HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.06.28THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
June 28, 1976
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli None
F rancard
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
City Planner Swan
City Attorney Coleman
City Engineer Kirkup
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Taylor at 7:34 P.M.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
The minutes of the June 14, 1976 meeting were approved as written.
HEARINGS
1. FINAL EIR-38P FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF 8 LOTS FROM C-1 TO C-2 FOR THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME.
C.P. Swan informed Commission that two pages of minutes at the June 14 hearing on
Draft EIR-38P have been incorporated in this Final EIR; any inquiries or written
responses would also have been incorporated. In his opinion Final EIR-38P was ready
for certification by the Commission.
Secy. Sine read letter of June 25, 1976 from the Advance Print Shop signed by
Donald N. Freitas opposing the proposed reclassification from C-1 to C-2, and letter
of June 24, 1976 from Adelaide Caskey Givens of 102 Copley Avenue, Redwood City,
CA. 94062, property owner of 201 Highland Avenue in the project area, favoring the
proposed reclassification of her property.
C. Sine did not see a big problem with regard to Hatch Lane unloading as people seemed
to do their own self -policing in this respect. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comment.
Charles A. Wilson, 15 Stanley Road, Burlingame suggested restoring curb and gutter
at all driveways at 201 Highland Avenue, with the property owner and/or business
paying the cost. The public hearing was declared closed and Commission comments were
requested.
In response to C. Jacobs' request, the overlay zone alternative was explained. This
would establish an overlay zone for the 8 lot area which could continue the'C-1
classification, but which could permit a C-2 use with a special permit from the City.
-2 -
Replying to C. Sine's question, C.A. Coleman informed the Commissioner he was
eligible to vote on all items on the agenda.
C. Mink confirmed that a "no change" alternative had been included in the EIR. It
was found this Final Environmental Impact Report was complete, meeting all of the
requirements and incorporating all changes adopted at the June 14 meeting. C. Jacobs
moved Final EIR-38P be certified and recommended to City Council for adoption.
Second C. Cistulli and approved by unanimous roll call vote.
2. RECLASSIFICATION OF 8 LOTS IN BLOCK 11, TOWN OF BURLINGAME, FROM C-1 TO C-2
(APN 029-211-030 THROUGH 080 INCL., -28Q, -270), BEING ALL PROPERTY WEST OF
HIGHLAND AVENUE AND CALIFORNIA DRIVE, EAST OF HATCH LANE, BETWEEN CITY PARKING
LOT M AND HOWARD AVENUE, BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME.
C.P. Swan reviewed City Council minutes of April 5, 1976, at which time Thor
Thorstenson's appeal of Planning Commission denial had been heard. There had been
considerable discussion about a possible reclassification, and concern expressed
about repair work presently being done in the C-1 District which might be expanded.
Mr. Thorstenson had urged Council to investigate the matter of rezoning from C-1
to C-2. One Councilman had stated it seemed the whole block could be rezoned.
Another recognized the present nonconforming use and current concern for abatement
of such uses. Councilman Harrison had asked for a study by staff. Thor Thorstenson
agreed to and received a special permit from Council, overruling Commission's denial,
for a period of six months. Continuing, the C.P. noted one letter in opposition to
the rezoning had been received and one in support from a property owner in the project
area. He told Commission each property owner and business establishment had been
provided a copy of the EIR and had received Notice of Hearing for tonight's meeting;
also Council had already received the Draft EIR. He stressed the need for Commission
decision so that a recommendation on reclassification could go forward to Council.
Commission discussion ensued with concerns about traffic and the concern that once
these eight lots are reclassified any permitted C-2 use could come in if space were
available. Chm. Taylor asked for public comment; there being none, he declared the
public hearing closed.
C. Jacobs wished to pursue the alternative of an overlay zone. It was C. Mink's
thought that in denying the Thorstenson special permit Commission had been more
concerned with granting a use permit for a nonconforming use; he was concerned about
rezoning and allowing all possible C-2 uses which could cause more traffic problems.
He supported the overlay zone concept to get the effect of C-2 (with special permit
from Commission) but still retain a C-1 zone.
After further Commission discussion, C. Sine moved approval of the Reclassification
from C-1 to C-2. Second by C. Cistulli and the motion failed to carry by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, KINDIG, SINE
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, MINK, TAYLOR
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
WE
C. Jacobs then moved that the existing 8 lots in Block 11, Town of Burlingame,
now zoned C-1 remain C-1, except that C-2 uses be allowed with a special permit
from the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, SINE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
C.A. Coleman told the Commission a resolution had been prepared for its review.
During discussion of the Findings, Commission requested qualifying Item #2 to
indicate the availability of land for C-2 development "in this section of" the City
of Burlingame is limited. An additional Finding of Fact was drafted to the effect
that there are certain uses permitted in the C-2 District which the Commission finds
inappropriate and which could be incompatible with existing uses within and around
the area under consideration. It was agreed by the Commission that the C.A. prepare
a formal resolution with the aforementioned changes for signatures of the Chairman
and Secretary. C.A. Coleman then requested a vote on Resolution No. 1-76. C. Jacobs
moved approval of Resolution No. 1-76, recommending to City Council reclassification
of the subject lots in Block 11, Town of Burlingame from C-1 (retail commercial) to
an overlay district allowing C-2 uses with a special permit from the Planning
Commission. Second by C. Kindig and approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, SINE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Chm. Taylor acknowledged the presence in the audience of former Planning Commissioner,
Col. E. L. Norberg and Mrs. Norberg.
3. DRAFT EIR-37P FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF SINGLE LOT FROM R-1 TO C-3, FOR PROPOSED
"HOUSE OF TRAVEL," A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF DWIGHT ROAD
AND PENINSULA AVENUE, BY CHARLES N. ELEY FOR PERBAK CORPORATION.
4. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOT 17, BLOCK 36 OF THE LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION IN THE
TOWN OF BURLINGAME (APN 029-301-160), LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DWIGHT ROAD
AND PENINSULA AVENUE, FROM R-1 TO C-3, BY PERBAK CORPORATION, PAUL S. PERATIS,
PRESIDENT, AND K. G. MC GAVIN. OWNER.
Chm. Taylor invited comments from Charles N. Eley who prepared EIR-37P under contract
to the City. Mr. Eley noted one error in the EIR regarding the property owner. This
should have been reported as Mrs. K. G. McGavin. He said it appeared the environmental
impact of the proposed small professional office building was not great and that an
EIR had been requested by staff because of the zoning change from R-1 to C-3.
Adverse effects included some additional demand for parking at certain hours of the
day, and approximately 40 vehicle trips per day would be added with the initial staff
of the travel agency. These vehicular trips might be less if there were another
kind of professional office use. Most of the trips for the travel agency would be
customer oriented. He noted a third adverse impact would be the loss of permanent
open space. At present the site is barren and not too attractive; however, it might
be used as a minipark or some other similar use. The project would generate some
additional property taxes and licensing fees, and would increase employment in the
city by 3 to 6 permanent jobs. In addition the site would be landscaped. Setback
requirements similar to the residential district would be maintained.
-4 -
Alternatives considered in the EIR included a single family home for which the
height and bulk of the building would be approximately the same and the number of
vehicle trips generated would be less. A multi -family residential structure would
be larger and more bulky, and the vehicle trips generated by either a duplex or a
triplex would be less than the proposed project. Mr. Eley stated that the larger
question might be if the project would set a precedent for other rezoning in the
area; he noted 5 of 8 properties adjacent to the site are not owner occupied at
present. The opposite side of Peninsula Avenue in the City of San Mateo is zoned
Neighborhood Commercial. This might create some pressure for nonresidential uses
on the Burlingame side of the street. There are no other vacant lots on Peninsula
Avenue and all are developed with homes.
C. Jacobs and C. Mink questioned the sign as mentioned on page 13, third paragraph,
under Impact. C.P. Swan commented that no ground sign is permitted in the front
setback in the C-3.District; a pole sign is a structure and must also meet the 15'
setback requirement. He advised that a sign to identify a professional office
building could be a wall sign and could project 12" from the wall of the building.
C. Mink noted the paragraph regarding a sign was not a correct statement.
The impact of parking was brought up and Mr. Eley noted a mitigation measure in the
EIR which suggested that the applicant make arrangements for off-site employee
parking. Chm. Taylor indicated his feeling that the EIR deals too much with a
specific business and that Commission should be discussing any use that could be
allowed in a C-3 District. At this time C.P. Swan distributed to Commission and
Mr. Eley copies of Chapter 25.40, C-3 District Regulations, noting Commissioners
must then expand their thinking to include all permitted uses in C-3: banks, building
and loan associations, financial institutions, offices of physicians, surgeons,
dentists and other healing professions, offices of real estate, insurance and
similar professions and offices for other recognized professional activities. He
stated that all EIRs tend to develop a specific project, if only for an illustration
of the impact, as it would be difficult to visualize number of cars, lot coverage,
et cetera without an illustration. Consideration of all permitted uses would require
a great expansion of hypothetical illustrations of impact. He suggested Commission
could incorporate Chapter 25.40 by reference in the Environmental Impact Report.
C. Jacobs was informed by C.E. Kirkup that the water main on Peninsula Avenue is 3"
and on Dwight Road it is 4" which is adequate for the proposed usage. Chm. Taylor
next asked for comments from the audience. Paul S. Peratis, president of Perbak
Corporation addressed the Commission, stating he felt the project would greatly
enhance the area and would add additional revenue to the City of Burlingame. He
explained that he planned to have his wife (a travel agent for 15 years) manage
the agency to service the Burlingame, Hillsborough and San Mateo areas, and advised
that the gas station across the street has said it could provide a few parking
spaces.
The following nearby property owners spoke in opposition to the reclassification
and noted possible impacts of this change: Mildred DaDalt, 39 Bancroft Road,
Burlingame; Charles A. Wilson, 15 Stanley Road, Burlingame; Norris Johnson, 20 Victoria
Road, Burlingame; Chris Elmgreen, 16 Dwight Road, Burlingame; Al Tipsword, 405 Studio
Circle, San Mateo (owner of Lot 16, Block 36); Mrs. Phil Knight, 23 Dwight Road,
Burlingame. Charlotte Kalbhenn whose mother lives at Channing and Peninsula Avenue,
Burlingame noted the traffic problem on Peninsula Avenue at present. Chm. Taylor
then declared the public hearing closed and requested Commission questions. Speaking
to the subject of schools on page 30 of the EIR, C. Jacobs was informed by C. Mink
that having additional children in schools does cost more, and the statement
regarding schools is correct. Noting the mention of rental property, C. Sine
commented that somewhat less than 50% of Burlingame is rental property, including a
number of houses, as Burlingame does not have an abundance of condominiums or apartments.
-5-
C. Mink spoke to the completeness of the EIR as follows, noting a number of pages
and making suggestions for revisions. On page 2 the change of owner is an.obvious
change. On page 4, Section C, The Development Proposal - rewrite (1) to state the
proposal is to rezone to C-3, (2) list the permitted uses in C-3, and then include
the particular example as an illustration only. Page 7 - the plot plan would be
illustrative only. Page 8 - the elevations would also be illustrative. Page 10,
Traffic and Circulation - under Impact the first sentence is fact, namely, rezoning
to C-3 would cause some traffic increases. Regarding trips of employees and
customers in general, the remainder of this section might more properly be written
to discuss the travel agency as an illustration only. On page 11, in the paragraph
beginning, "Five parking spaces would be provided," include a statement regarding
meeting the parking requirements of the City of Burlingame in C-3. Page 13, general
section on Appearance and Design - the first sentence under Impact is a fact. Include
the 15' setback and 0.29 floor area ratio, but suggest rewriting the remainder of
that paragraph to meet the general requirements of the C-3 zone rather than the
specific proposal as submitted. This paragraph discusses a specific building,which
is an illustration rather than what the EIR is actually concerned with. In this same
section, regarding signs, suggest including simply the statement, "Any signs would
have to conform with the regulations of the City of Burlingame."
C. Mink continued, with regard to the next several pages, he would accept them as
accurate regarding physical data. Page 18, Taxation and Employment - under Impact
(first paragraph) believe it unwise to include dollar amount in the first sentence.
Merely state: "With the completion of the proposed development, it is estimated
that the assessed value would increase." The first sentence of the next paragraph.
is accurate, stating the City would derive some benefits; however, again, the rest
of this paragraph is an illustration of a specific project only. The last sentence
is fact. The Commissioner stated with regard to the next several pages, including
Hydrology and Water Quality, Climate and Air Quality, Soils and Geology, he would
have to take the consultant's word for their accuracy. On page 22, Section 1,
Vegetation and Wildlife, under Impact, he would prefer reciting the landscaping
requirements for C-3 Districts rather than the specific proposal. Page 26, Growth
Inducing Impact (bottom of page) - The specific reference probably should be
generalized to "C-3 District."
It was generally felt C. Mink's statements reflected the views of the Commission
as a whole. Charles Eley advised the Chm. a revision of the EIR could be made
within two weeks. Replying to C. Jacobs' question, members of the audience said
the lot had been vacant for 70 odd years and the Planning Commission had turned down
variance requests time after time. C.P. Swan commented that the Draft EIR had been
noticed for public hearing and the Final EIR could be scheduled in two weeks time.
He noted Commission policy regarding EIRs on reclassification.
Following discussion with the C.A. on procedure, Chm. Taylor tabled Item #3 of the
agenda and proceeded to Item A. He was advised by Paul S. Peratis that his
previous brief comments still stood. C.P. Swan reviewed this Reclassification
application and the Environmental Assessment form which had been forwarded to
Commission. He noted items of information in the initial study assessment: existing
site, proposed project, impact and mitigation measures. Mitigation measures had not
been considered at any length during the previous discussion; proposed mitigation
measures included primary access limited to Dwight Road, property to be improved
with building covering about 1100 SF of lot area and landscaped. The hours of
operation at most would be 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM with no impact at all in the evening
when the building would be vacant. The C.P. pointed out that in over 70 years
time no single family dwelling had been built on this site, and if rezoned the
proposed project need not have the impact of other permitted C-3 uses. He suggested
the Commission might approve this zoning change for one year for this specific
project, with the condition it revert back to R-1 if the proposed professional
office building were not built.
Secy. Sine read.into the record the following petition dated June 25, 1976 containing
72 signatures.
"TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
We, the undersigned, do hereby want it be known that we are opposed
to the proposed re -zoning of the lot located at the corner of Peninsula
Avenue and Dwight Road, in said city of Burlingame.
This area has been zoned R-1 for many years, and we still want it to
remain so. Re -zoning it from R-1 to C-3 is a big change in this area.
We as homeowners do not want further encroachment into the priceless
residential areas."
After reading of the pet'ition,Mr. and Mrs. Ross Smith, 15 Dwight Road, Burlingame
requested their names be added to it. Boris Bertolucci, 728 Fairfield Road,
Burlingame was recognized by the Chm. and stated his feeling Peninsula Avenue
was not a good place to raise a family because of the traffic. Charles A. Wilson
spoke again, commenting that anyone who pays $27,000 for a piece of property certainly
isn't going to build an R-1 home on it. John Da Dalt, 39 Bancroft Road, Burlingame
suggested the City buy the lot for a minipark and dedicate it to Frank Anderson,
former Park Supt. for many years. Al Tipsword reiterated he had bought his property
(next door to the subject lot) for speculation purposes and opposed rezoning a single
lot; he suggested the Commission consider rezoning none or all of that side of the
street. Mrs. Phil Knight reiterated her opposition to rezoning. Emma Horn of 9
Stanley Road, Burlingame and Emily Czapkay of 10 Stanley Road, Burlingame stated
their fears regarding parking and more rezoning if this reclassification is approved.
Mildred Da Dalt, 39 Bancroft Road determined from Mr. Peratis that the "House of
Travel" is not a franchise and, in fact, he has found he would be unable to use
that name.
Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed and was reminded by C. Jacobs, with
all due respect, that if someone has something more to say he should be recognized.
There were no further audience comments.
C. Sine questioned the procedure for noticing this particular application, a site
which abuts City of San Mateo property. He noted the rule is to notice an area
within 500 feet of the site. He felt that for sufficient noticing the entire area
of the circle, or an equivalent area of property, should be noticed. C.A. Coleman
noted the language of the Ordinance Code which states ". . . each owner of property
. . . which lies within a radius of five hundred feet . ." and told Commission
this had been done. There is nothing in the Code that mentions square footage.
It was further reported notice of hearing had been published in the San Mateo Times
on June 18, 1976. In addition to 79 property owners within 500 foot radius, notice
of hearing letters had been sent to City of San Mateo, San Mateo Union High School
District and Woodlake Apartments.
-7 -
Further Commission discussion found: parking and traffic are problems now and will
undoubtedly get worse, especially as the Anza Pacific waterfront properties are
developed; the solution is not to rezone one lot; spot zoning is undesirable; a
more appropriate solution might be to study rezoning the whole area; widening the
street is one possible solution; the proposal is a good project for the City but
is at the wrong location and inappropriate for that area.
There was discussion as to procedure for action on the EIR and the Reclassification.
The C.A. indicated that a vote could be taken on the Reclassification at this
meeting. Preparation of the Final EIR is an administrative matter. The Final EIR
can be certified by action of the Commission at a subsequent meeting and a resolution
with the Commission's recommendation on the rezoning can then be acted upon and
forwarded to the Council. (The certified Final EIR and the resolution adopted by
the Planning Commission would complete the Commission actions.) C. Jacobs questioned
voting on the Reclassification.before approval of the Final EIR. C. Kindig also
questioned this procedure because the applicant may want to appeal to the City
Council.
C. Sine then moved that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council denial
of the Reclassification of Lot 17, Block 36, Lyon and Hoag Subdivision, Town of
Burlingame, located at the corner of Dwight Road and Peninsula Avenue, from R-1
to C-3. Second by C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved by unanimous roll call vote.
Chm. Taylor removed Draft EIR-37P from the table and, with Commission concurrence,
set Final EIR-37P for hearing July 12, 1976. A recess was called at 9:55 P.M.,
after which the meeting reconvened at 10:05 P.M.
5. VARIANCE TO COVER 43.3% OF R-1 LOT AT 305 DWIGHT ROAD (APN 029-187-090), BY
MR. AND MRS. ROBERT FANl1CCH I .
C.P. Swan reviewed this variance application, noting that it was very well documented.
He distributed photographs and referred to previously distributed floor plans showing
the existing kitchen -area and the proposed expansion. The addition would be next
to the present kitchen and immediately to the back of the existing garage, and
would have very little impact on any of the surrounding properties. He noted that
a copy of the applicant's affidavit for variance had been mailed to Commissioners
which fully documented the need for the kitchen addition and the hardships which
would result if the variance were denied.
Secy. Sine read letters of approval and support from the following neighbors:
Mr. and Mrs. E. Cunningham, next door neighbors; Ernest W. and Euleda L. Sulger,
500 Burlingame Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. H. J. Meisel, 416 Burlingame Avenue; and Lynn E.
and Ruth Carl, 512 Burlingame Avenue. There was no audience comment and the Chm.
declared the public hearing closed.
C. Kindig confirmed from Mrs. Fanucchi that the lot is 5400 SF in area and that there
was insufficient eating area in the kitchen at present. C. Mink stated findings as
required under Sec. 25.54.020 of the code: that there are exceptional circumstances
involved; that the variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a property right of the owner; that the granting of the variance would not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to
other property owners; and, while lot coverage would be slightly over the maximum
allowed in an R-1 zone, the granting of this variance would not adversely affect
the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, but in effect would enhance the city.
C. Mink then moved the granting of this variance in compliance with the plans
submitted. Second C. Cistulli and approved by unanimous roll call vote. Chm. Taylor
informed the applicants the variance would become effective on July 7, 1976 if there
10
is no appeal to City Council.
V. CITY PLANNER REPORT.
C.P. Swan noted letter of June 16 to Mayor Victor A. Mangini from the Chairman of
the Planning Commission with Planning Commission recommendation: "We urge the
Council to take such steps as are feasible to actively pursue the acquisition of
land for a road between North Carolan and Rollins Road." He reported the records
show that a resubdivision map creating four lots was approved by the Planning
Commission September 10, 1957. The present property is Lot D of that resubdivision.
Another letter by Chm. Taylor dated June 23 had been sent to Robert N. Podesta,
Chairman of the Traffic, Safety C Parking Commission transmitting the working paper
relative to parking in the downtown area and indicating interest in working with
that Commission on this problem.
Mr. Swan advised Commission of a letter just received from the San Mateo County
Safety Council with an invitation for City of Burlingame.to select a representative
to serve as a Director at Large on their Board of Directors. There was little
Commission response, and they were advised to contact the City Manager if they had
interest in this position. He also reminded Commissioners that on July 6 Council
will be hearing two appeals of Planning Commission decisions: denial of a sign
permit at 310 Lang Road, and denial of variance for a pool accessory structure in
side yard at 1725 Hunt Drive.
Chm. Taylor announced the League of California Cities Conference would be held in
San Diego during October.
The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary