answered by the applicant.
Mr. David Keyston told the Commission he was not .asking for adoption
of an EIR and had never asked for one. None is required for anything
Anza planned to do right now and none is required for anything planned
until the emergency ordinance expires. However, by the time Anza is
prepared to initiate its building there wil•1 be new ordinances. He
stated that a year ago a model of the project had been submitted to the
City and planning guidance requested. This took the direction of
preparing this EIR. He acknowledged that after a period of time a
legal EIR must be prepared and this present effort was preparing the
way. He thought the discussion of various points had been helpful
in gaining information. He suggested that a series of recommendations
on the planning process would be appropriate. Commissioner Taylor
asked if he wished the Planning Commission to approve the project in
principle. Mr. Keyston commented he did not believe this could be
done, and Attorney Coleman agreed.
Chairman Mink reviewed the areas of the project considered in public
hearings, and considered that without going to a formal vote the
Commission had gone as far as it could in giving conditional approval
of the project. The Chairman thought the work of Bigelow -Crain had led
the Commission through the Planning process so the project could be
adequately monitored. He added that areas of limitation in the draft
had been pointed out so that in case of EIRs relating to any portion
of this development, both the developer and the City would be aware
of requirements which have to be met and additional information needed.
In his opinion there had been no statement from the developer in the
process of these hearings which could be construed to mean that he was
asking for approval of the EIR.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned what the disposition of this EIR would
be. Chairman Mink suggested as the Commission's option collection of
all testimony, documentation including the Bigelow -Crain reports,
and minutes of hearings, for a document file which can be a reference
for further activity for this project. Trus testimony could be received
and kept on file, but without record of approval or disapproval.
The EIR would not be forwarded to the City Council at this time,
since there would be no recommendation attached.
For the benefit of the audience, Chairman Mink stated this would be the
last public hearing on the Anza Project, and questioned if there was
any audience comment on the socio-economic and growth -inducing impacts.
There was no audience comment. The Chairman.then stated he would not
yet declare the public hearing closed but would go to staff for
opinions.
City Planner Swan referenced the EIR allegation there would be no
impact on the city because of project isolation. He stated in his
opinion the impact would be large in terms of people employed and their
needs for housing and transportation. He compared Burlingame with
San Mateo, another city which has little or no vacant area for
residential development and must go up with its housing to accommodate
the influx of people from neighboring projects. San Mateo knows it
has a problem. The City Planner pointed out that all neighboring cities
are part of the mid -Peninsula that find their employees are coming from
a long distance away.
He noted the Commission had asked staff to draw lines as to where
impacts are. He did not think that was possible unless assumptions
are made and testing is done as the project develops. He suggested
approaching the development on a limited size project -by -project basis.
Referring to the EIR preparation, he stated State guidelines specify
that an EIR is required for a general plan or an element of a general
plan. He commented that if such EIR is not sought at this time and backed
up with data, the staff must indicate that there is not enough information
to support that scale of EIR. Then consideration can be given to
cluster of buildings development on a smaller scale project. He
thought the hearings and reports had been most productive from an
educational standpoint.
Chairman Mink questioned if the City Planner agreed with Mr. Bigelow's
recommendation that monitoring procedures be established whereby the
City can determine the impact as it goes increment by increment. The
City Planner definitely agreed.
City Engineer Davidson reported his office had contacted the State
Department of Transportation in regard to additional interchanges in
mid -project. Reply had been received that their :ideal spacing was one
mile, however, they would consider as an alternative one mile from
both Peninsula and Broadway. This would be mid -center. They would
specify that any interchange, whether new or not, would require metering
of the on -ramps - signals on the on -ramps. The City Engineer remarked
that in regard to financing, this project would have to compete with many
other projects throughout the State, and there is question of when it
could be built.
Chairman Mink again requested audience comment. There was none and
the public hearing was declared closed. For the 'benefit of the
audience he commented that this is a unique project and the State of
California is one of the owners involved. The City has stayed in
reasonable contact with the State Lands Commission office and they
have received records of meetings. He requested tCommission motion.
Commissioner Kindig moved this set of three preliminary hearings be
closed. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried
- 5 -
on voice vote.
Commissioner Kindig then moved that the Anza Master Plan - Draft
Tentative Environmental Impact Report, EIR-28P, together with staff
reports, exhibits, minutes of public hearings, and all reports by
Charles D. Bigelow, be filed for future reference. Commissioner
Sine seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote.
Upon the conclusion of this hearing, Chairman Minsk remarked there were
still many unanswered questions on this project, ,and possibly the
forthcoming last report from Bigelow Crain would clarify directions.
RESOLUTION COMMENDING THOMAS . SINE
Secretary Jacobs read resolution commending Thomas Sine for his years
of service to the City in several areas of endeavor and upon his appoint-
ment as "Citizen of the Year." Commissioner Taylor moved the adoption
of this resolution. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it
carried by voice vote. Commissioner Sine expressed his appreciation
to the Chairman and Commission members.
RECONVENE:
The meeting reconvened after a short recess at 8:35 P.M.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-30P, LEGALLY ADVERTISED AND
POSTED OCTOBER 18, 1974 FOR PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25
ZONING.
Chairman Mink announced this EIR for consideration and requested
comment from City Planner Swan.
The City Planner told the Commission the public hearing on these
amendments had received proper newspaper notice, and the EIR presents
the detail on each. He noted that at the last study meeting there had
been discussion about adding a surety bond for landscaping requirements
in the M-1 District, but there was not sufficient time to add this in
time for publishing. Therefore the idea could be brought up at a
subsequent meeting. With reference to Page 9 of -the EIR, he stated
this had been changed by excluding from lot coverage structures which
are less than 5' in height. Thus swimming pools would not be included
in lot coverage, for example, but swimming pool covers would be. The
rationale for this height limit is that in the R Districts the fence
height limit is 5' in front and 6' in rear yard. Anything over would
be presumed to be tall enough so that a person could get into or under
it.
Chairman Mink requested audience comment on the code amendments.
Mr. David Keyston approved the increased restaurant parking, but
thought the restriction= on parking in the first 10' of the front 25'
setback in M-1 was too restrictive. He stated on a lot less than
100' deep this could amount to more than 10% of the total lot. Also
he thought the 10% landscaping should be more flexible. He did not
see the reason for deleting Section 25.54.03 since it provides for the
automatic lapsing of variances erroneously granted in the past.
The City Planner commented that flexibility for landscaping had been
built into the amendment by stating landscaping should be done
"to the satisfaction of the Park Director." With regard to use variances,
he reviewed the difference between a variance for "use" and a variance
for non -conformity of the physical development. The "use" variance
paragraph is being deleted since the Commission may not grant use
variances, but provisions for lapse of other types of variances remain.
Mr. Robert Brown, broker of industrial real estate, commented on
Pages 3,4, and 5 of the EIR relating to setbacks and landscaping in
M-1. He thought the Millsdale Industrial Park deed restrictions would
remain in force longer than 1979 and compliance of property owners
had been excellent. He questioned if there was adequate definition of
"structures" and "improvements," and if paving could be considered an
"improvement." He considered (c) and (d) of Section 25.42.055 unclear
and commented that the ordinance does not take into sufficient consider-
ation size of lot, stating that on a small lot these setback regula-
tions would have an extreme effect and might not allow a reasonable
economic use of the site. He was in favor of eliminating all setback
requirements for this area but keeping landscaping and parking require-
ments. With regard to landscaping, he suggested placing a time limit
on the Park Director's approval, and possibly relating the landscaping
to frontage and paved area of the lot rather than a percentage of lot
size.
Chairman Mink told Mr. Brown the amendment is drafted for an average -
sized lot, but the Commission could entertain variance applications for
problem properties. Mr. Brown again questioned if there could be a
time limit on landscaping approval since this involves a cost factor
if delayed. Chairman Mink suggested applicants submit plans for
landscaping as early as possible.
Mr. Richard Lavenstein, also a broker of industrial real estate,
suggested that there be reconsideration of the setbacks from an economic
point of view, stating they would cause hardship on the owners of the
small amount of undeveloped land in Burlingame. He suggested that
developers and property owners be allowed to meet: with staff to work
out equitable requirements.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was declared
closed. Commission discussion followed.
With reference to restaurant parking, Commissioner Sine found the
requirement of 1 space per 100 square feet unacceptable and thought
it should be one space per 90 square feet. City Planner Swan noted
that in addition to the 1 space per 100 SF figure, the proposed amendment
contains provision for employee parking at 1 space per 1,000 SF,
which actually brings the parking standard to 1 space per 91 SF which
does approach Commissioner Sine's suggestion. HE! added the City Parking
Commission had also approved these requirements.
Commissioner Jacobs was concerned that the setback regulations should
include a specific landscaping requirement within them for the sake
of better appearance. In=the proposed amendments location of landscaping
is not regulated. The City Planner replied that staff had considered
this but decided not to include it because of restrictions it would
impose on small lots. He added that the phrase "to the satisfaction
of the Park Director" should insure that the landscaping is properly
placed. Mr. David Keyston stated that every street in M-1 has �
MM
to 4'h' from behind the sidewalk to the property line. He suggested
some regulation that this strip be maintained and landscaped.
Chairman Mink requested action on recommendation of this EIR.
Commissioner Taylor moved that EIR 30-P be recommended to the City
Council. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. and it carried on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR,MINK
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
3. -CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 ZONING:
There was Commission discussion as to voting procedure on these individual
amendments which was resolved by the opinion of the City Attorney that
they could be voted on separately with a notation on the resolution to
that effect.
(1) Change Sec. 25.41.080 Increase off-street parking requirements
for restaurants in the C-4 District.
Commissioner Sine moved that the paragraph be amended to show 1 parking
space per 90 SF rather than 1 space per 100 SF. The motion failed
for want of a second. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned that this
amendment might encourage parking structures. Commissioner Kindig
moved that change in Sec. 25.41.080 increasing off-street parking
requirements for restaurants in the C-4 District 'be recommended to
City Council. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,NORBE RG,TAYLOR,MINK
NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
(2) Add Sec. 25.42.055 Reduce allowable lot coverage, M-1 District
Regulations;rem front and side setbacks, side and rear yards.
Mr. Brown requested the Commission -.change the front setback to 151.
He also requested Section (c) be amended to show .it means a side set-
back from a side street rather than a property line. The City Planner
stated that the document could be amended on the face to show side
setback from a side street, since this was actually the intent. City
Attorney Coleman approved this procedure. Mr. Lavenstein wanted the
front setback changed to 15' for consistency with Hillsdale Industrial
restrictions and thought that rear setback requirements should be
eliminated and there should be lesser side yards.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Taylor questioned 2'1-411' distance from the sidewalk to
the property line. City Engineer Davidson stated this was property
owned by the City. The present ordinance indicates the City prefers
==�
this not be paved, but it can be paved with special permission.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned the average front setback in this area.
Mr. Brown said it was 25.' on one side of Rollins Road and 15' on the
other. There are 15' front setbacks in Edwards Industrial Park.
City Planner Swan commented the issue seemed to be trying to apply
deed restrictions to all M-1 and using Hillsdale as a basis. He read
declaration of deed restrictions for Hillsdale as a comparison. He
thought if this code amendment is not practical for a few small lots,
they could be considered for variance.
After some discussion, Chairman Mink requested the record show that
(c) should indicate "side setback from a street."' Commissioner Taylor
moved the Commission recommend this amendment to the City Council,
"Add Sec. 25.42..055 Reduce allowable lot coverage, M-1 District
regulations; require front and side setbacks, side and rear yards."
Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,NORBERG, SINE,TAYLOR,MINK, FRANCARD
NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
(3) Add Sec. 25.42.070 Landscaping re uirement, M-1 District Regulations
Chairman Mink requested audience comment. There was none and the
public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Kindig moved that the following amendment be recommended
to City Council, "Add Sec. 25.42.070 Landscaping requirement, M-1
District Regulations." Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it
carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG, SINE,TAYLOR,MINK
NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
(4) Change Chapter 2554 Exclude use variances__
There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment
and the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Taylor moved this amendment be recommended to the
City Council. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried
on unanimous roll call vote.
(5) Change Chapter 25.66 Delete exceptions to lot coverage
Chairman Mink requested audience comment. There was none, and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sine moved the Commission recommend that Chapter 25.66
be changed to delete exceptions to lot coverage. Commissioner
Francard seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
4. RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 ZONING COVERED
BY ENVIRONMENTAI3 IMPACT REPORT EIR-30P
Following some Commission discussion of procedures, Commissioner Jacobs
moved the adoption of this resolution recommending code amendments.
Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous
roll call vote.
5. AMENDED SUBDIVISION MAP, PARK PLAZA TOWERS, A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
AT 110 PARK ROAD, BY FRAHM.EDLER.CANNIS FOR PACIFIC WESTERN
CONTEACTORS.
This amended map was announced for hearing by Chairman Mink. He
accorded Mr. Robert Church of Pacific Western the privilege of the
floor.
Mr. Church told the Commission that Frahm.Edler.Cannis had been
delayed in getting the material requested for the final map, and he
requested a continuance on this application until the next public
hearing.
With the approval of the Commission, Chairman Mink announced this appli-
cation would be continued to the November 25 meeting.
6. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 5, ASSESSOR'S
MAP B16 CITY OF BURLINGAME (APN 026-121-040), PROPERTY AT 1327-47
NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1, BLOMQUIST ENGINEERING INC. FOR
KAREN HOLDING COMPANY
Chairman Mink announced consideration of this map and copies of it
were distributed. He then requested report from City Engineer
Davidson.
The City Engineer told the Commission this map is basically for the
purpose of dividing Parcel 5 into two parcels, one of 1/3 acre and
one of slightly over one acre. The map now does meet all the require-
ments, and he recommended it for Commission approval.
Mr. Frank Blomquist addressed the Commission, stating that in his
opinion the map was ready to record.
Commissioner Taylor moved this final parcel map be approved. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and carried on unanimous
roll call vote.
7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS
28 AND 29, BLOCK 1, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 4(APN 028-141-050/060)
PROPERTY AT 735 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM J. HAMMOND
FOR ROBERT P. BERRYMAN (JAMES. AND HELEN MARSH.)
City Engineer Davidson reminded the Commission that they had previously
considered this parcel map for a different owner for the construction
of the "Colonial Twelve" townhouses. The map deletes one property
line, combining two lots into one. He told the Commission the map
does satisfy all technical requirements and he would recommend it for
approval. However, the map as submitted indicates that two buildings
on one lot are to be removed. He suggested this removal be made a
- 10 -
condition of approval. Also, he was concerned with the lack of adequate
water service on E1 Camino for future development. He suggested this
map be referred to the Council with a recommendation that an agreement
be made with the developer that he make a contribution to the City and
the City would make improvements to the water system. He pointed out,
after discussion, that this latter point was a recommendation, not a
condition of approval.
There was considerable discussion as to whether or not a parcel map
s
could be conditioned as to water ervice and if the applicant was
required only to meet code for building purposes.
The City Engineer commented that to the best of his knowledge a
utility could be a condition of approval. He noted the additional
cost of the water service to the applicant would be in excess of $2,600,
as calculated earlier this year, and his intent in this instance was
that the applicant be aware of this additional cost. He stated the
building permit could not be held up, but water service would not be
provided until standards are met.
Mr. W. J. Hammond was invited to address the Commission. He told them
he had conferred with Mr. Berryman on this subject. Mr. Berryman would
like to make contribution to the City and have the City proceed with
a 6"-8" main. He would prefer to make that contribution at the time
he makes a proposal for the building permit. There was some further
discussion of the mechanics of enforcing the conditions of the map.
Commissioner Taylor moved that this tentative and final parcel map be.
approved.provided the two buildings be removed, a, condition being that
the map not be recorded until that is accomplished. Commissioner Sine
seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
Commissioner Taylor then moved that the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council that it enter into an agreement requiring the
developer to develop an adequate water supply. Commissioner Kindig
seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote.
8. FINAL PARCEL MAP, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 11,
EASTON ADDITION, PROPERTY AT 945 CALIFORNIA DIRVE, BY AUGUST E.
WAEGEMANN FOR LANDS OF WM. VOLKER & CO.
The Chairman announced hearing of this application and requested comment
from the City Engineer.
City Engineer Davidson reminded the Commission they had previously
considered and approved the tentative parcel map on this property.
This map changes the location of one property line, evidencing that a
38' lot was split and 35' was sold to adjoining property owner. He
remarked this sale had been made several yearsalo and this map is for
purposes of changing the records. He went on to say the map meets
all requirements and he would recommend for approval. He noted the
absence of the applicant, but stated he had informed him it would not
be necessary for him to attend.
There was little discussion. Commissioner Sine moved the Commission
approve this final parcel map, Commissioner Kindig seconded the
motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
9. SIGN VARIANCES FOR BROADWAY ARCADE PROJECT AT 1050 BROADWAY FOR
N. CRISAFI BY J& DESIGN ASSOCIATES.
Assistant City Planner Yost was invited by the Chair to speak on this
application. He told the Commission this item entails 5 variances for
signs on this project, of which four variances requested are for
modest reasons and can be supported by staff. The fifth variance is
for Sign A and concerns its size, which is 60 square feet. Staff
feels however, that this is not a significant fire hazard and can be
approved. He noted that the total signage on Broadway is only 5%
of the facade and is well within the design criteria.
Mr. Jack Webb of J/W Design Associates was present, and in response
to question stated this would be the total signage program for the
project. Nothing would be added.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Commission approve these sign
variances as noted on plans dated October 15, 1974, with the understanding
that this is the total signage program. Commissioner Kindig seconded
the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
10. SIGN VARIANCE FOR 38'6" HIGH POLE SIGN HAVING 92 SF OF FACE AREA,
AT 925 BAYSWATER FOR PUTNAM DODGE BY COAST/QRS SIGNS.
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this application and stated the
present application is for a 78SF pole sign minus pentastar, 3319"
high, located 138' northeast of the SP tracks on Bayswater. This
location is 121' northeast of the present sign. It places the sign
directly opposite a residential section with resultant visual impact.
The height of the sign is to make it visible over the top of the
Kohlenberg Ford fence. The fence has been verified by survey as being
15'8" high.
The Assistant City Planner illustrated that a 2816" sign with the
pentastar at the original location would be just as visible from
California Drive as the new taller sign placed farther north.
Therefore he considered that the taller sign at its new location would
not be an improvement in visibility.
Mr. Joseph Putnam agreed with this theory, but stated another reason
for moving the sign was to have it closer to his show room on the
north end of the property. Commissioner Jacobs suggested he erect a
second, small entrance sign near the sales room instead of enlarging the
present one, but he said the cost would be prohibitive.
Chairman Mink requested audience comment. There was none, and the
public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Sine questioned the legality of a fence of this height.
City Engineer Davidson stated he had no opportunity to research
yet, but would assume it would be illegal at that height. Mr. Putnam
commented it had been erected only a year ago, and he had protested to
the owner who told him his attorney stated it was legal. Commissioner
- 12 -
Sine thought the answer to the sign problem would be taking this fence
down.
City Planner Swan noted this fence has copy on it and would be
prohibited in the City of Burlingame as a billboard. City Attorney
Coleman thought the fence could be checked for possible abatement in
view of the height and billboard limitations. However, Mr. Putnam
requested Commission decision at this meeting, stating he definitely
needed the sign.
After further Commission discussion, it was established that the height
of the sign minus pentastar would be approximately 3319". Commissioner
Taylor moved the application for sign variance be approved for a sign
33'9" high of approximately 78 SF per Drawing No. 1124 dated 10/25/74,
located at 925 Bayswater, subject to the limitation that the lighted
sign be turned off at 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion
and it carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: — COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,NORBERG,KINDIG, SINE,TAYLOR
NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
With the concurrence of the Commission, Chairman Mink requested staff
to review the X t:lenberg fence with a view to possible abatement.
11. PROPOSED USE IN M-1 DISTKCT - DONALD TATEOSIAN, 1047 BROADWAY
City Planner Swan reported communication had been received from Mr.
Donald Tateosian regarding his property at 1047 Broadway. Mr.
Tateosian was invited to speak. He told the Commission this building
has been vacant for quite a long time because rental applications
did not conform to code in this M-1 District. However, he now had as
a prospective tenant, Mr. Cliff Labotte, manufacturer and distributor
of auto tops to seven western states. Mr. Tateosian wanted indication
of Commission opinion on this rental. He stated no retail sales
would be involved and little traffic generated.
City Planner Swan thought more detailed information should be
furnished,'including a gross receipts breakdown between retail and
wholesale before hearing could be held on this matter. He noted, however,
if only a small percentage is retail service and the bulk of the
business is manufacturing, it might be considered a proper use. There
followed some discussion. Chairman Mink then informed the applicant
that if he could justify to staff that this is a proper use in an
M-1 District it would be a purely ministerial decision. Otherwise, it
would be a hearing item. Commissioner Taylor suggested that new curb
and gutter should be required along North Carolan Avenue. The
Chairman requested Mr. Tateosian to confer with staff, including the
City Engineer, so that the matter of installing curb and gutter could
be considered.
STAFF REPORT:
City Planner Swan announced upcoming EIR on the condominium project by
- 13 -
Pacific Western and application for office building in M-1 District
on Bayshore. He announced he would be present for the November study
meeting but would then be on vacation, and the November hearing meeting
would be handled by Assistant City Planner Yost.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting regularly adjourned at 11;00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs
Secretary