Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.02.24THE CITY OF BU RLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg Fire Chief Moorby Sine Taylor ROLL CALL The above named 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 January 27, 1975 were approved and adopted. The minutes of the study meeting of February 10, 1975 were approved and adopted. 1. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 22.60.020, 22.60.030 AND 25.78.050 TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGN AND FENCE ORDINANCES (ND -52P) Chairman Mink announced public hearing and Commission consideration of this ordinance. At his invitation City Planner Swan addressed the Commission. He reported that the ordinance had been rewritten in the manner requested by the Commission to overcome uncertainty in the use of the word "variance" in these applications. The term "exception" has been substituted, and the same procedures would apply. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the 32 SF sign limit had been changed, and was informed it was still the same. Commissioner Kindig received confirmation that an "exception" also was subject to appeal. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Commission approve and recommend for Council consideration an ordinance amending Sections 22.60.020, 22.60.030 and 25.78.050 to provide for exceptions to the sign and fence ordinances. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-32P, FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF TEN LATS FROM R-1 TO R-3. Chairman Mink noted that the Commission had received copies of this EIR, and requested report from the City Planner. - 2 - City Planner Swan stated the EIR includes two diagrams which were mailed to property owners within 500' of the subject lots. Diagram A he identified as lots in Burlingame Park and Diagram B, 3 lots in East Burlingame. With the addition of a legal notice in the newspaper, he stated the legal requirements for a reclassification hearing had been satisfied. He stated the EIR was presented for review and recommendation to Council for their certification. He drew attention to: "The possible increase in population will be minor. It is unlikely that the proposed reclassi- fication will have significant effect upon the local environment." He also reviewed the sentence which states that agreement has been reached by the City Planning Commission and the City Council on the proposed reclassification. Commissioner Taylor objected that in his recollection of the joint meeting a consensus, rather than agreement, was reached. Commissioner Kindig agreed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the basis for the statement, "The single story single family dwellings at 816 and 812 Howard Avenue are not apt to change even though the property is rezoned from R-1 to R-3." City Planner Swan replied that observation shows both structures are in good condition. Jim Seggern, 808 Burlingame Avenue, objected, stating more R-3 property was not desirable. He questioned if the report included consideration of services. He was reminded that the report states no direct change would result from the proposed reclassification, which would include services. With the understanding that the word "consensus" would be substituted for "agreement" in the sentence referring to meeting between Planning Commission and City Council, Commissioner Taylor moved that EIR-32P be accepted and recommended to the City Council for consideration and certification. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Mink directed staff to prepare proper resolution, and the City Attorney indicated this could be considered at the March 10 meeting. 3. RECLASSIFICATION OF SEVEN LOTS IN BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 FROM R-1 TO R-3: LOTS 3 AND 6, BLOCK 2, BEING 1500 AND 1508 BURLINGAME AVENUE; LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 3 WHICH ARE PART OF THE CITY OWNED PARKING LOT; LOTS 4 AND 5, BLACK 4, PORTION OF PARCEL OCCUPIED BY APARTMENT AT 1501 RALSTON; AND LOT 3, BLOCK 4, BEING 1500 HOWARD AVENUE; BY BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION. Chairman Mink announced this item for hearing and opened the meeting to public comments. Mrs." Barbara Bruton, 116 Harbor Drive, Black Point, California read to the Commission her letter dated February 21, 1975 regarding her parents' property at 1500 Howard Avenue. She approved the reclassification of this parcel, now partly in R-1 and partly in R-3, since it presents an opportunity to develop the site satisfactorily. Joseph Karp, 1920 Carmelita, stated he owned the property at 1508 Burlingame - 3 - Avenue, and thanked the City for the positive action in releasing his property from its non -conforming status. Angela Johnson, 1508 Ralston, disapproved of the reclassification of the parking lots, fearing the City would sell them for apartment sites. She also disapproved reclassifying 1508 Burlingame Avenue, regarding it as one more foothold for apartments. R. Ansell, 344 Occidental, also disapproved of the reclassification as being an opportunity for further encroachment of apartments. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned why the parking lots had to be rezoned, and the City Planner referred to the fact that the Commission had suggested to Council that there be a band of R-3 150' wide west of El Camino. This is part of the process to gain consistency between the zoning map and the General Plan. Chairman Mink remarked that as a separate matter he would later suggest Commission consideration of classifying all parking lots owned by the City as open space. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council reclassification of these seven lots. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR,MINK NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS Staff was directed to prepare the proper resolution. 4. RECLASSIFICATION OF THREE LOTS IN EAST BURLINGAME FROM R-1 TO R-3: LOTS 11B, 21A AND 22, BLOCK 22, TOWN OF BURLINGAME; BEING RESPECTIVELY 811 BURLINGAME AVENUE, 816 HOWARD AVENUE AND 812 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 029-251-240, -150 AND -140) BY BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION. After announcing consideration of this item, Chairman Mink opened the meeting to public comment. S. J. McAtee, 724 Concord, objected to this reclassification and the "creeping cancer of apartments" in this prime residential area. Arthur Smith, 809 Burlingame Avenue, objected, as did Edwin Taylor, 701 Burlingame Avenue. Beatrice Boland, 228 Arundel, thought reclassification would bring parking problems. Mrs. Richard H. Coshow, 715 Burlingame Avenue, opposed the reclassification as bringing more apartments. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Secretary Jacobs read letter of February 20, 1975 from the Thomas F. Boland family, 228 Arundel, opposing the reclassification. City Planner Swan displayed photographs of the sites, and stated this reclassification would bring identity with the proposed revision of the General Plan. Chairman Mink commented that a large number of properties were moved from higher density in the General Plan to a lower. Commissioner Sine amplified that higher density had extended eastward to Dwight Road, but making the zoning map and the General Plan identical actually reduced the density in this area. He added that the undergrounding will not support any added density without a substantial addition to the utilities. Commissioner Taylor moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council the reclassification of these three lots. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,NORBE RG,SINE,TAYLOR,MINK NAPES: FRANCARD, JACO BS Staff was requested to prepare proper resolution. On a question as to appeal, staff advised the public to check newspaper notices for advice of such possible action. - 5 - 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CASA AMIGO - BURLINGAME, A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MORE THAN 35 FEET HIGH, IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 236 MYRTLE ROAD (APN 029-215-220,230), BY JOHNSON, COOK & ASSOCIATES FOR GENERAL RESIDENTIAL COMPANY (SND -53P) Chairman Mink announced this application for hearing and requested report from City Planner Swan. The City Planner stated that a negative declaration had been posted on this application for special permit. He confirmed that it was being considered because of the height, since it meets all zoning regulations; and noted that the Planning Commission has discretionary review on height limitations over 35' in every district except C-4, where review is required for more than 50' in height. City Planner Swan went on to describe the project as being a group residential facility for the active elderly. It will be four stories with a projected occupancy of 102 people. The lodgers would have small rooms with a common dining room. There will be lounges and a plaza area. The project anticipates 74 units and 31 covered parking spaces, one space for each four lodgers and one for each two employees. He displayed photographs of the site as it appears at present. He showed transparencies of the project site with relation to streets and transportation; project site plan; parking plan; typical floor plan; elevation from Burlingame Avenue; and the elevation from Myrtle Road. Mr. Roy Johnson appeared as applicant representative, and stated that he and Mr. Blaine Walling representative of the operating company, were available for questions. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. S. J. McAtee, 724 Concord, opposed the project because it was an increased density in this residential area. Chairman Mink reminded him this was zoned properly for a building up to 551, and was being reviewed only because it was over 351. Mr. McAtee requested that it not exceed 35'. Mrs. Gordon Brown, 118 Myrtle Road, questioned utility services for a building of this type, and feared it would raise property assessments. Mrs. Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston, approved the type of project, but questioned why it couldn't be accomplished within 35'. She also questioned why Mr. Johnson didn't build it in Los Gatos, since he comes from Los Gatos. Joseph Karp, 1920 Carmelita, stated he owned property in the area and welcomed the project. He thought there must be places for the aged and this project would enhance the area. Another resident of Burlingame Avenue considered the area as residential, and even though this was an R-3 lot, the use should be limited to 35'. Chairman Mink again reminded the assembly that R-3 property can support 55' or 4 stories, but that any project that exceeds 35' in the city requires a special permit for purposes of review and control. Edwin Taylor, 701 Burlingame Avenue, thought what happened with this special permit would be typical of what would happen with the other three reclassified lots (from R-1 to R-3 in the adjacent block.) Beatrice Boland, 228 Arundel Road, questioned size of rooms, and was informed they would be 12' x 20', with private baths. She questioned if all the rentals would be to senior citizens, since the rent is around $500 per month. She also thought the organization would be running a restaurant if it had a common dining room. Chairman Mink commented the Commission had indicated at the study session that verification must be furnished that the use would not be changed. Dean Myer, who identified himself as a property holder in the area, considered that from a community standpoint the project was very appropriate and in an ideal location close to community facilities, transportation and shopping areas. He thought there was a need for facilities for older people and they should be encouraged. He stated the height limit was within reason for this facility and the eucalyptus trees near the site would give a dimension to the project. Remarking that this location seems to be a buffer between a residential area and the commercial area and schools, he thought the project would be of value to other properties in the neighborhood. He thought it would be helpful if the architect gave his reasons for the height. Mr. McAtee interjected that this extension of the height limit from 35' to 55' was not in keeping with the Burlingame community and high rises are not wanted. At the request of the Chair, Mr. Johnson spoke to the height of the project. He stated his company prefers to build two stories where possible. However, since the Peninsula is a rather densely built up area, the size of the property precludes putting a lower building on it. He stated the main concern had been with the suitability of the location, since the welfare of the elderly is a concern of the community, and 14% of Burlingame's population is over 65 years of age. Mrs. Marjorie Taylor, 701 Burlingame Avenue, was concerned with the possible increase in traffic in this neighborhood which already has the recreation center and a school. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Mink opened the meeting to staff report and Commission discussion. He questioned the City Attorney if the City could be guaranteed this will be a continuing use. City Attorney Coleman replied that this category of conditional use permit could be conditioned with the provision of continuing use and the condition could run with the property. He suggested a condition phrased as use of the property restricted to group residential facility and an appropriate definition of elderly as to age. Chairman Mink asked Mr. Blaine Walling what the definition of "elderly" would be. Mr. Walling referenced Article 2, Chapter 1, Title 22, (Reg. 72, No. 21-5-20-72), Social Welfare Document prepared -7 - by the State of California which defines "elderly" as 60 years of age and over. Chairman Mink questioned if he would agree that the permit be conditioned based on this definition, and requested further clarification as to this type of facility as opposed to convalescent home or hospital. Mr. Walling stated this is a strictly residential facility for the ambulatory aged who have physical ability and mental clarity to take care of their personal needs in this supervised environment. He qualified that approximately 8 rooms on the ground floor would be set aside for the use of people in wheelchairs or pickup walkers who can take care of themselves and make the transfer from wheelchair to bed and vice versa unaided. There are provisions for some semi- private rooms. People are also taken on Social Supplemental Income. Chairman Mink requested staff information on public utilities service in the area. City Engineer Davidson stated that the storm system and the sanitary system at this location are marginal, and that both systems are to the point of capacity downstream. He considered that any extensive development at this time could tax existing facilities. With regard to the water system and fire flow, he considered that there was approxi- mately 1/2 of the required fire flow of 3,000 GPM. However, on the question of adequacy of fire flow, he deferred to Fire Chief Moorby. Chief Moorby stated that indications from a recent test of the area indicated about 2,500 GPM. Ideally, a unsprinklered 4 story building should have 3,000 GPM. However, he considered that 2,500 GPM would be adequate, contingent upon the opinion of the insurance company, for a 4 story sprinklered building. He added that because of the type of occupancy, even if this were a three story building it would be best if it were sprinklered. With reference to sanitary sewers, City Engineer Davidson stated he was not certain that this project by itself would have a significant effect., However, he mentioned downstream problems, and added that any additional inflow would be a substantial increase. In answer to a question from Commissioner Francard, he stated fire flow could be increased by increasing the size of the main connecting to the 10" main on Howard and/or connecting to the larger main on Carolan a distance of 700-8001 down Burlingame Avenue. In response to detailed questions from Commissioner Sine, Messrs. Walling and Johnson stated that there was emergency lighting in halls and stairwells, there was an emergency generator plant for the elevator, the garage area was fire sprinklered, and the elevator does have manual control for the use of the Fire Department. This is a Type 1 building. Occupancy will not be restricted to Burlingame residents. Commissioner Sine stated his main concern was with senior citizens whose only income was social security and welfare. Mr. Walling explained that such people could use this facility by means of Social Supplemental Income. This provides people entering a residential care facility with an income of $303 per month,of which $33 would be for spending money, if they are under Social Security and welfare. Residential care rate would be $270.00 per month. For those not covered under Social Security, $283 per month would be provided, and rate charged of $250.00, leaving them also spending money of $33.00 per month. These lodgers would not comprise 100/ of the residents. Staff would be 20 non-resident employees on three shifts. Off.'ME Commissioner Sine stated he considered the undergrounding highly questionable, not just marginal. He questioned if the developer would be agreeable to paying for the necessary undergrounding, contingent upon repayment over the years as other projects develop. Chairman Mink considered that such an agreement was the province of the City Council, and that the Planning Commission should get the facts as to the level of adequate service, and condition the permit upon agreement between Council and developer. City Attorney Coleman added that the Council could enter into a contract with the developer. Mr. Johnson stated that the only way this project could be built is under FHA and still provide the services. Any offsite improvement would be a direct burden on the supporting company, and he doubted they would agree. Commissioner Norberg complimented the architect on the excellence of his plans and stated the project would be a credit to the city and a good thing for the aged. He thought the location was such that it would not be detrimental to the surrounding residents. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned with the occupants' welfare and reluctant to vote unless assured utilities would be adequate. commis- sioner Francard disapproved of the placement on the site with relation to the trees. Commissioner Kindig agreed that this.was a needed facility and thought it would be an asset to the city. He stated he was not particularly concerned about the height, and considered this a good project if the undergrounding could be regulated, either by condition of the Commission or action of the City Council. Chairman Mink questioned traffic flow generated by the project. Mr. Walling stated that experience in other facilities indicates less than 10% of occupants have cars; staff does not add much to traffic especially if they use local transportation; deliveries approximate 2-3 trucks per day. Residents are taken shopping by van or station wagon 3-5 trips per day. visitors usually account for 3-5 cars per day. He commented that this could be documented from other operating facilities. In response to the Chairman, he agreed there would be about 40-50 tripends per day, 1 in and 1 out. Most of these would be during the daylight hours. The Chairman remarked this would be comparable to a 20 unit apartment house which could be under 35'. Commissioner Sine remarked that the marginal underground should be taken care of now rather than wait 4-5 years and find it inadequate for subsequent developments. Chairman Mink voiced his concern with the section of the General Plan which speaks directly to housing of this type. He stated there has been no attempt on the part of the City or the residents to support this provision of the General Plan, and he thought it was time an effort was made. He noted this was the first opportunity the Commission had had to hear any such application. While there have been a few applications for private residences to take paying guests, this is not the point of the General Plan section. Chairman Mink then commented that the Commission has the authority to conditionally grant such a special permit, specifying conditions, and to urge the Council to consider certain conditions. Commissioner Taylor remarked that the minutes forwarded to Council would reflect the concern of the Commission. (Ed. underlining added.) Chairman Mink added he would be more comfortable with the condition that Council review with regard to the utilities, and he would like to have docu- mentation assuring the City that the use would be continued and would not be converted. Commissioner Taylor stated he was prepared to accept the statement of the Fire Chief that the fire flow would probably be adequate if the building were sprinklered, but he was concerned with the sewer, and requested comment from the City Engineer as to whether it should be accommodated now or as a long range project. City Engineer Davidson replied he could not answer fully at this time. He stated the City is presently having a sewer study conducted which will be complete in May or June. Dependent upon this survey, capacities should be increased wherever they are found to be deficient. Commissioner Taylor questioned if a fair statement would be that the burden of this property is no greater than that inflicted by other properties. The City Engineer thought that as a staff person he could not estimate the financial burden this project should bear with regard to utilities. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if she as a Planning Commissioner could vote for a building which might have marginal services. The City Attorney commented that services can be updated in three ways: the owner pays for them; an assessment district is formed; the City pays for them. City Planner Swan suggested the occupancy permit be conditional upon adequate underground utilities. He noted that the developer must proceed with financing arrangements with the Government before the project can be started. He also referred to the sewer study underway, and suggested if it were determined that this area should be improved, the needs of this project could be included. City Engineer Davidson reminded the Commission that a parcel map must be submitted, and utilities must be considered at that point. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if funding could be received on this type of conditioning. Mr. Johnson replied he could only go through the regular funding routine. Commissioner Taylor moved that the special permit for Casa Amigo - Burlingame be approved per plans and specifications submitted, which describe it as a four-story residential building for the active elderly. Elderly shall be As defined in Article 2, Chapter 1, Title 22, State Social Welfare Document. The project shall be 52 feet in height and cover 45/ of a 22,500 SF lot. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBE RG,TAYLOR,MINK NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,SINE Commissioner Jacobs remarked she would have voted for the project had it been clear that adequate services would have been available. Commissioner Sine stated that as a past officer of the Senior Citizens Association and an officer of the American Assn.of Retired Persons, he thought utilities should have been included as a condition. - 10 - RECESS: After a brief recess at 9:40 P.M., the meeting reconvened. 6. 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 AND JANUARY 27, 1975) 7. 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 AND JANUARY 27, 1975.) Chairman Mink announced this application will be removed from the agenda and not reinstated until the applicant makes such request. This is in conformance with the applicant's request at the study meeting of February 10, 1975. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FROM PARKING REGULATIONS FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-080) AND CAR STORAGE AT REAR OF 1722 GILBRETH ROAD, BY RAMADA CAR RENTAL FOR RAMADA INNS,INC. Assistant City Planner Yost told the Commission changes had been made in this application since the study meeting. These are the removal of the gasoline storage tank and pump and the change in the location of the long term parking site. He stated check of site showed 183 parking spaces. Code requirements are 153 for the hotel and 34 for the restaurant; therefore the parking at present is substandard by 4 spaces. The rental agency will require 20 spaces, and the proposed car washing slab will eliminate 4; therefore total future deficiency will be 28 spaces. However, he cited as mitigating circumstances statistics of room occupancy from Ramada for the month of July, 1974. These statistics indicate that 31% of rooms were occupied by airline personnel who have no cars, and 30% by package tour guests who also have no cars. These figures suggest an oversupply of parking rather than a deficiency. The Assistant City Planner stated Ramada intends to lease paved and fenced site at 1722 Gilbreth from Mr. Robert Brown. A six-month lease has been prepared with option to renew. Thirty vehicles can be stored on this site. Mr. Arthur Ray, Ramada representative, added that the July figures for occupancy represented the peak of the season. He thanked Commission and staff for time spent on this application and apologized for the inadvertent omission of not getting a proper permit prior to this time. He stated their intention to abide by all city codes. The Chair requested audience comment. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed, centering on the parking. In answer to Commission questions, Mr. Ray stated that parking at the Ramada would be limited to 20 spaces which would be marked. He stated that six-month lease for off-site parking was because they hope business will warrant buying additional land. He stated Ramada has contracts with both the airlines and package tours, so the percentage for these will be fairly stable. Commissioner Sine suggested that the erection of an electrical reader - board sign, now discontinued, abrogated their original sign permit. However, it was pointed out this was done out of ignorance of the code. City Engineer Davidson reminded the applicant that the wash slab must be drained to the sanitary sewer, and rain water must be eliminated. Mr. Ray stated the rack would be covered, if necessary, and an application made for the sign. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Commission approve this special permit with 20 marked spaces at the Ramada Inn and 30 marked spaces at 1722 Gilbreth Road, contingent upon continuous availability of offsite parking, and the wash rack installed to code requirements. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 9. BOARD OF APPEALS CONSIDERATION OF ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING NON- CONFORMING APARTMENT HOUSES AND HOTELS, GROUP H OCCUPANCIES MORE THAN TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT, TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE DEGREE OF SAFETY TO OCCUPANTS. Chairman Mink deferred to Fire Chief Moorby for explanation of alternate to building code. The Fire Chief explained that his main concern, in order to meet the code, is the enclosure of the existing stairways so that people do not have the problem of fire coming up from floors below. However, in some places it is impossible to enclose the stairway. Therefore a plan has been devised whereby the stairways are not always enclosed but the doors on the apartment entrances must be one-hour doors, and direct exit from each apartment must be by means of a separate fire escape to be provided. He felt this was an adequate plan, but since it is an alternate to the code, it must appear before the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals. The Uniform Building Code people have indicated to the fire department they realize that in some cases it is impossible to meet the code, but alternates must be as close as possible. Chairman Mink summarized alternatives to Section F as: 1. Installation of 1-3/4" solid core doors; 2. Establishment of exterior fire escapes or stairways. He commented that vote on this alternate must include the vote of the Fire Chief. It was established that this method is for existing buildings and not to be used on new construction. Commissioner Sine suggested as an additional code change, the requirement of having an interlocking threshold on entry doors. The Fire Chief commented that most entry doors from a corridor to an apartment do now have enough space because of the carpet. Commissioner Taylor moved that,since it is required by the Appendix to the Uniform Building Code, Section 1313(f) that every interior stairway in three story and higher apartments be enclosed with walls and doors that have one-hour fire resistive construction, the Board of Appeals approve an alternate to Section 1313(f) of the Uniform Building Code - 1.2 - relating to existing apartment houses and hotels, Group H occupancies more than two stories in height, to provide a reasonable degree of safety to occupants, specifications being satisfied by the installation of exterior solid core doors and the provision for a second means of egress from each individual apartment; and further that interior stairway doors shall be protected by a self-closing door and have equivalent protection to a solid wood door not less than 1-3/4" thick. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, with Fire Chief Moorby also voting "Aye." 10(a) RESOLUTION: DENYING APPEAL FROM NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND ORDER TO VACATE - 201 VICTORIA ROAD Commissioner Sine moved that the above titled resolution, numbered Resolution #1-75 be approved. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 10 (b) PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON ANZA MASTER PLAN Chairman Mink announced the purpose of this consideration is to decide whether or not to adopt this report and transmit to the City Council. He acknowledged letter of criticism from David Keyston of Anza Pacific which disagrees with statements in "Statement of General Findings" in the report land use is too intense" and phrase .intense air pollution (as a result of the project.) On question from Commissioner Jacobs as to whether this report is presented as fact or opinion, the Chairman replied that this is a report of the subcommittee summarizing findings, and these statements are not presented as facts but as a consensus of subcommittee feelings. The report does not say the project is bad or good. Commissioner Kindig thought that technically Mr. Keyston might be correct in his objections, and Commissioner Norberg praised the project as commendable and a boon to the tax base of the city. He thought if the wording was detrimental to the project, it should be eliminated. Mr. Keyston stated he took "land use is too intense" as indicating there is too much development per SF of land. He considered this an incongruity in view of the fact that Anza density is below what the Commission recommends for C-4. He thought if this is too intense, then all other developers in C-4 should abide by the same considerations. With regard to air pollution, he emphasized that experts Anza has hired stated that this would be insignificant. He said he felt these two statements in the report could be detrimental to the project. Chairman Mink drew attention to the opening statement of the report which states that the proposed Master Plan does meet all of the requirements of the zoning code, and said the Commission must decide whether in its entirety the report holds together. Commissioner Sine complimented the subcommittee on their difficult job and good summation, but stated he agreed with Mr. Keyston and found no fault with the entire concept. He said his only concern has been with the traffic flow. Commissioner Kindig said that in the overall - 13 - view he agreed with the report but thought some of the wording should be changed. Chairman Mink requested suggestion as to change of wording. After Commission discussion it was decided to eliminate "intense" relating to air pollution, line 11; retain " . .land use is too intense. line 3; and in line 2 change ". . general feeling of the Commission" to " . .consensus of the Commission . ." Commissioner Jacobs moved that the amended report be adopted and forwarded to the City Council. In the discussion following Commissioner Norberg objected to blocking the project. Chairman Mink reminded the Commission that this report discusses impacts of the project as traffic and demographic; and suggests improvement of traffic flow and attention to adequacy of public utilities. Minutes of the public meetings; documentation; and testimony bear out findings of these impacts. The report investigates alternatives and recommendations which were primarily drawn from the recommendations of Bigelow -Crain. He stated the purpose of the report is to communicate in short document form a cover for the Council so that they will have some understanding while perusing the massive file of documentation assembled. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,TAYLOR,MINK NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,NORBERG,SINE Staff was requested to rewrite report and transmit to the City Council. 11. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS IN M-1 DISTRICTS City Planner Swan reviewed M-1 District Regulations revised 2/20/75. Chairman Mink acknowledged letter dated 2/24/75 from Robert Brown incorporating suggested paragraph to be substituted for 25.42.055 b. and c. This states, "No building, structure (higher than 3' above the lowest adjacent ground level) or portions thereof shall hereafter be constructed, erected, altered or placed within twenty-five (25') of the property line along the westerly line of Rollins Road northerly from Mills Creek, along Bayshore Highway and along Airport Boulevard, nor nearer than fifteen feet (15') to the property line along any other street or future street." Chairman Mink requested comment from Mr. Brown who stated he suggested the 3' height for structures because of the fairly common use of raised planters in this area. He said he had reconsidered the use of the word "altered" and suggested it be struck. Also he suggested the application of the section to "Hillsdale Industrial Park Subdivision and parcels located in M-1 Districts" was a redundancy and could lead to complications if there were any rezoning of Millsdale properties. He suggested the use of "M-1 Districts" only. He felt his wording would eliminate the question of whether a property having frontage on two streets is required to have a setback on both streets. - 14 - There was a question if the desired effect would be obtained by striking the word "front" in staff's paragraph b. Commissioner Kindig commented the use of the word "front" might eliminate any back setback on a lot which went through to two streets. He thought Mr. Brown's suggestion would take care of that. City Planner Swan remarked that Mr. Brown's letter had arrived at 4:30 P.M. this date and staff had not had an opportunity to -consider it. He added that apparently this would give an opportunity to tailor the amendment to eliminate the side setback and consider where to place the 25' setback. Chairman Mink stated he would like to have staff consider language that specifies that if the lot goes through the block that there be a back setback. He also approved of Mr. Brown's definition of a reasonable height for a structure. Commissioner Kindig also requested that the four acre parcel between the stub end of N. Carolan and Rollins Road owned by Herman Christiansen be written into this amendment. The Chair directed staff to rewrite the amendment including suggestions made and including the aforementioned lands of Christiansen with Mills Creek as a logical stopping place for the 25' setback on Rollins Road. Mr. Brown agreed to this concept, and stated that the property north of Mills Creek on Rollins Road was extremely deep and 25' would not be too much. However, south of Mills Creek the lots are moderate in size. There was some discussion of when or if there would be a cut -through connecting the two streets on the Christiansen property. The City Engineer did not know definitely, noting the owner seemed reluctant to provide the right of way. 12. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL OF BUS STOP SHELTERS City Planner Swan produced a sample of "bronze anodized" aluminum for comparison of color. With regard to color to replace the white ceiling, he stated he had talked to the supplier who will furnish any color desired. After some discussion there was general agreement that the anodized aluminum shelters would be acceptable. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the architecture of the bus stop shelters be approved as submitted by staff with the anodized aluminum. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote. 13. SIGN PERMIT FOR EXISTING 161 SF POLE SIGN 25 FEET HIGH AT 1288 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY BY SAN FRANCISCO NEON FOR THOMAS LEONARDINI OF AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL RENT -A -CAR Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the characteristics of this existing sign. Copy has been changed by the new owners. He noted the height of 25' is now non -conforming but was within limits when the property was zoned M-1. Also, the sign is within the 25' setback. He reported Mr. Leonardini, property owner, was present. Mr. Cyrus McMillan addressed the Commission as representative of Mr. Leonardini. He stated Mr. Leonardini had spent $1,000 for renovating the sign and also commented this site has always been used for rental car agencies. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. - 15 - Commissioner Jacobs considered this a roof sign, pole supported, and suggested this should conform to C-4 height of 20'. Commissioner Taylor agreed, considering it a commission obligation to make signs in this area conform to new codes. Mr. McMillan protested that to reduce the sign by 5' would cost the applicant $5,000. He stated Mr. Leonardini had bought the property on the premise he could operate the agency and have a sign. He stated this is an application to change the copy. Commissioner Kindig disliked the sign. Commissioner Sine thought it would not cost this much to lower the sign and asked the applicant if he would cooperate. Mr. Leonardini said he could, but the lower height would interfere with visibility. There was Commission disbelief that lowering would have this effect. Commissioner Kindig remarked he did not think lowering the sign would improve it, and moved that the sign permit for the existing 161 SF pole sign be approved; approval to run with this business. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, KINDIG,NORBE RG,SINE NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,TAYLOR,MINK 14. SIGN PERMITS FOR THREE WALL SIGNS FOR SEE'S CANDIES, AND SIGN EXCEPTION FOR TWO OTHER WALL SIGNS AT 1843 EL CAMINO REAL BY ADVERTISING PRODUCTS, INC. FOR STEVE J. MUSICH Assistant City Planner Yost displayed plans and illustrations of these signs which include: Sign A, 40 SF, illuminated wall sign facing Burlingame Plaza parking lot; Sign B: same apparent size; soffit illumination; Sign B(1), 2 SF sign in display case; Sign C, same as Sign B but located in passage between parking lot and Magnolia Avenue; Sign C(1) same as Sign B(1) but on Magnolia Avenue; Sign D, interior illuminated 16�2- SF wall sign on the passage; Sign E, same as Sign D but on Magnolia Avenue. Signs D and E are for use of future tenants and have no copy or sign color. Mr. Musich addressed the Commission, telling them how important this signage program is to the prospective tenant, Sees. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public meeting was declared closed. There was considerable Commission discussion, during the course of which Mr. Musich agreed to come back for approval of copy and color for Signs D and E. Commissioner Taylor moved the application by Steve Musich for a sign program be approved in accordance with plans and specifications for Signs A,B, and C, and that the small letterd signs in the windows be acknowledged as part of the signage. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: F RANCARD , KINDIG , NORBE RG , TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,SINE,MINK 15. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR ONE NON -ILLUMINATED, PAINTED WALL SIGN OF 288 SF AT 370 LANG ROAD BY HANSEN SIGNS FOR HAMERSLAG EO JTPMFNT (,o. - 16 - Assistant City Planner Yost reported to the Commission that this sign located on the east wall would occupy 22% of the wall. The code specifies that only 20% of the wall area shall be covered. The sign copy will be dark brown on this beige wall and will not be illuminated. There is an existing roof sign on the main building which together with this sign would comprise a fairly large advertising profile. He introduced Mr. Bob Weeks as representative. Mr. Weeks stated this building had been added to the warehouse facilities with the intent that the sign identify it as such. There was no audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commission comment included adverse reaction to the present roof sign, at the conclusion of which Commissioner Sine moved the Commission approve this sign exception. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,NORBERG,TAYLOR,SINE NAYES: MINK 16. APPEAL FROM SEC. 22.20.010(3), PROHIBITING ADVERTISING SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 100 EL CAMINO REAL, BY COAST -QRS FOR EDWARD A. KEITH COMPANY AND OXFORD REALTY. Assistant City Planner Yost told the Commission this 31' SF wall sign with interior illumination could have been put up in a commercial area merely with a building permit. However, it is in an R-3 zone, and such signing is prohibited in residential areas. Therefore, it is being appealed to the Planning Commission on grounds of hardship, in that the City allowed this property to be developed with an office building. He introduced Mr. Cooper of Coast -QRS. Correspondence dated 2/11/75 from Coast -QRS was distributed, which pointed out that a variance was granted to the Equitable Life Insurance Company in 1965 for a larger wall sign; it was emphasized that the property owner and his tenants are losing business becuase customers are uncertain of their location. In the ensuing Commission discussion, Commissioner Taylor commented that if the sign were permitted, it would be reasonable to allow the State of California, also a tenant, a like sign; as well as other tenants. This could lead to a difficult situation. Commissioner Sine agreed, stating he could agree with identity for the building, but not for individual tenants. After some further discussion, Commissioner Sine moved this appeal be denied, Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. On inquiry from the Chair, the City Attorney stated that this decision may be appealed by filing within five days. CITY PLANNER REPORT The City Planner stated that proposed fees for additional staff work are to be reported to Council in March. This would include fees for - 17 - additional staff work are to be reported to Council in March. This would include fees for amendment,of applications that had already received Council approval, business licenses, and code enforcement and appeals of staff and planning commission decisions. He noted that a special permit application may be forthcoming for Avis Car Sales, since it has been determined they are in -violation of their present special permit. Anza Pacific Corporation may soon submit a special permit application for vehicle parking on their property as an interim use. He stated that the City Council still has the roof sign ordinance in committee. Council approval is pending on Commission policy and procedure for processing minor permits. Regarding the tentative joint study meeting with Council on March 31, the Commission considered that since there was a successful joint study meeting January 15, this March meeting would not be necessary. Chairman Mink announced Commissioner Norberg's resignation as representative on the League of California Cities Housing Task Force, and the Commission appointed Commissioner Sine to replace him. The Commission set these priorities for the Planning Department: 1. Preparation of mandatory elements of the General Plan. 2. Preparation of study outline for inspection and code enforcement program for the Corbitt subdivision. 3. As a result of suggestion by Chairman Mink, future consideration of reclassification of all parking lots as open space for future recreation. 4. Future rezoning of east side of El Camino from R-3 to C-1 from Peninsula Avenue to Burlingame Avenue. Commissioner Jacobs announced she would not be able to attend March 24 meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting regularly adjourned at 12:45 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary