Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.08.25THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 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 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 by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P. M. MINUTE S The minutes of the meeting of August 11, 1975 were approved as written with the following revision: Page 14, Item 15, second paragraph, addition of, "Mrs. Jacobs stated she preferred to do this privately as an individual.' 1. DRAFT NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (ND-GP6 POSTED AUGUST 15, 197 5) AND RE SOLUTION . NO . 14-75. Chairman Sine announced this item for hearing, and requested review from City Planner Swan. City Planner Swan distributed Appendix E of the Noise Element to the Commission. He explained that the EIAR for the S.F. Airport, received about a month ago, had failed to satisfy the concerns of the City, especia113 with regard to ground traffic. For this reason, the City had authorized Earth Metrics to review it. Appendix E, containing new information for the City, is the result of this review. He told Commissioners the Noise Element sets forth types of programs the City could follow to mitigate existing noises, and reminded them that since Earth Metrics' contract did not commence until May, noise measure- ments were not taken during January, February and March, the winter storm period of noise over the City. He touched briefly., -:on the difficulty of communication in visualizing the idea of noise; and introduced Dr. Michael Hogan and Mr. Don L.auritson for presentation of the Noise Element. Dr. Hogan,:pointed out that while there are definite health effects Caneed•by types of noises, particularly occupational noises, the Element does not address noise from the standpoint of health since this type of noise is not pervasive over large areas. Rather, community noise is - 2 - assessed at an annoyance level. Such assessment is a highly judgmental matter. The City government must determine what levels of noise are acceptable. The role of Earth Metrics is informational and analytical. Dr. Hogan listed purposes of producing a noise element as: 1. Direct planning to develop ways in which to address concern for noise in the planning processes without adding new systems and new processes. 2. Establish what type of ongoing surveillance is necessary for updating the noise element and monitoring the noise conditions in the community_. Dr. Hogan considered surveillance most vital in aircraft .-no ses,----since it is only with an understanding of how the aircraft noises change with time that the city will be able to deal with them. 3. Determine type of enforcement. He briefly discussed the mechanics of developing detail in which a computer model is used to ascertain what levels of noise exist and will exist in the future. This allows establishment of measured noise control programs. He considered the listing of the programs at the City's disposal and the opinions on their value as the essence of the Element. Dr. Hogan reviewed in some detail the three noise abatement and control programs proposed. The first program, Administrative Review Process, would control public and private construction projects. The several steps of this program and his comments are: 1. Establishment of need for EIR on project, first determining criteria. He noted that planning oriented criteria, utilizing existing depart- ments and programs, is detailed in the Element. 2. Design of scope of work for EIR. He stated this step should be taken implementing the above criteria. 3. Implementation of California State Uniform Building Code Acoustical Clearances. Dr. Hogan considered this code quite complex for a building inspection department to cope with, but that procedures laid out in the Element would simplify dealing with it. The second program, Acoustical Analysis, involves aircraft noises and what might be needed in a surveillance program. Dr. Hogan questioned whether or not the airport itself had developed very clear information about the acoustical qualities of the development, and referred Commissioners to Appendix E for an analysis of this situation. He was concerned with lack of detail and omission of seasonal variations of airport noises. For this reaion, he stressed the importance of an ongoing program of airport noise surveillance, and stated there was no reason at present to consider the airport's own monitoring program was comprehensive enough. - 3 - The third program deals with Surface Transportation Noise, its control and abatement. Dr. Hogan suggested that as an example of good faith this program could be initiated by implementing noise control on the City's own vehicles. Dr. Hogan called attention to Section 6 of the element which relates to the police power of the City to enforce the State Code. He noted that the State Code calls for sound levels to decrease over a period of time, and it is only with an enforcement program that this will be done. The State has left it up to individual local government agencies to enforce these levels. Included in this section are recommendations for an educational campaign for the citizens of Burlingame. Another part of this section deals with a noise ordinance for the City. A model noise ordinance is presented in Appendix F. of the element. The final part of Section 6 deals with consideration of noise attenuation for some of the more severely impacted properties near Bayshore Freeway. Dr. Hogan then introduced Mr. Lauritson for a more detailed discussion of noise measurements. Mr. Lauritson told the Commission the whole city was covered in the project of noise measurement. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise measurements were taken in five locations in the City. He stated two criteria were used in noise measurement: Which land uses are most affected by noise? What is the source of the noise? Land uses most affected were found to be private residences, schools, parks and hospitals. Main sources of noise were the airport and ground transportation along major arterials. In judging airport noise, the CNEL contours of the Airport Land Use Commission were used. He reviewed the five representative noise measurement locations in the City, why they were chosen, and the CNEL measurement. These are: 1. Old Bayshore Highway between Malcolm and Mitten. Industrial land use area, with airport generated noise, with possible future development as waterfront commercial. CNEL of 73. 2. El Camino west of intersection with Primrose and Bayswater. Representative of downtown commercial area traffic. CNEL of 73. 3. Residential area affected by freeway noise. Rollins Road at its intersection with Dwight Road and Trenton Way. CNEL of 76. 4. Residential area affected by airport noise. Trousdale north of Sebastian. CNEL of 68. S. Quiet residential area. Devereux Drive near Balboa. CNEL of 62. From these representative land uses the evening and nighttime measurements were analyzed and put into a summary with the daytime measurements. From this was developed an estimated CNEL for the present noise level. He suggested a program of measurements be carried out in five years at these sites for purposes of comparison. - 4 - Chairman Sine opened the meeting to Commission questions. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the N -S locations of the sites near Balboa and Sebastian, P. 3-6. Dr. Hogan reminded the Commission that neither of these streets run true N -S. Commissioner Francard questioned if there were a way to measure whether noise travels louder downward than upward, and if consequently aircraft noise is loudest in winter. Dr. Hogan confirmed that it is, and that noise depends on the thermal inversion. Cold air near the earth causes noise to travel downward and a warm air layer near the earth causes it to go upward. Commissioner Taylor questioned statement on P. 1-1 that airport noise on an average impacts mostly the industrial and commercialland uses, and that the major impact in the city is from surface transportation.• He considered many 'residential areas are impacted all year long by aircraft noise. Dr. Hogan commented that in the term "noise impact" subjective values are dealt with. From an actual technical measurement of energy, it is the surface transportation which causes the most impact. Commissioner Taylor remarked he was reluctant to ignore the year-long surface impact of the airport. Commissioner Jacobs questioned why Highway 280 is not included in the noise measurement table since it does have an impact on neighboring residences. Dr. Hogan stated it could be included, and could have been omitted because of much less traffic than Bayshore. Chairman Sine requested audience comment on the Noise Element. Mrs. Eleanor Ragsdale, 1105 Oxford Road, questioned if this element covered recommendations on barking dogs, which are a nuisance in residential areas. Chairman Sine reported that at this stage it is merely a recommen- dation, and Commissioner Taylor amplified that the report details the San Francisco "Barking Dog" ordinance, but suggests the City of Burlingame delay any such action until San Francisco's experience, with its adverse citizen reaction, can be evaluated. City Attorney Coleman informed Mrs. Ragsdale that the City does have an ordinance prohibiting the disturbance of the peace by animal noises, and its enforcement depends upon citizens' complaints and their proof. Mrs. Ragsdale stated a citizens' committee has been formed to combat airport noise. Chairman Sine remarked that the adoption of a noise element is a first step. Much can be accomplished but it will take time. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the omission of figures on Area 51, Table 3-3. Dr. Hogan stated these figures were too late for this report but would be in the final documents. Commissioner Jacobs questioned derivation of 10% increase in traffic by 1990, page 3-21. Dr. Hogan stated that is the assumption of the City Traffic Engineer. There was Commission question of statement on Page 3-25, that BART, if implemented, would be less noisy than the present railroad system. Dr. Hogan agreed that noise related to service yards and stations should be included. Commissioner Jacobs noted the restriction, Page 4-7, that no person shall be allowed to increase CNEL noise levels by more than 5 DBA, and questioned how it could be accomplished. Dr. Hogan stated a noise ordinance. He agreed that domestic noises, i.e., chain saws, power mowers, etc. are not mentioned in the element, but could be specified in an ordinance. In response to Commissioner Taylor's question as to what constitutes a 5DBA increase, Dr. Hogan stated this would be an - 5 - almost double increase in sound range and very noticeable. That is why the figure is used. Even 3 DBA would be a critical increase. Commissioner Mink was interested in Section 5 from the standpoint of future developments rather than punitive measures against present offenders. He considered one of the critical lines in determination of need for EIR is that a project should be considered as a noise receiver as well as a noise producer. This would be important in certain kinds of use permits with noise sensitive uses. He agreed that certain residen- tial noises such as power mowers, etc. should be controlled, and suggested a phasing out os some types of equipment over a period of years. Commissioner Mink thought the section on acoustical treatment of buildings should be applied to major remodeling as well as new construction. The Commissioner had several suggestions on the surface transportation section. He suggested an increase in setback for residences near major arterials, a long term process, and the possibility of future restructuring of arterials in the city. He could see no present solution to the problem of aircraft noise, but did suggest underpasses rather than overpasses at major intersections to decrease traffic noise. He noted that with the elevation of autos, the noise is increased. He thought some action could be suggested to pressure Caltrans on their design requirements for elevated roads and highways. He also suggested the solution of moving major overpasses out away from the community. Commissioner Jacobs raised the question of the cost of a representative EIR, and questioned if it would be around. $500. Dr. Hogan considered the cost of an EIR would depend on the,firm preparing it, but suggested that such a price would be for a fairly large project. Commissioner Jacobs declared she did not approve of the inclusion of the word "all" in 6.2, Declaration of Policy, which reads in part, "The City of Burlingame declares a policy of excluding and prohibiting all annoying, excessive and unnecessary noises from all sources . . " She felt the word "all" was subjective and open to many interpretations. The noise ordinance, if adopted, would have certain prohibitions and should suffice. Dr. Hogan stated this section was included because the City should declare a uniform policy that would be defensible in court. Chairman Sine, remarking that Earth Metrics now had the benefit of much direction, questioned the City Planner as to the time schedule of the element. The City Planner stated this element should be adopted by the Council by September 20, and suggested the draft element be sent to Council, with comments of the Commission, for study September 10. It could be continued to the next planning meeting on September 8. City Attorney Coleman suggested the public hearing be held open for public comment on the rewritten element. Chairman Sine announced this element would be continued to the meeting of September 8. Several commissioners commented they considered the element especially well written and understandable. - 6 - 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 12, 13 AND 14, BLOCK 21, TOWN OF BURLINGAME AT 234/236/238 MYRTLE ROAD (APN 029-215-220/230) ZONED R-3, BY MACKAY AND SOMPS FOR WARREN P. HOUCK. Before introducing this application, Chairman Sine suggested to Commissioners that mention be made of any visits to sites of applications. This is in line with suggestion made at 1975 Planning Commissioners Institute Meeting. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested report from City Engineer Davidson. The City Engineer distributed copies of tentative parcel map. He stated that if this map were approved, the approval should be conditioned as follows: 1. An agreement should be entered into between the developers and the City Council for a contribution to the sewer improvements. 2. One or both of the existing dwellings should -be demolished before the final map is approved. No detached dwellings are permitted in R-3. 3. This map is in Block 21. This designation should appear on the map. City Engineer Davidson reported that other than the above, the tentative map met all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Leroy Johnson, developer, was given permission to address the Commission. He agreed to all conditions except the demolition of the buildings. This is because all documentation including the final map must be ready for recording before the date of closing the mortgage with FHA. Therefore, demolition prior would have to be at the developer's own expense. He suggested inclusion of an agreement which would state the demolition would take place -son endorsement by the FHA. City Engineer Davidson suggested that the City Council could add this as a condition upon their approval of the map. City Attorney Coleman indicated this would be acceptable. Mr. Johnson then distributed just completed revised plans which show the block number. Commissioner Jacobs noted it was necessary o$,� the final map to show deeds, trust certificates, etc. and questionTeir availability. Mr. Johnson replied they would have a title policy issued which would go into the final package on the day of the closing. A bonding device is generally used. He indicated the figure of $10,000 was satisfactory as a payment toward sewer improvements. Chairman Sine commented that he had voted against the original project and would vote against this map because he thought it was a poor project which would add nothing to the City. He added he had initiated consideration of the $10,000 sewer contribution for this project. Commissioner Taylor moved that this tentative map be approved with these conditions: That there be an agreement with the City Council for assessment for the sewer and that the applicant post surety guaranteeing to remove the buildings upon completion of the map. - 7 - Discussion followed as to whether the $10,000 payment to the City should be included. City Attorney Coleman remarked that would be worked out with staff. City Planner Swan stated the Council had approved a special permit for the project with that condition, and it need not be mentioned in approval of the parcel map. Commissioner Jacobs reported she had visited the site. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,MINK,NORBE RG,TAYLOR HAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,SINE 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF IAT 40 AND NWLY 1/2 OF LOT 39 AND SELY 1/2 OF IAT 41, BLACK 58, EASTON ADDITION NO. 7 AT 1348 DESOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY EDWARD W. BACCA FOR JOEW-AND NOREEN DEVINE Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested staff comment. City Planner Swan remarked he had visited the site, and questioned if a permit had been issued for the remodeling already going on at the existing house. He noted a new sliding lass door in the second story with no porch. City Engineer Davidson reported this parcel map divides 100' frontage into two 50' lots. However, because the roof overhang of the existing house site, Parcel B is less than 50' wide; and this map would require a variance. He noted, however, that the applicant had submitted an alternative which would eliminate the necessity for a variance by bringing the lot line back into Parcel A. He stated the applicant had satisfied requirements for drainage; one condition of approval should be that the applicant enter into an agreement to provide water and sewer service to Parcel B. Otherwise, technical aspects of the Subdivision Map Act have been met. At the request of the Chairman, Mr. Devine addressed the Commission. He reported the purpose for the parcel map was the improvement of both parcels, and stated he had contacted his neighbors, Joseph Waaland, Harvey Petrey and Thomas Tved, who had no objections; and he offered a letter from Mr. and Mrs. I Zoellich, 1362 Desoto, stating they had no objections. Secretary Jacobs read this letter. Mr. Devine said he thought no permit was needed to change windows, and the sliding door, which will open onto a future deck, is locked. He affirmed he would get a permit for the deck. Commissioner Jacobs reported she had visited the site, and was impressed with the house on the 75' lot. However, she was concerned about another dwelling on the proposed narrow lots, and would be opposed to such a parcel map. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment. City Attorney Coleman reminded the Commission that while notices had been sent on the parcel map, no noticing had been done on a variance. He suggested this hearing be continued until a determination had been made on whether or not a variance was required and if so, until noticing had been accomplished. Commission discussion followed which concluded this course should. be followed. The public hearing was held open for future discussion, and chairman Sine requested staff to determine necessity for variance and subsequently notice if necessary. This application was continued to the meeting of September 8. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP OF 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, LOTS 1, 2, 3, and 4, BLOCK8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (RSM VOL. 70/33) ZONED C-4, BY H.G.HICKEY FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORP. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. City Engineer Davidson reported receipt of letter from H. G. Hickey requesting con- tinuance to the meeting of September 8. In compliance with this request, Chairman Sine announced this application would be continued to that meeting. 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LANDS OF KATHLEEN DORE AT MARSTEN AND ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-134-100) ZONED M-1 BY WILSEY & HAM FOR BANK OF AMERICA, NT&SA (TRUSTEE) AND KATHLEEN DORE (OWNER) Chairman Sine introduced this application and requested staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners there wasn't enough information for a full report. The parking layout requested had been received only today, along with an aerial photograph showing the conditions on the Dore property and adjacent streets. The aerial photo portrays the parking situation. Another concern is, will the proposed parcel lines establish parcels which legally comply with the code: He noted that the map might also involve a variance. Without adequate information there has been no determination or application for a variance. City Engineer Davidson listed conditions for approval of this map: 1. Applicant must enter into an agreement with the Council to provide water wain loop across the property of a design to satisfy the City Engineer. Improvement plans have been submitted that are conceptually agreeable. 2. There are discrepancies for distances in that area. Justification should be shown by land survey for distances. 3. Setback lines should be shown on existing buildings. For purposes of fire protection, it should be determined if it is intended to close up openings of structures on property line on Parcel 3. 4. If it is intent of applicant to close these openings, confirmation should be made in writing by the applicant, binding him to that requirement. 5. Need utility locations, private service location for each of buildings. Easement documents should be furnished for all of the easements and reviewed by City Attorney. 6. Applicant should be informed that this development is in a flood hazard zone, and the development should be treated accordingly. 7. Private ingress -egress easement which loops the property must be given a name, per request of the Fire Department. Chairman Sine remarked that skylights would have to be added in Building #3. The City Engineer agreed. Commission discussion followed of continuing this application to the next meeting because of insufficient information, and no determination as to variance. Mr. Bill Wright, representing the owner, was given permission to address the Commission. He reported that Mr. Arata had prepared a revised parking layout which staff had not yet had a chance to review. However, he believed the parking is more than adequate. Mr. Wright stated that the owner has no objection to any of the conditions set forth by the City Engineer. However, because of the number of years involved with this property, he urgently suggested that the tentative map be approved subject to any conditions necessary to place on it. He added that representatives would be glad to work with staff. More discussion followed, but the Commission thought action should be delayed pending staff study and a full staff report. Determination on the matter of the variance could also be made.irman Sine stipulated he ha no intention of approving until all is were dotted; all is crossed. Mr. Wright remarked that if a determination were made for a variance, the owners would possibly withdraw the application. Chairman Sine announced this application.would be continued to the Meeting of September 8. City Planner Swan and Assistant City Planner Yost detailed some of the problems with this map. This is for four lots, and one additional lot line is necessary. Lot 4 contains two buildings but 3 business establish- ments. Until it is known where the lots are, it is not possible to determine whether a particular business has enough parking. One or two lots in Lot 4 would make it easier to handle. Lot 3 has a parking license agreement for parking of nine cars on adjacent parcel. This is a subtVaction of 9 spaces from Parcel 3. After further discussion, Chairman Sine requested Mr. Wright and Mr. Arata to work with staff. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF'APN 026-134-100) BY DON YARBROUGH, BAW OF AMERICA, NT&SA FOR KATHLEEN M. DORE, ET AL, OWNER; AND LESSEE, RICHARD GEORGE OF R&R AUTO REPAIR SERVICE Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. He requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost. He stated that this is an application to operate an auto repair service on a portion of Lot.4 of the tentative map. The area leased - 10 - is about 850 SF and the business has one employee, the owner, with a possibility of 2 or 3 in the future. The application is not clear to staff in terms of exact area of land leased, the number and type of vehicles, where they are going to be parked, and vehicle impact on the public right of way. He introduced Mr. George who was given permission to address the Commission. Mr. George told the Commission the type of cars repaired would be classics and antiques. They would be parked at the site only as long as necessary to repair. He considered the exact area leased would be specified when the matter of the parcel map was settled. During the following Commission comment, Commissioner Jacobs questioned staff if it would be customary to consider this application when the matter of the parcel map was not concluded. City Attorney Coleman stated it would be best if the Commission did not go ahead on it. He added that the applicant is already conducting business at this location, so would not be hampered in this respect. Commissioners Jacobs, Kindig and Taylor stated they were reluctant to consider this application before the parcel map was settled. Chairman Sine announced this application would be continued to the meeting of September 8, 1975. 7.- VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 897 HINCKLEY ROAD (APN 026-321-340) BY LOUIS J. KEARN (OWNER) FOR COIT'_DRAPERY AND CARPET CLEANERS INC. (ND -61P POSTED AUGUST 15,1975) After announcing this application for hearing, Chairman Sine asked Assistant City Planner Yost for review. The Assistant City Planner reported that Coit Draperies presently occupy about 8,700 SF. In July they applied for a building permit to double their office space. With that addition, the Code will require 24 parking spaces. These spaces are available at the rear of the site. The present problem is because of a second phase of a 16' extension of the warehouse into the parking lot. Only one extra space would be required for this, but the addition would reduce the size of the lot to 22 full parking spaces. He stated 25 employees were shown on the E-2 form, but this was amended to 23 by the applicant's letter plus ten drivers and eight carpet cleaners. The onsite employment may increase by three. The project would have three parking spaces less than that required by regulations, but there are 13 or more on -street parking spaces available on the front of this lot. The Assistant City Planner introduced Mr. James L. Gerlach, Controller of Coit Cleaners. Mr. Gerlach had no comment and the meeting was turned over to Commission comment. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if a floor plan showing use had been presented. City Planner Swan confirmed this had been requested at the last meeting. Mr. Gerlach apologized that he had not realized this requirement. In response to question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Gerlach confirmed that the addition was for warehouse use, no retail sales. Commissioner Francard questioned if parking were permitted on the Bayshore side of Gilbreth. The City Engineer confirmed that it was. Chairman Sine stated he had.been at the site in the early morning and there did not appear to be a parking problem. He suggested parking spaces be identified, -truck routing be improved, and approval be conditioned upon review of parking in one or two years. Mr. Gerlach stated the lot had recently been resurfaced, hence the parking was not marked. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Replying to questions from Commissioner Mink, Mr. Gerlach stated the use of the building would not be changed, hours of operation would be from 7:00 A. M. to 6:00 P. M.; in addition to onsite employees, operators of radio dispatched trucks were at the site in the morning and evening for pickup and delivery. Commissioner Norberg suggested that warehouse space could be increased by a second story or basement addition, thus not losing any parking space. Mr. Gerlach replied this would not accommodate the conveyor system used. Chairman Sine agreed it would not be practical for this reason. Commissioner Mink moved this variance be approved. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,TAYIAR,SINE NAYE S : COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG Commissioner Kindig commented he considered this application an exception. 8. VARIANCE FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHERATON INN IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-290-310) BY RUDY RAUSCH FOR SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT MOTEL COMPANY (ND -62P POSTED AUGUST 15, 1975) After introducing this application, Chairman Sine requested staff report. City Planner Swan considered it important to establish the existing parking, not necessarily where it is shown on the plans but the total number of cars that can be parked. Also, it is important to determine parking for a hotel if it has a combination of uses. He offered two approaches. One is a simplistic regulation for a hotel: one parking space for each guest room or lodging room. The other is to calculate parking based on a combination of uses. Space required for each use is added to provide a total. This method is covered in Code Section 25.70.060 which states ". the parking spaces shall be provided in relation to the proportion of the building assigned to each use and shall be the total of the combination of uses." He also noted Code Section 25.70.030 (j) (1) which may be interpreted that the city planner may determine required parking when there is a combination of spaces for mixed uses. The City Planner reviewed the various uses in the hotel and the parking required for each. Total parking required is 466 spaces. -Actual parking provided currently is 395, since there was a loss of space from a previous plan. The City Planner then reviewed car count furnished by the Sheraton Inn for June 1 through August 19. The top figure for parking -12 - was 209 cars at 7:30 P. M. on July 6. He commented that only twice during this car count period were there more than 200 cars parked there. Only five times were there more than 180 cars. He noted this is an airport hotel which caters to airline staff without automobiles. City Planner Swan explored opportunities for providing more parking. There could be tandem parking on the ramp going down to the basement. There is possible parking along the driveway parallel to Bayshore. There is the possibility of valet parking. Assuming the effective width of parking stalls was 8' instead of 9', there would be 15 more parking spaces by this method. It was further noted that the hotel manager said that there are ten rooms which are not being used by guests. Burroughs trainees are quartered at the hotel, 20 or more at a time, and provided transportation by shuttle bus. Airline employees account for 60 people and are bused to and from the airport. He requested the Commission consider these mitigating factors. The City Planner suggested conditions for approval of this application: There should be a stairway to accommodate the basement meeting rooms. This is a fire department concern. Building modifications must satisfy all Burlingame codes and regulations. If parking were to become a problem at a later date, there should be a condition to require off-site parking. The City Planner introduced Mr. Rudy Rausch, manager of the Sheraton. Mr. Rausch told Commissioners the hotel had been hampered by not having enough meeting rooms to take care of large sales meetings and conventions. For this reason, building modifications are proposed adding more meeting room space. Mr. Rausch remarked that he had always found that parking was excessive in airport hotels of this type in which he had worked. This is because of the accommodation of airline personnel. He said the Sheraton had been running at capacity for the last 120 days and there was more than adequate parking. As to future problems, he felt there was always the possibility of parking in off-site areas. Chairman Sine reported he was at the property on August 11 and could confirm Mr. Rausch's observation on plenty of parking. He also remarked that there was no evidence of vehicle use of the underground parking to be converted to meeting rooms. At the same time he investigated the possibility of the banquet room and*elayed information on this to Mr. Rausch on August 13 or 14. He then requested Commission comment and questions. In response to questions from Commissioner Mink, Mr. Rausch affirmed that the 70 x 20 space at the front end of meeting rooms 1 and 2 was a small meeting room for 30-40 people. To the left of this space is area for equipment. Mr. Rausch agreed he would be willing to specify that occupancy be limited to the rooms noted. He also agreed with the Commissioner that there should be a stairwell from the basement, and he thought toilet facilities would have to be increased and a handicapped toilet added. Commissioner Mink questioned the City Engineer if there were any regulation in the building code that would require additional toilets, for possibly 300 - 13 - people in this small space. The City Engineer indicated he was not aware of any specific code requirement to this effect. Chairman Sine remarked his observation showed only two of the elevators to be accessible to the public. The third appeared to be blocked off for the use of the service area. He added there would be a construction problem on adequate toilet facilities without a major overhaul in the existing storage area. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor moved that the application for variance be approved subject to the conditions that spaces be marked for meeting rooms 1 through 5 as shown on drawing dated August 25; and that an adequate stairway be constructed. Modification is to satisfy all building codes and regulations. The entire matter is to be submitted for review to the Planning Commission in five years for any changes in parking require- ments. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. ADDITIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS At this point Chairman Sine noted the presence of two applicants who were not scheduled on the agenda. City Planner Swan explained they had voluntarily come with plans this.evening because of a similar situation. They had both applied for building permits to add one bedroom on their existing dwellings. He reminded Commissioners of the code requirement that a single family dwelling shall not be enlarged beyond 2 bedrooms unless there are two covered parking spaces. Both of these sites have a single garage. He had told the applicants they must apply for variance. The City Planner remarkedon the inequity of this regulation when compared to the one which allows the purchase of a parking permit to park on the street. Chairman Sine gave permission for these applicants to address the Commission. Mr. Phillip Lyons, 1208 Drake, distributed plans for proposed addition of one bedroom to his dwelling. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if a carport suffices as a parking area. The City Planner replied that a carport is covered parking, but it must meet the location requirement and can't be constructed in the front or side yard. Chairman Sine reminded the applicant that the proper procedure was to bring his application to a study meeting and have hearing scheduled. Mr. Lyons pleaded ignorance of the code requirements, and requested action so that construction could be done before the winter season. Secretary Jacobs read letter of application from Mr. Lyons. After some discussion, Commissioners agreed this remodeling required a variance application, and that upon receipt of application and fee it could be noticed for hearing at the next meeting. However, no action - 14 - could be taken on this date. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners that Mr. Roy Polkinghorne of 75 Loma vista had a similar situation. Mr. Polkinghorne told Commissioners he would appreciate their consideration, since the rainy season was imminent. Commissioners agreed this could be noticed for hearing upon receipt of proper application and fee. Commissioner Kindig commented that prior legislation regarding parking permits was enacted because it was recognized that many older buildings could not put in parking. However, it was not designed to increase parking on the street. City Planner Swan added there was no way to make people put their cars in their garages, and that there are many garages which are not used. CITY PLANNER REPORT The City Planner thanked the Commission for extra time given to the Noise Element and the last two applications. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary