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