Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.09.11THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER September 11, 1974 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT None City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Attorney Karmel Mr. Jerome Coleman Fire Inspector Pearson The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:35 P.M. on the above date, Chairman Mink presiding. ROLL CALL The above members were present. 1. REVIEW OF BIGELOW-CRAW ASSOCIATES' EVALUATIONOF ANZA MASTER PLAN EIR-28P Chairman Mink welcomed Mr. Charles D. Bigelow of Bigelow -Crain Associates for his report and evaluation of Anza Master Plan EIR-28P. Mr. Bigelow illustrated his report by charts and diagrams. His presentation encompassed the areas of: I. Review of EIR-28P II. Regional relationships III. Community relationships IV. Alternatives I. REVIEW OF EIR-28P Mr. Bigelow commented that Anza,Pacific had been very open that the EIR was prepared on the basis of impacts within the boundary of the project. The consultant added that when there is a project where the impacts are limited to boundaries, some very broad assumptions must be made. Under the Burlingame and State regulations, some of the assumptions might have to be revised. Impacts to be considered are: 1. Demographic 2. Housing 3. Economics 4. Transportation 5. Services He summarized treatment of these impacts in the EIR: Demographic - non-existent because EIR is done within the project boundary and there is no resident population. Housing - not dealt with for the same reason - 2 - Transportation - treated only within the project boundaries. Figures are based on.the capacity of the roads within the boundaries, not on roads leading out. Economics - impossible to complete because other portions are not completed. Assessments cannot be prepared without data. Services - this area dealing with water, fire, storm drains, sewage, etc. is more complete than other portions. II. REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS Mr. Bigelow stated that many relationships are missing in this EIR, transportation and land use, for example. Referring the Commission to his Memo Report #1, he stated the project employment could be as much as 22,000 people. This implies a possible population growth in the area of 40,000 to 60,000 people, and he posed the question of where these people are going to live. Possibly 4,000 could be accommodated in Burlingame. Some employees would be transfers, probably from San Francisco, but 80-90% of new employees are likely to come from the South. Mentioning Foster City and Redwood Shores as potential areas for professional people, he stated, however, that most employees would not be able to afford this type of housing and would be traveling further. This spreads traffic impacts to a wide area. He asked: How many will come on buses; how many in autos? He noted an internal conflict in the EIR since the developer's architect is planning on more parking spaces than his traffic consultant suggests are required. In Mr. Bigelow's opinion, this excessive parking was being provided as a method of attracting business. Mr. Bigelow touched briefly on the subject of transit, noting the proposed County transit system and the existence of the Burlingame bus system. Recognizing that the Burlingame system may grow, he still emphasized that one bus cannot move more than 80 people per hour under ideal conditions - not in peak traffic. In his opinion an easy traffic flow is required before buses can be efficiently used, such as grade -separated routes. III. COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS The consultant explored the subject of land values and redevelopment in Burlingame. He stated this project is a type usually found in a city core and not often in a peri -urban area. In addition, there is no model on which to base predictions. In his opinion, land values in Burlingame will change and will be highest close to the development. Also, land values will increase along the lines of access. There is a possibility that the land values created are going to cause pressures to change, and it is extremely unlikely that the City will be able to maintain its percentage of single-family residences, with the pressure for condominiums and apartments from professional and support people. Old and less expensive housing is a prime target for redevelopment. Since this is a well-established community, - 3 - there may be more expensive residences necessary. There will be costs and revenues associated with that development. This is not discussed in the EIR. IV. ALTERNATIVES 1. No -project alternative - do nothing Mr. Bigelow told the Commission it is legally required that this alternative be considered in a meaningful way, i.e., it cannot be reported that if there is no project there will be no Ampact. There would be an impact of lack of additional revenue, etc. 2. Medium relationship alternative - medium connection with city He commented he thought relationships between the project and Burlingame could not be minimized. Even in the area of a medium relationship, some wages and taxes would be captured from the project, and city services would be expanded. 3. Maximum relationship alternative - integrate project with city. Mr. Bigelow specified transportation as a major impact. He stated the 20 -year plan from San Francisco will not help with the overloaded interchanges, and transit will be very expensive. If a bus route is chosen, more lanes are needed, or grade separation, which will be even more expensive. On the subject of group rapid transit, he noted the President has cut the transit budget in half for this year and Government seems to be wary of starting from the top like BART. He presented the idea of building up intercity transit as being helpful. In closing he again stressed the three alternatives: no project; medium relationship; maximum relationship. Lengthy discussion followed Mr. Bigelow's report. There was comparison of this project with Redwood Shores and its proposed mixed development, and suggestion that mixed development at Anza might alleviate transportation problems. Mr. Bigelow thought this would be difficult to predict with present data. He suggested the idea that Redwood City is currently using - slow the development and monitor impacts as the project progresses. There was Commission agreement that much more information was necessary and a question if the developer could be required to furnish it. Mr. Bigelow gave the opinion that the present EIR did not contain enough information; legally, -the City could be sued if the present EIR were adopted. He said the law states you can require the developer to furnish the :information necessary, but there has not been a court test of the extent to which this could be carried. City Attorney Karmel added he thought the developer has either the duty to furnish the :information or the City could get the information and pass cost on to the developer. Either way, the developer must pay for the information. The only argument he can have is to what extent impacts, suchas traffic, are from his project as opposed to other sources. Chairman Mink requested comment from the Planning Department. City Planner Swan opened his remarks with the enormity of the problem of moving this number of people in and out and the impossibility of doing so without a reasonable amount of impact. He thought the project would act as a betterment to Burlingame, noting that many cities consider employment within their area as an advantage because of disposable income to be captured. He spoke of the need for many more commercial retail outlets to serve the people working in that area. The City Planner noted projects in adjacent cities are definitely competitive to this project, and asked that the Commission consider how we can best be helpful to this developer and to the Burlingame community. How do we compete with our neighbors? He then stressed the problem of providing reasonable access to the project area. Commission comment then revolved around the inadequacies of present highways for this project which make it difficult to implement; and citizens' reaction to the pressure of rezoning and the building of condominiums and apartments. There was suggestion that if present R-2 was increased to R-3 more housing could be accommodated at moderate increase in density. There was a statement that the project should be developed as a single unit and not lot by lot development so that City control is maintained. Fundamental issues of land use and planned unit development must be dealt with. There was discussion of the idea that Anza Pacific might not always be a viable corporation; that the land could be sold with the prospect of less acceptable type of development. Chairman Mink summarized that the City should get the best information based on expert judgement in the area of demographic impact of this project so that neighboring communities could be put on notice that what is developed will have a significant impact on them. Definite information is needed in the particular areas of density, land values and traffic. He added that the City could merely build a wall around the project and collect taxes, or it could make a decision on how to 'have a better community and get the benefit to the City. Mr. Bigelow then spoke to the difficulty of collecting statistics and making projection of various impacts. With the statement that, "Economics is becoming a behavioral science," he commented that socio-economic influences used to be predictable. Today's society is changing so rapidly that economists with their present tools cannot forsee future developments. He added that traditional engineering and economic techniques are in such a state of disarray at this time that it is difficult to do anything with a project of this magnitude. He thought the City was facing an unprecedented ar(a of uncertainty in dealing with a project of this type. Decision is difficult, first because - 5 - of the magnitude, and secondly because of the uncertainty. Hence he considered the idea of a progressive, or incremental, development as very important. Mr. Bigelow considered the "no -project" alternative as merely a base from which to consider the other alternatives. In his opinion it is not a rational alternative since pressures, such as increasing birth rate for example, still exist. At this point City Planner Swan suggested that a point of marginal environmental impact be found - the marginal amount of change that is tolerable or acceptable as we see it today. The City could accept the project as a project but could monitor and then try to establish marginal impact. Commissioners raised the question of whether or not this EIR could be handled on the basis of incremental development, and the City Attorney was asked to give an opinion. City Attorney Karmel told the Commission that David Keyston had originally come to staff with the idea that the land was going to be developed in increments, and asked how the EIR should be developed. At a subsequent meeting the City .Attorney had suggested that the EIR be handled in the same way as the Mills Estates: a tentative subdivision map for the whole Mills Estate was presented, then final maps approved for the increments. In the same manner, the City could adopt a tentative EIR for this project, and final EI R's for the increments. The City Attorney stated the developer had approved of this plan, and is proceeding in this fashion. This is a "Tentative Draft :Environmental Impact Report." He emphasized that a draft EIR has in it the idea of change before there is a final. As long as the developer did not intend to come in with a final for the overall project, then, for different motivations, the developer and the city are going in the same direction. In the City Attorney's opinion, all the City has before it is a draft EIR, and its approval by the City is not an all-time commitment. The City Attorney also warned that much of Anza land belongs to the State of California. The City of Burlingame has no zoning control on the State lands, but the State specifies that Anza must abide by city zoning. Should Anza Pacific terminate the lease, the City has lost its legal control. He added that if the Commission is going to grapple with land use and possible rezoning, it should be started now, since an EIR is necessary for rezoning. But if the Commission can proceed with a planned unit development, then they can get along with the tentative EIR. He cautioned that increments should not be scattered and should be built in some order. He repeated that the draft EIR is just a draft, is not binding, and can be altered materially before adoption in final form. - 6 - City Planner Swan concurred with the City Attorney's statements, and noted that individual projects in connection with this had already been handled,. such as 533 Airport Boulevard. He commented that the General Plan was set up and adopted by resolution, but change occurs rapidly today, and even it can be amended. There is no reason why a certified EIR cannot be amended, and this is just a draft EIR. There was general Commission agreement that EIR-28P could be handled on an incremental basis. Chairman Mink suggested the Commission adopt a statement similar to Mr. Bigelow's conclusions: "Demographic, transportation and economic assessments need to be supplemented before an understanding of the probable impacts of the proposes' project can be developed; and secondary and regional impacts, a -'no project' alternative, and additional social and economic assessments appear to be required before a legally adequate EIR can be prepared." He thought the Commission should move directly to set arbitrary definitions of what they are going to consider. Format of the September 23 meeting on "Project. Appearance" was discussed. City Planner Swan hoped to experience greater involvement of Commissioners in approach and actual conduct of this hearing, which will be a presentation of the developer. He outlined some subjects to be considered as building height; bulk; amount of land covered by structures for people and for storage of autos; how area is landscaped; treatment of plazas; colors; lights and signs. 2. PROPOSED PARKING REGULATIONS FOR WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Assistant City Planner Yost told the Commission he had taken the following proposed regulations before the Parking Commission for their review: 1 parking space per 100 SF of gross floor area in new specialty restaurants 1 parking space per 1,000 SF for staff 10% of parking for compact cars Actual ratio of parking - 1 parking space to each 91 SF. After discussion, the parking commission passed a motion recommending these regulations. The Assistant City Planner reported the one dissenting vote had been by the Chairman who stated past position of the Commission had been that the City should not involve itself in negotiating the reservation of employee parking spaces on private land, and this would establish a precedent. He suggested, instead, that the overall parking ratio be increased to 1 space per 83 SF, with the assumption that employees would thereby find adequate parking. The Assistant City Planner noted that Sgt. James O'Brien of the Burlingame Police Department had said that in his experience, if spaces on a private lot are reserved by management for staff use, the staff are quite able to look after their own interests. - 7 - He added that a report on this regulation had been :gent to several neighboring cities and developers, and comments had,, in general, been favorable. After discussion, it was the consensus of Commission opinion that the employee spaces should not be marked as such, but that the.ratio of 1 space to 91 SF be maintained and spaces for compact cars be marked. Chairman Mink requested staff to prepare documentation for this amendment and place on agenda for October. 3. PROGESSS REPORT: PLANNING SHORELINE PATHWAYS City Planner Swan urged that Commissioners give thought; to design concept for this Shoreline plan and offer suggestions on such matters as recreational areas and parks along the shoreline., He noted execution of agreement with Hart,Krivatsy,Stubbe for this projiect, and that the work program had started. He told the Commission B.C.D.C. had approved Don the! Beachcomber on September 5. Staff had attended that meeting. There was now a problem to provide a continuous pathway along the Shoreline. There was discussion of the property owners' responsibility for maintenance and building of this path, and the question of public liability insurance for the public access easement. 4. PROGRESS REPORT: GENERAL PIAN ELEMENTS The City Planner acknowledged receipt of a letter from the County Board of Supervisors on this subject. He reported the formulation of a joint county committee which will work with Seismic Safety and Safety, and Scenic Highways Elements for the entire county. Elements for the City of Burlingame can be included. Time for mandatory elements scheduled for submittal in September of 1974 has been extended one year to September, 1975. However, all jurisdictions must submit request for extensions to the County before they cart be included in the program. (Ed. Council adopted Resolution 53-74 requesting extension of time to complete certain elements of General Plan September 16, 1974.) The City Planner noted the Noise Element is not included in this joint study since date for its submittal is September, 1975. Work by staff will be done on Recreation and Public Land Areas within the City. The study of medium density in R-1 and R-2 areas will be made after information from the census is received. This may aid in assessing demographic impact of the Anza project. 5. AMBIGUITY OF EXCEPTIONS TO IAT COVERAGE, SECTION 25.66.020. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed report previously mailed to Commissioners on this subject. Semantics of this section had recently been discussed when reviewing a building permit issued for a swimming pool cover. Allowed exclusions to lot coverage presently include such items as arbors, colonades, and glass houses, etc. Rather than deal with the confusing wordage of this section, and bearing in mind that any structure above ground encroaches on open space, the staff proposed to eliminate ambiguity by eliminating this section of the code. Lot coverage of 40% -will still be ample in R-1 and R-2 areas. This code amendment would require an EIR. There was general Commission agreement with the proposal. It was pointed out that if cases of hardship should occur, there is a variance procedure. Staff was requested to draft necessary documents for consideration in October. 6. M-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS: ADD SETBACK AND YARD CRITERIA City Planner Swan suggested yard requirements and lot coverage be added to the M-1 District regulations. He suggested the following: 25 ft. setback with no parking in first 10 feet 10 foot side yard 10 foot rear yard Limit lot coverage by structures to 70% of lot area Consider landscaping to be approved by Park Director There followed some discussion, with the resulting consensus of Commission opinion that this amendment be included in the EIR and staff was requested to prepare resolution for signatures. 7. PARKING OF "UNSIGHTLY" VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS City Planner Swan spoke to the referral of this subject by the Beautification Commission. In his opinion this is an aesthetic problem, aggravated by the parking of cumbersome recreational vehicles on private property and on the street. He considered this as a policing problem rather than a zoning matter. There is difficulty enforcing on street parking permits, and the City cannot prevent people from parking on their own driveway. The City Planner quoted Code Section 25.28.02 which spells out that storage of a trailer is a permitted use in R-1 District. There was Commission discussion to the effect that what constitutes "beauty" or "unsightliness" is difficult to define and an ordinance prohibiting ugliness would be impossible to formulate. It was the consensus of opinion that this matter be referred back to the Beautification Commission with no action. RECONVENE After a short recess at 10:00 P.M. the meeting reconvened. 8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MILLS ESTATE NO. 1 (APN 025-161-010) , PROPERTY AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, BY FRANK R. KROHN FOR PACIFIC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY City Planner Swan noted that the Commission had copy of Sheets 1 and 2 of the subdivision map and reviewed facts of the application as follows: d Parcel A, fronting on El Camino service road has existing office building and approximately 37 parking spaces. Parcel B is vacant. There is not enough parking on Parcel A to meet Code requirements for an office building. The developer proposes an easement onto Parcel B for the necessary parking for Parcel A. The City Planner noted Burlingame parking regulations are not satisfied by the location of parking at another space; however, San Mateo does permit parking allocated within 500' of a project. He stated the number of employees to be at Parcel A is not known. The gross floor area might be discounted by excluding some of the unusable floor space; the number of required parking spaces would hie from 88 to 116. The Commission should consider whether or not a parking variance should be created by means of a subdivision. The developer's representative stated if 37 parking spaces are reserved on Parcel A, the rest could be accommodated on the Parcel B easement, which would go with the land. Parking for development on Parcel B would be additional. This would be a floating easement which would be placed wherever convenient on Parcel B. The prospective purchaser of Parcel A is Creative World Travel, which would occupy 10,000 SF of the building. A draft of easement provisions had been drawn up and sent to City staff. Commission comment centered around the unusual aspects of this kind of easement and the fact that it robs Parcel B itself of considerable parking. It was suggested that Parcel A be made an L-shaped lot. With the development of Parcel B there could be a parking variance. Erection of parking structure on Parcel B was discussed with the implication of no.underground parking because of soil conditions. The representative noted the Commission's approval of parking structure of McDonald, Nelson and Hecht for proposed development of this parcel. Since the City Attorney was in attendance at another meeting, discussion closed pending his opinion. On his return to the Planning Commission meeting he was advised of previous discussion. He informed the Commission he had received copies of easement draft. He stated the parcel map could be conditioned for this easement and also to insure adequate parking for Parcel B. He noted the grant of easement leaves the grantee blank, and this could be an agreement to execute easement when Parcel B is sold. This would protect the City.. If the location for the parking easement is to shift, the City could reserve the right to approve the shift. This map was set for hearing on September 23. 9. AMENDED PARCAL MAP, PARK PLAZA TOWERS, A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 110 PARK ROAD, BY FRAHM.EDLER.CANNIS FOR PACIFIC: WESTERN CONTRACTORS. Asst. City Planner Yost told the Commission request had been received from the applicant to continue this to the October meeting pending Council re -decision. The Commission agreed to reschedule. 10. THE SANDPIPER WEST CONDOMINIUM, A RESUBDIVISIO14 OF LOT 14 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 13 AND 15, BLOCK 8, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY MAP NO. 2, PROPERTY AT 525 AJAMER ROAD, ZONED R--3, BY ART DUDLEY, ALMER ASSOCIATES - 10 - Assistant City Planner Yost, reporting for the City Engineer in attendance at another meeting, stated.this official's opinion was that the map complied with requirements and should be set for hearing. There was little discussion. Chairman Mink scheduled application for hearing on September 23. 10A. TENTATIVE 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 BY BLOMQUIST ENGINEERING INC. FOR KAREN HOLDING COMPANY Discussion of this application was delayed pending arrival of City Engineer from another meeting. 11. VARIANCE FROM USE REGULATIONS FOR HAPPINESS IS, A NURSERY SCHOOL, IN R-1 DISTRICT, AT 1560 HOWARD AVENUE, BY STEVEN COURTHEYN Mr. Steven Courtheyn reported results of his application to various officials on this proposal. He read letter from Sara Mateo County Board of Education informing him they had no jurisdiction over preschool and day care programs, unless state funded. He reported he had contacted Miss Joan Phillips of the Licensing Department of the State Department of Health, and she approved license conditional upon the removal of two walls in the building. Mr. Courtheyn had also contacted Burlingame Fire Inspector Howard Pearson who reported that the building was fair and had a fire retardant roof. However, plans would be required showing change in building structure and area of occupancy, as well as number of children. He suggested the school be limited to less than 20, since over that number requires that stricter specifications for regular schools be met. There followed discussion of Courtheyn's agreement to purchase this property and owner's consent. Mr. Courtheyn cited letter of August 6, 1974 from owner, Dagmar Wiltsie. There was Commission question if approval of County Health Department would be necessary for children's meals. Mr. Courtheyn replied this was not necessary for half-day sessions. There was more discussion of whether or not owner actually desired to sell this property for this purpose. Chairman Mink set application for hearing on September 23, 1974. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW PENINSULA ART ASSOCIATION TO HOLD ART CLASSES AT 1045 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY FRANCES H. MILLIKEN Assistant City Planner Yost read letter of application from Mrs. Milliken stating her wish to allow the association to hold art classes at this location. It was noted there would be no on -premise parking. Mrs. Milliken informed the Commission art classes would start at 9:00 A.M., and last class would leave by 4:00 P.M. On question she agreed that these hours could be a cchdition of the permit. Discussion followed of the restriction of Camino, but City Planner Swan reminded th came under the classification of a school. Hearing was set for September 23, 1974. business 'parking on El e Commission this application 13. SIGN VARIANCE FOR 28'6" HIGH POLE SIGN HAVING '92 SF OF FACE AREA AND SIGN PERMIT FOR 108 SF WALL SIGN AT 925 BAYSWATER FOR PUTNAM DODGE BY COAST/QRS SIGNS Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this application, showing drawing of proposed signs to the Commission. He noted theproposed pole sign has less height than the original sign design and only 35% of the surface area of the original proposal. Mr. George Britt of Coast/QRS told the Commission the reduction in area of the pole sign was acceptable, but noted the pole sign should be 10' taller in order to be visible above Kohlenberg Ford sign on property nearby. He suggested the bottom of the sign should be at least 24' in height, with a total height of 38'6". This sign will be about 100' from the railroad tracks and is further east than the existing sign. He distributed photographs of the sign. There was some discussion. Chairman Mink requested that drawing show exactly where the signs were'on the site; and City Planner Swan suggested a comparison of signs, a sectional elevation, be submitted for scale to height of man on California Drive. This application was set for hearing September 23. 14. SIGN VARIANCES FOR TWO WALL SIGNS AT 1050 BROADWAY FOR N. CRISAFI BY J/W DESIGN ASSOCIATES Assistant City Planner Yost explained details of the signs to the Commission. He noted that when drawings were received additional smaller signs were indicated which were not in the application. The principal sign is 2'4" x 30' long, constructed of redwood, stained, and with no illumination. Variance is required because it is of wood and exceeds 40 SF. Another variance is required since it is a wall sign extending 24" out from the surface of the building. The second sign requires a variance since it is less than 10' above the surface of the sidewalk. He stated applicant had been requested to submit a total signage program because of prospective tenants, and this had been received. Mr. Webb of J/W Design presented colored illustrations detailing this program. There was further discussion. The Assistant City Planner brought up the question of seismic force on these wall signs suspended by straps. Chairman Mink set this application for hearing September 23; requesting applicant submit details of total signage program and asking the Assistant City Planner to check on the seismic problem with the City Engineer. - 12 - 10A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 5, ASSESSOR'S MAP B16 CITY OF BURLINGAME (APN 026-121-040) 1 PROPERTY AT 1327-47 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1, BY BLOMQUIST ENGINEERING INC. FOR KAREN HOLDING COMPANY In the continued absence of the City Engineer, City Planner Swan distributed copies of this parcel map which simply :indicates Parcel 1 is to be split from Parcel 2 for purposes of sale. He stated it met all requirements of a parcel map and that the City Engineer had recommended it be set for hearing. This map was forthwith set for hearing on September 23. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan announced League of California Cities Conference in Los Angeles on October 21, 22, and 23, and stated that advance registration would be handled by the Planning Department. He requested Commission members inform him by September 23 if they wished to attend. He noted letter was directed to Pro Ski Shop on Broadway to enforce sign conditions. The City Planner added that the problem of sign enforcement or alternatives had been brought to the attention of the City Council. At this point in the meeting City Attorney Karmel returned and previously reported discussion on Pacific Standard took place. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary