HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.01.27THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
January 27, 1975
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Francard
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
ROLL CALL
None City.Planner Swan
Asst.City Planner Yost
City Engineer Davidson
City Attorney Coleman
Bldg. Inspector Calwell
Fire Inspector Pearson
Councilman Amstrup
The above members were present.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of.the Burlingame Planning Commission was called
to order on the above date at 7:35 P.M.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 30, 1974 were approved
and adopted.
The minutes of the study meeting of January 13, 1975 were approved
and adopted.
1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-31P, FOR FLORIBUNDA
GARDENS PROJECT AT (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) 545 ALMER ROAD, BY HISATA
DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS, INC.
(CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 25, 1974)
2. VARIANCE TO EXCEED HEIGHT LIMITATION IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 545 ALMER
ROAD (FORMERLY APN 029-111-030/040/050) BY PACIFIC WESTERN
CONTRACTORS, INC. (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 25, 1974)
Chairman Mink stated that staff had been notified verbally that
the applicant wishes to have these two items continued. He announced
that these agenda items would be continued to the meeting of
February 24.
3. REVISIONS OF PART III OF THE GENERAL PLAN (ND -51P)
a. AREA R. BURLINGAME PARK. b. AREA S. EAST BURLINGAME
Chairman Mink stated this subject was being considered because of
City Council request that the Commission recommend with regard to
making the General Plan identical to the zoning map. He reported
the Commission had decided input from staff and community members
was necessary; therefore staff report and citizen comments would be
heard. He requested comment from the City Planner.
City Planner Swan stated he thought the Planning Commission had
- 2 -
exhibited foresight, leadership and commitment in planning for the
future Burlingame, and that the Planning Department respected their
decision to conduct a detailed study of alternatives for revision
of the General Plan. There was a common goal to find a comprehensive
solution and bring the General Plan into closer conformity with the
zoning map. He went on to say that he and the Assistant City Planner
had done their best to provide information and exhibits. A four-page
handout had been prepared for the benefit of audience and Commission
showing the stepdown bands of decreasing residential density for
the two areas to be considered at this hearing. Maps show the
areas agreed upon the meetings of December 30, 1974 and January 13,
1975. He regretted that the Council does not support these General
Plan revisions at this time, and stated that except for the handout,
the Planning Department stopped work on revision of the General Plan
January 16, 1975.
For the benefit of the audience, Chairman Mink reviewed that the
handouts cover changes in holding capacity for Areas R and S. He stated
that the major question was if the revision of the General Plan
should be considered, based on premises on the part of the Commission
and Council that the existing General Plan possibly shows too high
a density in several areas of the city. The Commission had requested
staff to do development along the lines of reducing the high density
areas and at the same time accommodating multi -family uses which
have Teen permitted in the R-1 areas of the zoning map.
Chairman Mink requested audience comment regarding Area R, citing
page comparing present General Plan and proposed.
Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston, responded. She told the Commission the
people of the area had decided to send a few representatives instead
of crowding the Council Chambers again. She stated she was opposed
to the proposed changes and wanted all the area to be amended to
low density and be identical to the R-1 area of the zoning map. She
added that she had located that close to E1 Camino because she wished
the convenience of living near the city center.
Patricia Vogel, 1585 Cypress, indicated she wished to see the General
Plan map coincide with the zoning map.
There were no other comments on Area R.
Chairman Mink requested audience comments on Area S. He described
the geographical boundaries of this area and noted that Page 4 of
the audience handout showed existing General Plan and the proposed
revision.
There were no audience comments. Chairman Mink declared the public
hearing closed.
Secretary Jacobs read letter from Mr. and Mrs. Frederick F. Lansill,
344 Occidental opposing any future rezoning from R-1 to RD in Area R
and the creation of a buffer zone. The letter stated the proposed
plan contemplated the " . . rezoning (sic) of a prime area to benefit
a few developers . ." Communicants also requested policing of the area
against illegal rental units.
The Secretary also read letter from Ray Johnson, 1528 Ralston,
- 3 -
objecting to any future rezoning.
Secretary Jacobs noted receipt of letters from the following,
all opposing change in R-1 zoning:
Rory A. MacNeil
Claire M. MacNeil
1411 Sanchez Avenue
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Vogel
1585 Cypress Avenue
Bob and Clara White
1532 Ralston Avenue
Mr. and Mrs..Louis Badet
1540 Ralston
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bertram
245 Chapin Avenue
T. B. Scott and Patricia E. Scott
233 Chapin
revision of the General Plan map.
added
tion to the City Council is
He requested Commission comment.
With reference to Area R, Commissioner Taylor questioned the City
Planner, if there were any lots in the medium high density area along
E1 Camino which were less than medium high density presently. The
City Planner stated there were. Commissioner Taylor then questioned
how many of the lots in the proposed medium density area met that
density, and if there were any that would be affected by the change
in General Plan density. City Planner Swan, referring to density
tabulations prepared, commented that it is the zoning map that
allows building permits to be issued - not the residential density
shown on the General Plan. Chairman Mink agreed that changing the
General Plan Map makes no change in the property shown on the
zoning map. Commissioner Jacobs disagreed, stating that developers
reference the General Pian in seeking approval for their developments.
At this point, Chairman Mink summed up the concepts being presented:
replacement of present General Plan medium density area with low
density, medium low, and medium areas; or replacement of present
General Plan medium density with low density only.
Commissioner Sine, speaking specifically of Burlingame Park, stated
that any increase in density will present the problem of undergrounding
which could be adequate for low density but would not suffice for
higher. He thought upgrading of underground systems should be paid
for by the developer. Noting that this is roughly $100.00 per
lineal foot, and would have to incorporate 3 - 4 blocks at one time,
he thought it would be best policy to retain the present R-1 density
in the older areas of town. He spoke to the high cost of residential
property already, and the difficulties of buying and maintaining
it, especially for younger people. The Commissioner added that he
personally would never approve a concept in which home owners were
assessed to pay undergrounding costs for increased density.
Chairman Mink concluded that Commissioner Sine would prefer to remove
the existing medium density area and leave the medium high as projected
on the General Plan.
Commissioner Kindig agreed he wanted the medium high density
==
as proposed. He added he thought it important in the near future
to bring up the zoning of the few lots incorporated in this area
so they would be in accordance with present use. He approved of
the medium density area, but was willing to disregard the proposed
medium low.
Commissioner Jacobs brought up the subject of the City's recourse
in connection with non -conforming uses and abatement of illegalities.
City Attorney Coleman stated that abatement definitely can be pursued.
He pointed out some difficulties, noting he is currently involved
in a case where an eleven unit apartment has been illegal for the
past 30 years. Commissioner Jacobs was in favor of the proposed
line of high density, but proposed that illegal uses in the
Burlingame Park area be identified for study and abatement.
Chairman Mink requested Commission comment with regard to Area S.
Commissioner Kindig approved of the proposed General Plan densities
for this area, stating he had always been of the opinion that the
proposed low density line had been too far east. Commissioner Sine
questioned the City Engineer as to the effect on the undergrounding
in this area. City Engineer Davidson stated that presently the water
system is marginal in that area and could not stand an increase in
density without upgrading. The present storm drain and sanitary
sewer system is probably adequate, although the areas into which they
drain are not adequate.
Chairman Mink again commented that changes in the General Plan density
would not directly affect these properties; changes in zoning would.
ing
Commissioner Sine questioned how much the present underground/would
have to be increased to take care of increased density. City
Engineer Davidson referenced ongoing studies of the sanitary sewer
system which will be completed in 5-6 months, and stated that the
only adequate water main is the one on Howard Avenue. Chairman Mink
questioned Commissioner Sine if his opinion was that no matter what
was done with the General Plan, no zoning changes should take place
until the undergrounding is studied by the City for adequacy.
Commissioner Sine confirmed this.
Commissioner Ki.ndig approved the proposed General Plan changes in
this area because they were realistic with reference to present
useage. However, he stated he would not like to see any zoning
changes in that area until the matter of the undergrounding is
settled.
Chairman Mink again reviewed the purpose of the hearing. At this
point, a Mrs. Kiersey entered the meeting and was given permission
to speak. She stated she was a property holder on Peninsula Avenue
and needed information about the proposed rezoning. Chairman Mink
informed her no rezoning was contemplated; but a revision of the
General Plan was. He referred her to the documentation available to
the public.
Commissioner Jacobs stated she would like the General Plan to be
more in conformity with the zoning that is there now.
=0=
Commissioner Taylor thought the Commission should recommend modifi-
cation of the General Plan as proposed at this meeting since it brought
the General Plan into conformity with present uses and he did not
feel they should be ignored.
Chairman Mink then requested consensus on.the two areas separately,
starting with Area R.
Commissioner Sine proposed that the area shown on the existing
General Plan as medium high be modified to the medium high area as
shown on the proposed General Plan and that the balance of the area
that is now zoned R-1 and shown on the General Plan as medium density
be changed to low density.
Commissioner Taylor objected to this concept, stating he was troubled
by the fact that there exists a medium high area along r1 Camino,
and this proposal would bring a low density area directly up against
it. He thought it did not conform to the concept of good planning
and it did not conform to the facts of life. He considered the
Commission would be overlooking their obligation as planners to develop
what they believe is the best for Burlingame over a long period
of time. He emphasized that the Commission is for planning, and their
duties are not to react to the political consideration of the
community. He noted the City Council is the body which is properly
charged with political considerations; and he wished to feel that
the Planning Commission is removed from political deliberation and
can.make decisions based on good planning rather than good politics.
He stated he would recommend what he thought was right. He stated
he believed the developmental work of the staff was superior in its
concept and was going to go a long way in dealing with the problem
which will have to be faced over the years. He stated he was in
favor of a medium density area being included in this district.
Chairman Mink requested motion and vote on the Burlingame Park area.
Commissioner Kindig moved that the General Plan be revised to
show the medium high density area shown on the proposed General Plan
diagram. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on
unanimous roll call vote.
Commissioner Taylor moved that the Commission adopt as a recommendation
to the City Council an amendment to the General Plan including the
medium density area shown on the exhibit. Commissioner Francard
seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,TAYLOR,MINK
NAYES: JACOBS,SINE
Commissioner Jacobs moved that the rest of the Burlingame Park area
be revised to low density. Commissioner Sine seconded and it carried
on unanimous roll call vote.
Chairman Mink requested vote on Area S.
Commissioner Taylor stated he believed the proposed General Plan
amendment as represented by the exhibit showing Area S. carried out
- 6 -
the mandate of the City Council to reduce the density. He moved that
the medium high density area as shown be recommended. Commissioner
Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call
vote.
Commissioner Kindig moved that the General Plan be changed to include
the medium density area shown for Area S. Commissioner Sine seconded
the motion. It carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,MINK,SINE,TAYLOR
NAPES: JACOBS
Commissioner Kindig moved that the General Plan be revised to
include medium low density as shown for Area S. Commissioner Taylor
seconded the motion. It carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: F RANCARD, KINDIG, NORBERG, MINK, TAY7&QR : ". _.'
NAYES: JACOBS, SINE
Commissioner Jacobs.moved that all the rest of Area S. be amended
to low density. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it
carried on unanimous roll call vote.
Chairman Mink requested staff to prepare a report to the Council
that the Commission is in agreement with the Council that density
should be reduced in certain areas of the community, but it should
be done after careful study.
Again, Commissioner Taylor stated the Planning staff was to be
congratulated on their excellent presentation. He considered it
one of the best presentations of difficult material that had ever
been made to the Commission.
4. ADDITION OF CHAPTER 25.29 RD DISTRICT REGULATIONS, A CODE
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 ZONING (SND -50P)
For the benefit of the audience, Chairman Mink stated this item
was on the agenda to deal conceptually with the idea of a new
medium low district, or RD. The purpose of making this particular
district would be to allow the City when appropriate to establish
proper zones on the map which would conform to the language of the
General Plan map. He explained the City has two documents, the
General Plan map and the zoning map, which do not coincide in language
for density. The purpose of the discussion was to determine the
feasibility of such a zone. It could be used to raise the density
of some areas or as a logical means of careful reduction in others.
In discussion, the Planning Commission has applied it both ways.
The City Planner indicated three pages of material had been prepared
for audience inspection. Chairman Mink declared a brief recess so
that the audience could look at this documentation.
RECONVENE
After a brief recess, the meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M.
- 7 -
Chairman Mink stated the purpose of this agenda item was to receive
audience comment. He noted this was not a formal hearing, and he
suggested the Commission -itself not feel compelled to discuss. He
requested that the City Planner paraphrase the concept for the audience.
City Planner Swan briefly reviewed the preliminary draft of "Chapter
25.29 - RD District Regulations." He pointed out open space
requirements of 400 SF for each ground floor units and 200 SF for
each unit above the first floor. He noted that in the present code
there are no requirements for a specified amount of open space, and
added that open space for the ground floor means a soft type of ground
cover.
The City Planner commented that present parking regulations already
greatly reduce the density of multi -family developments. He stated
RD height regulations would be the same as R-1 and made a point of
the minimum lot dimensions which would be 9,000 SF. He explained
the.derivation of this square footage as representing the combination
of two typical R-2 45' x 100' lots with a single two-family house
on each. With this combination four living units could be constructed.
He stated RD lot coverage is limited to 60%. He discussed other points
of the proposed regulations and commented that establishment of an
R -D district on the zoning map itself was a consideration for some
future time.
Chairman Mink requested audience comments.
Mrs. Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston, responded. She questioned why
there was such concern for apartments. She asked if the money
spent on the Planning Commission could be spent on R-1 instead. She
stated apartment dwellers do not show concern for the community and
the only thing they do is pollute the area with their cars; they
do not work here; they do not spend money here; they do not care
for the community. She demanded an answer. She questioned why
there was so much concern to get apartments on the part of the
Commission.
Chairman Mink stated he did not recall the Planning Commission ever
requesting any apartment to be built, and asked that she not believe
the Commission had.ever proposed any specific structure in the City
of Burlingame. He pointed out that the Planning Commission is
required by law to hear the request of all applicants. He added
that the purpose of this particular discussion is to bring the
General Plan and the zoning map into conformance.
Mrs. Johnson stated that if the Planning Department could put as
much effort into the single family neighborhood (as into apartments)
the City would not have this problem. She suggested that Planners,
instead of listening to these people, tell them to go somewhere
else, like South San Francisco, where they belonged.
Chairman Mink told Mrs. Johnson that the staff responds to the
request of applicants who are bona fide property owners in the City.
Again he pointed out that the purpose of this agenda item was to
discuss a proposed code amendment which could clarify language regarding
density in two documents.
There was no further audience comment. Little Commission discussion
followed. Chairman Mink requested that information merely be
transmitted, since Commission is not dealing with adoption of the
amendment at this time.
5. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK
32, LYON & HOAG SUBDIVISION (APN 029-274-230) BEING VACANT
PROPERTY AT CLARENDON AND HOWARD AVENUES, ZONED R-1, BY EDWARD
W. BACA FOR DOMINIC AND MIMI_ CASAZZA.
Chairman Mink announced this application for consideration and requested
report from City Engineer Davidson.
The City Engineer stated this final map was in conformance with the
Subdivision Map Act and met code requirements. He recommended its
approval, contingent upon the developer's providing water and
sanitary sewer service to Parcels B and C.
Commissioner Sine moved this final map be approved conditional upon
water and sanitary sewer service being provided to Parcels B and C.
Commissioner -Taylor seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous
roll call vote.
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, THE ANSEL, A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 606
ANSEL ROAD, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 6, BURLINGAME LAND
COMPANY MAP NO. 2 (APN 029-131-330) BY REDMOND WALSH FOR JOSEPH
G. AND M. L. LOMBARDI.
City Engineer Davidson reported he thought this could be considered
both a tentative and final parcel map. He reminded Commissioners
that at the Planning Commission study meeting it was determined
that while this was a condominium, because of the time of its
construction it could be considered as a parcel map. He noted
code requirement for a minimum lot width of 50' and the fact that
the proposed parcel is less than that. However, he pointed out that
the exterior lot lines will not be changed. He stated building permit
for condominium had been taken out in April; the building is completed
and. the Park Director had approved landscaping. He recommended
approval as both a tentative and final map.
Chairman Mink questioned allocation of parking spaces. The City
Engineer stated that since this is not being considered as a
condominium, he could not pursue the matter of parking. However, he
noted the developer stated he intended to assign parking spaces.
At the request of the Chair, Mr. Lombardi confirmed he would assign
six parking spaces for the three condominiums and inform the City
Engineer of his decision. City Attorney Coleman indicated this
would be satisfactory.
There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment,
and the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Taylor moved that the tentative and final parcel map
be approved for this project. Commissioner Sine seconded the
motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner
Jacobs questioned if there were recourse on the developer's verbal
commitment regarding the parking. In the City Attorney's opinion
there was none.
- 9 -
7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 808
BURLWAY ROAD (APN 0267111-120) AND CAR STORAGE AT 855 MAHLE R
ROAD (APN 026-322-190) BY DOMINIC ACCETTA FOR AZTEC RENT -A -CAR ND -48P)
At the request of the Chairman City Planner Swan reviewed this
application. He noted applicant's representative, Dale Miller, was
present, and stated this is a car rental agency with office at 808
Burlway, with 8 parking spacesf and car storage area at 855 Mahler
Road with 25 parking spaces. He referenced negative declaration
and pointed out that this last parking area will be leased from
Vdrelco of California, quoting Vorelco's letter stating that lease
agreement may be cancelled upon 60 days' notice. The City Planner
commented this leased area is across a drainage canal from 808
Burlway and questioned control of car movements across the culvert.
He suggested the Commission consider application closely for establish-
ment of a policy regarding such agencies which have storage areas
located away from the principal place of business.
Mr. Miller added that all parking spaces would be clearly marked.
There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment
and the public hearing was declared closed.
Chairman Mink questioned if the applicant would accept a special
permit for a one• -year period with subsequent review and continuation
of lease. Mr. Miller agreed.
Commissioner Taylor objected to the lease with 60 day notice and
questioned if it could be conditioned "only sixty days before the
expiration of the permit." The City Attorney remarked the permit
could be conditioned upon the parking being available; if not available,
it becomes an illegal use.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned if there was a policy on the distance
an accessory lot such as this could be located. She commented that
restaurant parking must be on the same parcel with the restaurant.
Chairman Mink stated that such policy would require a code amendment,
and noted this is basically a storage function different from the
service function of restaurant parking. He reviewed that the
applicant had agreed to accept a permit for one year contingent upon
review and lease for storage. There was some discussion of conditioning
permit with prohibition of proposed non -conforming signs. However,
these applications would come before the Commission in any event.
Commissioner Taylor moved this special permit be granted for one
year, with review at the end of that periods and subject to the
restriction that in the event the lease between Vorelco and Aztec
is cancelled, the use permit will terminate; 8 parking spaces to
be at 808 Burlway Road and 25 parking spaces at 855 Mahler Road;
all to be allocated and properly marked. Commissioner Kindig seconded
the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1511 ROLLINS
ROAD (APN 025-280-310) BY DENNIS KOBZA, ARCHITECT FOR AIR TRANSPORT
WORKERS (ND -49P)
Chairman Mink announced this application for hearing and plans were
distributed. The City Planner stated that applicant's representative,
- 10 -
George Conenna, and architect Dennis Kobza were present. He quoted
negative declaration in describing this project which is for a two
story office building including meeting hall and service areas
with 116 parking spaces on site. Agreement has been executed with
other unions adjacent for sharing of 106 additional spaces. He
stated it has been ascertained that meeting dates for these individual
unions do not conflict. The building would be used for union purposes
only and no EIR is required. He.reminded Commissioners that at the
study meeting there was discussion of the necessity of an easement
along Mills Creek for City maintenance work on the creek, and thought
this access could be accomplished within the parking area.- He
suggested conditioning the permit that landscaping be approved by
the Park Director.
Mr. Conenna, who identified himself as vice-president of the local's
building committee affirmed the building would�be used only for
union purposes and presented a colored rendering of the structure.
There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment,
and the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned if landscaping conformed to proposed
M-1 requirements. She was informed by the City Planner that it
did not, but that the M-1 amendments had been returned to the Commission
by the Council for review. He stated the landscaped area would be
15' wide - 10' of private property and 5' public property. Commissioner
Norberg noted a small triangular portion of the plan that could also
be landscaped, and the Chair requested the staff bring this to the
Park Director's attention.
Commissioner Francard. questioned the City Engineer if his equipment
would be barred from the creek by the retaining wall, and City
Engineer Davidson replied he was satisfied that adequate access
would be furnished through the parking lot. Commissioner Sine was
concerned about the possibility of all three halls being used at one
time for large meetings or social gatherings. Mr. Conenna again
affirmed that the hall would be used only for union purposes.
Chairman Mink suggested this be made a condition of the permit.
Commissioner Taylor asked if any other union would move into the
building and was assured it would not,
Commissioner Sine moved this Special Permit be granted subject to
agreement with the City Engineer to provide access to the drainage
Banal; landscaping to be approved by the Park Director; and activities
in the building to be limited to those of Local 1781 and its members.
Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous
roll call vote.
9. APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT AN
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER BOX MUST BE MOVED TO A NEW POSITION ON A
BUILDING AT 1308 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R -3L BY DONALD E. DAMSON,
Chairman Mink announced testimony would be heard in this matter,
first from the Chief Building Inspector and then from Mr. Damon.
Chief Building Inspector Calwell stated this installation of
electrical meter box was in violation of the electrical code which
states that the bottom of the meter box shall be not less than 30"
from the ground. He also cited P.G.&E. regulations which require
a minimum of 4' from grade to the meter socket, and a maximum of 75"
from grade. He stated this present installation presents a safety
hazard to the owner, his family, and neighboring children.
Mr. Damon told the Commission he was not disputing the code, but
thought he had made a reasonable error in placing the box where a
previous box had been installed and in operation for some fifty
years. He noted the code provides for a reasonable alternate to
this restriction; he did not consider that moving the box higher
and to an exposed position would make it more safe. It is presently
recessed on this brick facade building. He stated the service has
been in operation 3 - 4 weeks and is operating accurately and safely.
In response to Commission question, he stated he had obtained a building
permit; had submitted schematics and layouts; and the restriction
regarding the box had not been mentioned by the Building Department
at that time. On a question as to the extent of the work applied
for, Chief Building Inspector Calwell stated wiring in the existing
upstairs was included and a drawing of the circuits had been submitted
and that was all. Consequently, an inspector had checked only the
new wiring inside the building, since nothing had been mentioned
about the new service box.
Commissioner Sine questioned Damon if the work had been done by a
licensed contractor. Mr. Damon replied in the negative, and the
Commissioner pointed out that a licensed contractor would have made
the installation according to code. He also commented on the fas-
cination children have for electrical switches.
Chairman Mink questioned the Chief Building inspector if this would
still be unsafe, disregarding code consideration. The Chief Building
Inspector replied it was definitely unsafe.
Fire Inspector Howard Pearson stated that in his opinion the work
of the Fire Department is made easier in combatting fires when
electrical installations are in accordance with code.
Mr. Damon stated he would abide by the decision of the Commission
but was not convinced that moving this installation would make for
greater safety.
Commissioner Sine moved that the Commission uphold the decision
of the Building Inspector. Commissioner Norberg seconded the
motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. City Attorney
Coleman commented that this action of the Commission is final and
is not subject to appeal to the City Council.
10. APPEAL OF A NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND AN ORDER BY THE
BURLINGAME FIRE DEPARTMENT TO VACATE PROPERTY AT 201 VICTORIA
ROAD, ZONED R-1 L BY CARMEN ROSE POINDEXTER,
City Attorney Coleman reported that Mrs. Poindexter was not present
at this meeting, and suggested the hearing be continued to the
earliest possible date, the study meeting of February 10, because of
- 12 -
the condition of her dwelling. He added Mrs. Poindexter would be
given proper legal notice. ten days in advance of this next meeting.
Chairman Mink stated this hearing would be continued to the meeting
of February 10.
11. FENCE VARIANCE (EXCEPTION) TO CONSTRUCT A 7 FT. HIGH FENCE ON
A REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 1151 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1, BY LEO
AND ESTHER AYERSi
Assistant City Planner Yost reported to the Commission this application
had been received subsequent to the paving of the footpath along
E1 Camino which had resulted in increased foot traffic, and increased
dust and dirt. In addition, this fence is similar to a 7' fence on
the neighbor's property. Mrs. Ayers confirmed the Assistant City
Planner's comments.
There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment,
and the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Francard was concerned with access to the P.G. & E.
easement since the proposed fence will be on the property line; and
also questioned Park Department access to trees in the easement.
After some discussion, Mrs. Ayers said she would make certain the
fence had a section that could be raised for access by P.G.& E. and
stated the Park Department had informed her that the trees were
under her jurisdiction since they were within the property line.
Commissioner Taylor moved this fence variance be approved conditional
upon construction of appropriate access. Commissioner Sine seconded
the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
12. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL OF BUS STOP SHELTERS
Referencing mail -outs of information on these shelters, City Planner
Swan displayed a small cross section of the fascia, gutter, and roof
of suggested prefabricated bus shelters. He commented that after
research by L.D. Bowhay, Transit Aide, this shelter appeared to be
the lowest in price and most readily available. Bus Shelter will
have bench, anodized aluminum posts, and aluminum opaque thermal
roof. Left end of shelter will consist of Lexan window on which
transportation notices can be posted. Two shelters Would cost less
than $3,000 and could be placed at two main transfer points, one
opposite the SP railroad station and one at the Plaza on Murchison.
The City Planner stated there is a code requirement for architectural
approval of structures located on the public right of way. He
added about six months ago the idea of bus shelters had been
suggested to the Beautification Commission, but there had been
no action. He suggested referring these shelters to this commission
for their review and report.
Commission discussion followed centering on the appearance and
susceptibility to vandalism of aluminum versus such materials as
redwood. There was a suggestion these prefabricated shelters could
be used until money was avi lable for shelters made of more conventional
materials. They could then be moved to other locations.
- 13 -
Fire Inspector Pearson commented that all -metal buildings had been
outlawed in Burlingame unless approved by Fire Chief and Building
Inspector; service stations excepted. By a recent code revision
architectural approval of such buildings is to be obtained from
the Planning Commission.
There was discussion of fire hazards in metal buildings. It was
then decided to refer the bus shelters to the Beautification
Commission for review with report from them within one month so
that the Planning Commission could take action on the proposal at
a February meeting.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
City Planner Swan reported the City Council had tentatively accepted
March 31 as a joint meeting date, and he had suggested zoning code
amendments, General Plan revisions, and sign code amendments as
subjects for discussion.
He reported the Planning Department is ordering ten copies of the
1973 Uniform Housing Code containing an extensive discussion of
substandard buildings. He suggested this might be used as a guideline
in abatement or rehabilitation of substandard buildings. It could
also be used as a guideline for required inspections in certain
areas of the city, with an eye toward code enforcement. The City
Attorney stated that a court order could be obtained for "block
inspections" which are for one block at a time. Discussion followed
of this type of action and whether or not code amendments were necessary.
It was agreed this subject deserved further study.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:30 P.M. to the meeting of
February 10 for the purpose of hearing Agenda Item #10, Appeal of
Mrs. Poindexter.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs
Secretary