Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.05.24THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT CistulIi Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER May 24, 1976 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT None 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 Minutes of the May 10, 1976 meeting were approved as written after assurance by City Planner Swan to Commissioner Kindig that the following sentence at the bottom of page 5 was correct: "Burlingame does not qualify for people to obtain rehabili- tation loans." Chm. Taylor then introduced and welcomed Burlingame's new City Engineer, Ralph Kirkup. 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LANDS ADJOINING AND NE OF BLOCK 9, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 5 (APN 025-261-110/120) AND 025-271-090), ZONED M-1, BY LOUIS ARATA FOR ANN MORI OF PENINSULA SPORTS CENTER (APPLICANT) AND WAIKIKI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY WITH FRANK EDWARDS COMPANY (OWNERS). Chm. Taylor introduced this item, ascertained that Ms. Ann Mori of Peninsula Sports Center and Louis Arata, Civil Engineer were present, and asked C.E. Kirkup to comment on this tentative parcel map. The C.E. referred to his May 24, 1976 memo to the Planning Commission, commenting that this is a subdivision legalizing a previous sale; that the properties are in a former drainage easement and three of the properties do not have access to a public street; this map is filed so the applicant can buy Lot 42. He referenced his May 24 memo recommending approval of this tentative map with the following conditions: (1) Dedication of Parcel "A" to City; (2) Dedication of access easements adequately connected from Rollins Road to each new parcel; these easements to provide access for the respective Lots and for the City; (3) Preliminary Final Parcel Map (actually shown on the unsigned pian for Main Drainage Channel dated 5/20/76 prepared by Louis Arata) Note 4 - "Finish grade and/or subgrade shall be such that there will be positive drainage of the finished site to the new drainage channel. Finish grades shall be such that there will be no ponding or blockage of drainage on or across the site."; (4) Plan for Main Drainage Channel Note 5 - "The Contractor is to verify the location(s) of existing underground utilities." Further quoting -2 - the C.E.'s memo, "These conditions are proposed to be met as shown on tentative parcel map, preliminary Final Parcel Map and accompanying plan of 'Main Drainage Channel' received in City Engineer's office May 21, 1976, except that Lots 40, 41 and 42 and City, are to be included as grantees in the several access easements. Development plans for Lot 42 appear to be feasible and generally meet most of the City Engineer's requirements." The C.E. also outlined the earliest possible approvals for Tentative and Final Maps. Ms. Mori and Mr. Arata confirmed that they were familiar with the conditions as listed in the C.E.'s May 24 memo, had discussed these matters with staff, and accepted the conditions of the C.E.'s report. There being no audience comment in favor or opposed, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed, and asked for Commission questions. Planning Commission discussion brought out the following facts. This complicated parcel map was necessary as there was no way Ms. Mori could purchase an undivided parcel; she could not define perimeters on the lot she wished to purchase; the C.A. advised that the previously approved special permit for Peninsula Sports Center and this tentative parcel map application were compatible; the C.E. stated there is a drainage easement over the entire property and this subdivision will not interfere with any drainage easement; also Engineering would prefer to have access easement to Parcel 41 included as this had been deeded to rallroad.lt was determined the preliminary title report showed three owners (as listed on the agenda item) and that Peninsula Sports Center would become a fourth property owner. The C.E. confirmed to Chm. Taylor that the map was sufficient from an Engineering standpoint and the C.A. confirmed it was legally sufficient. C. Mink moved acceptance of the Tentative Parcel Map, subject to the four conditions as listed in the Director of Public Works' staff report of May 24, 1976. The motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and carried by unanimous roll call vote. Chm. Taylor told the applicants they would be informed as to when they may be required to appear before City Council. 2. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-36P, FOR A CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL AND INFANT DAY CARE CENTER, AT 1530 ROLLINS ROAD, BURLINGAME FOR THE SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BY CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT. At Chm. Taylor's request, C.P. Swan commented that the Commission has received this Draft EIR for information only since the application for a continuation high school has been withdrawn. He stated that under the revised State Guidelines information in previous environmental impact reports can be included by reference in future EIRs and it seemed wise to accept and recognize this EIR for these purposes. He requested Commission accept and file Draft EIR-36P. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL AND INFANT DAY CARE CENTER AT 1530 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-272-120), ZONED M-1, BY MAURICE GONZALEZ OF SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. Chm. Taylor asked the secretary of the Commission to read communication from San Mateo Union High School District. Secretary Sine read into the record letter dated May 19, 1976 directed to Wayne M. Swan, Burlingame City Planner, and signed by Maurice Gonzalez, Director of Maintenance, Operations & Engineering, San Mateo Union High School District, stating that the District wished to "remove without prejudice" its application for a Use Permit to use 1530 Rollins Road as a temporary site for its Peninsula High School. There being no objection, Chm. Taylor declared Item 3 of the May 24, 1976 agenda withdrawn. -3 - Item #4 on the agenda was continued until Mr. Paul Kimoto arrived. 5. VARIANCE FROM SIDEYARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXISTING SWIMMING POOL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURE AT 1725 HUNT DRIVE (APN 025-343-120), ZONED R-1, BY MAUREEN C. AND KENNETH R. TOPPING. The Chairman announced this item for hearing, ascertained that Maureen and Kenneth Topping were present and that the applicants had read the staff report. Three photographs showing the illegal accessory building were distributed. C.P. Swan paraphrased the staff report which is attached to the last page of these minutes and incorporated herein by reference. He mentioned that no building permit had been obtained for the accessory building; the fence is higher than 6 feet; the accessory building is not within the rear 30% of the lot; there is not a 5 foot side yard as required by R-1 District Regulations. His comments indicated the chronology of events leading up to this variance application, pointed out to Commissioners documents which indicate the swimming pool contractor did not construct the accessory building, and quoted part of the Fire Inspector's report of May 17, 1976 which stated: "The existence of side yards has been an advantage to the Fire Department as the distance between buildings has decreased the hazard of a fire spreading from one building to a neighboring structure. A second benefit of the side yards is that the Fire Department has been able to use hose lines and ladders on both sides which gives quick extinguishment." The C.P. stated staff believed the applicants had not submitted material to substantiate granting of this variance. Discussion between the applicants, Commission and staff ensued with some disagreement regarding who signed the application form; applicants' desire to discuss the illegalities on adjacent property; justification for a variance and proof of hardship; alleged statements by staff; the seeming disregard of the Toppings to cooperate with the City. It was determined that the pool equipment structure was built by Mr. Topping himself, a licensed contractor, and has been there for three years. Mr. Topping stated he was well aware of the laws and called the pool equipment building a "temporary" structure (his definition: anything movable within 24 hours). The applicants claimed they wished to comply with City regulations but did not care to remove the pool equipment structure.. Chm. Taylor advised the application for variance must stand on its own merits; the burden is on the applicants to show a hardship. C. Sine stated the Commission consensus: the only matter under consideration was the Toppings' application for variance. Mr. Topping stated there was no other place to put the structure in his opinion; the equipment could be put in a smaller structure. The C.P. advised this lot is 72 feet wide at the front and 88 feet at the rear; it gets wider as one gets deeper into the lot. The Secretary reported a letter of support dated April 26, 1976 and signed by three residents living next door and close to the Toppings. Chm. Taylor requested audience comment in favor or against this application; there being none, he declared the public hearing closed and asked for any further Commission questions. C. Mink asked that the staff report dated May 24, 1976 be incorporated in the minutes by reference, and pointed out a correction of date under "Background" in this report: sixth item listed as August 6, 1973 should be "1974." In'his opinion Exhibit E from the Fire Inspector dated May 17, 1976, paragraphs 4 and 5, prove this building is a detriment to the public safety and therefore the application does not meet the requirements for a variance under Sec. 25.54.020 (c). C. Mink then moved that the Commission find this application does not meet the requirements for a variance and therefore the variance be denied. Second by C. Cistulli; motion to deny was unanimously approved by roll call vote. The Chm. advised the applicants they had the right of appeal to City Council; C. A. Coleman stated an appeal could be made up to 5:00 P.M., June 7, 1976. -4- Chm. Taylor noted Mr. Kimoto had arrived and with the consent of the Commission agenda item #4 was heard next. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COURIER SERVICE AT 826 COWAN ROAD (APN 024-390-210), ZONED M-1, BY PAUL KIMOTO OF DHL CORPORATION (ND -86P POSTED MAY 11, 1976). The Chm. requested comments from the applicant, Paul Kimoto. Mr. Kimoto told the Commission he did not feel his operation would create any adverse environmental effects in the area; that originally he had applied for a business license and was told by the C.P. he would need a special permit; he had read the staff report of May 24, 1976,.and would be agreeable to a permit given until the lease runs out (October 31, 1979). There were no audience comments in favor or opposed to this application, and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. In further discussion the C.P. noted that he and the Asst. C.P. had made separate impromptu inspections of the parking lot and found empty parking spaces. There appeared to be no parking problems now but he thought parking should be inspected in future. Several Commissioners felt parking should be reviewed at a future date since DHL had indicated it expects growth. In response to a question from C. Mink, the C.A. believed staff review of parking in the future would be adequate if it could be calendared satisfactorily. C. Mink requested that the staff report on item #4 dated May 24, 1976 be made a part of the record, and incorporated with the minutes. C. Jacobs moved that this special permit be approved, with the stipulation that the traffic relative to this site and parking on-site be reviewed in the year 1979, before 31st October, for the purpose of considering continuation of the permit. Second by C. Kindig, and unanimously approved by roll call vote. The Chm. informed the applicant that unless the special permit is appealed to the City Council he would be free to start business on June 8, 1976. 6. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING GARAGE AT 1448 BALBOA AVENUE (APN 026-013-310), ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM E. AND PAMELA J. FLOWERDAY. Chm. Taylor announced this application for hearing. The applicants appeared before the Commission and confirmed they had read the staff report of May 24, 1976. This report is attached to these minutes and incorporated herein by reference. Snapshots were introduced in evidence to show two cars parked in existing garage and the location of the proposed addition to the rear of the house. Mr. Flowerday told the Commission widening of his garage would cause him extreme hardship as it would close off his dining room window; therefore, he had applied for this variance in order to keep the garage as is and still add on to his house. The C.P. pointed out that all of the proposed addition would be at the rear of the lot so essentially any impact would be to the Flowerdays themselves. C. Jacobs agreed with this, stating she had inspected the backyard, didn't believe the second story was a problem and it did not crowd the backyard. Chm. Taylor requested audience comment for or against this application; there being none, he declared the public hearing closed, and asked for any further Commission questions. C. Francard was told by the C.P. that a building permit could be obtained to pave the front yard with concrete. C. Mink stated findings as follows: building was in good condition and not ready to be rebuilt, torn down or replaced; the family does need more space; the design as presented by the applicant does allow for preservation and enjoyment of the property; it is not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; it is a proper use in R-1 and does not appear to injure other property owners. -5- C. Jacobs moved approval of this variance per drawings submitted and Staff Report #6 dated May 24, 1976. Second by C. Cistulli and approved unanimously on roll call vote. 7. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE LESS THAN 48" FROM ITS DETACHED GARAGE, BY BRIAN J. JOHNSON OF 609 CONCORD WAY (APN 029-184-030), ZONED R-1. The Chm. announced this application for hearing and ascertained that Mr. and Mrs. Brian Johnson were present. C.P. Swan told Commission plans were revised at the advice of the Commission following the study meeting two weeks ago. These revised plans, which were reviewed by the Commission, would not decrease the existing distance between the house and the garage which is a separate detached garage. He mentioned the Fire Department memo which stated Mr. Johnson had proven that a 24 foot extension ladder could be carried into the rear yard, so firemen could gain access to the second floor from the rear yard. Staff Report dated May 24, 1976 is attached to these minutes and incorporated herein by reference. Mr. Johnson addressed the Commission, stating he had lived in Burlingame all his life, cannot continue to live here in his present house without an addition, cannot afford to buy another house in Burlingame and didn't intend to leave the city unless he was forced to do so. He advised he had read the staff report and had also read the code and legal requirements for a variance. Cutting off the garage was not acceptable to the applicant and he felt this stucco building would be damaged if moved. Commission questions brought out that after the proposed improvement was made the Johnsons would have three bedrooms and two baths, and one downstairs bedroom would become a family room; most of the modification would be in the back; the detached building is a single car garage, not a carport. Chm. Taylor requested comments in favor or in opposition to this application. Mr. Richard Perry, 601 Concord Way, Burlingame asked to see the sketch for informa- tion; he was assured that this house would remain a single family dwelling. He stated he was also concerned about additional cars parking in the street. The C.P. advised it would be possible to park three more cars on the driveway in back of the front setback. C. Mink stated findings that the circumstances which brought about this request for variance and the result of granting a variance would, in fact, meet the requirements for a variance in Sec. 25.54.020. Thereafter he moved approval of this variance as represented in the drawings dated 4/12/76, revised 4/20/76 and 5/12/76. Second by C. Jacobs and approved unanimously by roll call vote. Chm. Taylor advised the applicant this variance would become effective two weeks from tomorrow (June 8). 8. VARIANCE TO ALLOW BEDROOM ADDITION TO HOUSE WITH 16 FOOT WIDE GARAGE, IN R-1 DISTRICT, AT 1225 MAJILLA AVENUE (APN 026-204-040), BY NEAL J. LUCETT. Chm. Taylor announced this application; and before proceeding acknowledged the presence in the audience of newly elected Councilman Martin. Neal J. Lucett addressed the Commission stating at the present time he has four boys and one girl in a three bedroom 1 bath house. He felt that aesthetically there appears to be no problem since all addition would take place in the rear of the home. He stated he had read the Staff Report of May 24, 1976 (attached to these minutes and incorporated herein by reference), and advised he had a petition and letter of support from his neighbors. Secretary Sine read this evidence into the record which included a letter of support from Frank and Amy Seebode of 910 Laguna, Burlingame, immediate neighbors of the Lucetts, and a list of nine supporters who signed the statement, "I am in support of Mr. and Mrs. Lucett's variance request." Photographs A -F submitted by the applicant were reviewed by the Commission. C. A. Coleman commented on an inspection trip to the site on May 24, 1976 which indicated Mr. Lucett's house may be over his neighbor's sewer lateral; further, if the City grants this variance, City of Burlingame cannot take any responsibility for damage over that lateral. The Chm, advised he was with Mr. Coleman when the site was visited. Chm. Taylor asked for any audience comments in favor or opposed; there being none, the public hearing was declared closed. Commission determined the building was built in 1931; it is a substantial building, can be properly improved and the needs of the family will be met by this improvement. There was Commission consensus that a finding of hardship had been proven by the applicant. In further discussion Commissioners Kindig and. Mink pointed out the difference in this application from previous ones due to the single car garage and there being no possibility of off-street parking behind the front setback. However, it was not felt this would be a detriment to the public safety due to the particular location on a lightly traveled street. C. Sine determined from the applicant that a previous patio structure had been taken down, leaving a blank place where there had been sliding glass doors. C. Jacobs moved approval of this variance, with acknowledgment that the sewer lateral of Mr. Lucett's neighbor goes through his backyard; the addition to be according to the drawings and Staff Report of May 24, 1976. Second C. Cistulli, and approved unanimously by roll call vote. The Chm. advised the Lucetts this variance was approved subject to approval of City Council and will be effective on June 8, 1976. }i# Discussion followed regarding the number of variance applications of this type. C. Francard decried the practice of garages being converted to living space and thereafter the resident gets a $2.00 permit to park on the street. C. Jacobs questioned if there was any way the Planning Commission could allow additions that are within code to homes that have very minor non -conforming garages; the C.A. advised this was a policy question and up to the Commission. The C.P. thought Burlingame could choose a review line and suggested that staff have some discretion for narrow garages, subject to review by the Commission. C. P. Swan remarked about the large number of notices to surrounding property owners for variances in R-1 districts. For the variances on the May 24 agenda, staff did not receive any inquiries, although on some lots there had been over 150 letters mailed out. Pursuing the subject of variance applications, C. Mink asked staff to consider all the variables in a staff report. Chm. Taylor pointed out that the P.C. must give careful consideration to these applications and find that all conditions for granting a variance do exist in accordance with the code. C. Kindig agreed that a variance is a serious matter, including the sending of notices, and that a change should be considered very seriously. The Commission agreed that they wanted to make findings that the requirements for a variance have been met.. 9. SIGN PERMIT FOR 96 SF REAL ESTATE SIGN ON A 30 FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN AT 310 LANG ROAD, BY CLARKE/DONALDSON/CRAMER, INC. FOR CROCKER CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK. This application was introduced by Chm. Taylor who requested C.P. Swan for a brief history. The C.P. noted Lindal Homes' lease runs to 1984; the Linda] Homes sign is underneath the six sheets of plywood fastened to that sign. He quoted Paul -7- Cramer's December 29, 1975 letter to the City: ". . . this sign is a real estate sign and is intended to be of -a temporary nature. We are seeking a new tenant for Lots 5 and 6, Anza Airport Park Unit No. 2, and when this has been accomplished the sign will be removed." Clarke/Donaldson/Cramer, Inc. are endeavoring to locate a suitable subtenant for Linda]. One prospect failed to materialize. The file includes a letter from Crocker National Bank dated Janury 6, 1976 stating, "This Bank, as Trustee, is the owner of the subject lots." At their January 12, 1976 meeting the Planning Commission approved a sign exception for the existing 96 SF real estate sign at 310 Lang Road until March 15, 1976. The Commission agreed the sign would come down in approximately two months. On May 7 the C.P. wrote to Mr. Cramer and requested that the sign be removed within 30 days. This present application is for a sign permit to allow the existing sign to remain. Commission discussion ensued regarding definition of a temporary sign and real estate signs; the C.A. advised this particular application is an exception because of its size. Paul Cramer addressed the P.C., adding to the C.P.'s remarks; he said the property is under lease, was used for a specific purpose by Linda] for the display of their homes with the idea of attracting freeway traffic to their proudct, and that Linda] was paying considerable rent for this property because it benefited them directly to have their product in this particular location. They have had a difficult time finding a lessee who can take advantage of all the amenities which are there. He quoted from the second paragraph of May 6, 1976 letter from Milo D. Smith, Vice President Administration, Linda] Homes: "Of all the efforts made to market the property, that is, direct solicitation of known potential users, newspaper advertisements, etc., the largest single lead producer on the property has been the sign. We would expect the property to sell in the reasonable future and would, therefore, request that you consider a favorable decision about the continuation of display of the sign." Substantiating this letter, Paul Cramer -stated he felt the sign was essential to marketing of the property. It was determined that Mr. Cramer would have no authority to take down the .steel poles after the property is subleased. C. Sine stated his feeling that Linda] Homes made a mistake in business judgment, terminated their business in Burlingame, and now are asking the P.C. to help bail them out. C. Jacobs stated that even though she had not voted for the original sign, she would be agreeable to granting a permit for six months, no longer. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments and, receiving none, declared the public hearing closed. C. Sine moved that the Planning Commission deny this sign permit with the further condition that the sign poles be removed as well. Second by C. Francard. Before the vote was taken some Commission discussion occurred explaining the history of this sign to C. Cistulli. C.A. Coleman informed C. Cistulli that without this permit it is an illegal sign and could be abated. C. Cistulli stated it seemed a mistake to deny the sign at this time and he would approve granting it for six months. The sign application was denied on the following roll call vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG Chm. Taylor informed Mr. Cramer appeal to the City Council must be received by 5:00 P.M., June 7, 1976. me 10. RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION FOR COUNCIL REFERRAL ON RECLASSIFICATION FROM C-1 TO C-2 AND PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR-38P FOR STUDY. Chm. Taylor requested comments from C.P. Swan on this agenda item. The C.P. noted that in the adopted May 10, 1976 Commission minutes the Chm. summed up discussion indicating the rezoning of this particular area does have Commission support. Mr. Swan stated there is a requirement that a Draft EIR be posted 10 days prior to the meeting; the Commission has an outline of the EIR which is now in preparation and which can be scheduled for the June 14 meeting. It could be heard as a Final EIR on June 28. The C.P. continued, in preparing an EIR it is important to address the adverse impacts and focus on what would reduce the impact. In this case there would be no physical change and very little impact, which differs from an EIR for a tall building or some other project which requires a special permit. Staff would like to focus only upon that portion of the block fronting on California Drive and Highland Avenue and between the City parking lot and Howard Avenue. The C.P. informed Chm. Taylor he believed this would be consistent with the Council directive; the Commission should report to Council within 40 days. C. A. Coleman mentioned that, lacking that report, Council can initiate the reclassification. C. Kindig agreed with the C.P. that this will not have a great impact and an elaborate EIR would not be necessary. C. Jacobs and C. Mink wanted to be sure that traffic would be included in the EIR. It was stated the Council directive was not intended to include "Auto Row." C.P. Swan asked for direction from the Commission as to evaluation; should it be positive, negative, neutral. Chm. Taylor believed it should be presented as though the Commission were in favor of it. The C.A. hoped both the pros and cons would be included in order for the Commission to make a decision based on all the evidence. Mr. Swan added the Commission will be doing an evaluation.and this will be added to the Final EIR to express Commission's opinion. OTHER MATTERS C.A. Coleman commented on proposed ordinance code changes to be sent to City Council, in response to Council's direction to make clear that all variance and special permit matters are acted upon by the Commission and may be appealed to Council. It also was suggested that the 500 ft. radius for noticing property owners be changed to 300 ft. to reduce the noticing workload. It has been estimated by the Planners that this would produce a 2/3 reduction in cost. The C.P. detailed this workload: for the May 24 agenda he had prepared a list of over 550 property parcel numbers, which took approximately three hours of time. Succeeding steps of preparing and typing list of property owners, typing envelopes, preparing notice letters, stuffing envelopes and mailing requires considerable time. He repeated that staff had no inquiries on any of the May 24 variances; however, when there is a controversy staff does hear about it. The 300 ft. radius seems reasonable, and it would be a marked economy. He suggested the code might be changed to "at least every property owner within 300 feet." The C.A. said it was his plan to submit these proposed ordinance code changes to the Council for their next meeting. C.P. Swan reminded Commission of the special meeting on accessory buildings which has been scheduled for Saturday, June 12. He mentioned Council directive to study a formula for special permit applications in the Parking Assessment District; this should have precedence and could be documented with options and placed on the Commission study meeting agenda of June 14. The Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission is also interested in this matter. An announcement of a sign conference to be held at the Sheraton, Burlingame on Thursday, June 10 was handed out to Commissioners. C. Jacobs volunteered to attend. WE C. P. Swan commented on the Proposed Procedure to Satisfy CEQA Requirements which had been sent to Commissioners. The new procedures are based on the updated State Guidelines which will soon be adopted. On May 17 The.Resources Agency advised they would hold open the record of hearings for receipt of written comments until June 1, 1976 and, further, "we will take final action on the amendments after that date without further notice." The new State EIR Guidelines would become effective 90 days thereafter. Two major changes affect the Burlingame process of meeting CEQA requirements. Local government may accept input for a Draft EIR but payments to a consultant are to be channeled through the city. The consultant preparing an EIR would be on contract to the city and not the applicant or developer. The second important change is to allow a two week period between the Draft EIR hearing and the meeting when Planning Commi-ssion takes action to certify the Final EIR. This change permits material and comments received from other people, plus hearing testimony, to be incorporated. This will be done by an addendum to the Draft EIR, including the hearing minutes, which will then constitute the Final EIR. For discretionary action such as special permits, action on the special permit may be taken after certification of the Final EIR. There would then be an appeal period for the Final EIR and the special permit. Under the new procedure to be clarified by ordinance, all special permits will be final and conclusive by action of the Planning Commission but subject to appeal and suspension by the Council. The Commission will be certifying all Final EIRs and they, too, will be subject to appeal to the City Council. When an EIR.is required for a discretionary special permit we will add two weeks time for processing the application. This is only when an EIR is required. The $200 EIR fee remains unchanged. When an EIR is required the applicant will have to pay all the costs: additional cost to the city over and above the $200 fee and the total amount of the consultant's contract. The proposed procedures will be forwarded to Council for approval after the new State Guidelines for Environmental Impact Reports have been adopted. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted,. Thomas W. Sine Secretary Staff Report Item No. 4 May 24, 1976 SPECIAL PERMIT DHL CORPORATION 826 Cowan Road Summar DHL Corporation is a service organization employing 18 persons who provide for the rapid transportation of documents to points within the continental U.S. and overseas Four- teen station wagons and light pick-up trucks are used for collection and delivery of these documents. The corporation has been at 826 Cowan Road since November, 1974, and no problems have been observed with their courier service. rulBackground Kimoto of DHL Corporation reports that it is a "service organization which picks up and delivers documents to various businesses in the Bay Area. We also pick up and send out shipments via the scheduled airlines at the International Airport." To supply these services DHL .presently employs 18 persons and operates 14 light vehicles. The company normally operates between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight during the week. The hours are reduced on the weekends, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Sundays. A typical working day has the following pattern: 6:00/6:30 a.m. 7:00/7:30 a.m. ,M'14 8:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m./5:00 p.m. 4:00/5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m. - 7 day -shift operations employees arrive in company vehicles, having taken them home the previous night. - These emplyees set off on their routes. They tend to work until perhaps 12:00, are off until perhaps 3:00, then work through the afternoon, arriving back at Cowan Road between 5:00-6:00 p.m. - 7 office staff arrive in their personal cars, which are parked on the company lot until 5:00 p.m. - 2 outside firms make collections and deliveries during the day, usually one trip per firm each afternoon. One firm handles film, the other documents. Cars or station wagons are used, not trucks. - 4 night -shift operations staff arrive, then set off on their routes. - Office staff depart. - Night -shift operations staff go off duty. The above data suggest that the principal impact of this firm on its neighbors is limited to a relatively modest increase in traffic on Cowan Road. Twice during the morning and twice during the afternoon,,up to 7 or 8 vehicles per hour arrive or depart. Off-street parking is more likely to become a concern to the City. At present there is an off-street parking need for DHL employees' cars and company vehicles of approximately 12 spaces. Code requirements for 2,000 SF of office space and 4,000 SF of warehouse area specify 11 parking spaces. Within the area presently leased by DHL from Paul Munroe Hydraulics, Inc. (holding the master lease from Eric Cowan, property owner) 12 cars can be parked to code, and perhaps 3 or 4 additional cars could be sqeezed in or parked tandem. Several site inspections over recent months confirm that there are no obvious off-street parking problems at present. However, the Environmental Assessment form filed by DHL suggests that their parking needs will more than double within five years (page 3, item Q. No additional parking spaces are available at this location, unless cars are parked inside the warehouse or in spaces presently beinq used by the sub- Staff Report Item No. 5 May 24, 1976 VARIANCE MR. AND MRS. TOPPING, 1725 Hunt Drive Summary In June, 1973, a swimming pool was constructed at 1725 Hunt Drive by Lee -N -Carol, Inc., for Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Topping. At about the same time a pool equipment structure was constructed by Mr. Topping, a licensed contractor. A separate Building Permit for this accessory building was not obtained, and the structure was later found by the Build- ing Department to be located within the required sideyard. Repeated requests by City Staff for reported faults to be corrected and a final inspection to be obtained were ignored by Mr. Topping. Futile attempts by the City Attorney to re- ceive a response from Mr. Topping continued through 1975. An abatement action was filed and on December 2, 1975 a default hearing was held in Superior Court with judgment made that "all pool equipment and structures (be removed from) the side yeard of your premises and that adequate wiring (be installed)." No action by the Toppings followed this judg- ment, and on March 31, 1976, the City Attorney informed Mrs. Maureen Topping (the property owner) that contempt proceedings were being initiated. On April 30, 1976, a variance application was filed with the Planning Commission. This application is to permit the existing pool equipment building, which extends between the north-west side of the house and to within 18" of the property line, to remain as constructed, Background June 1, 1973 - Building Permit U951 issued to Mr. and Mrs. Topping for new 24' x 37' swimming pool. June 19, 1973 ) July 2, 1973 ) July 17, 1973 ) - Preliminary inspections and subsequent attempts by Building January 11, 1974 ) Department to obtain final inspection. August 6, 1974 ) February 7, 1975 - Letter sent recorded delivery by Building Department asking for final inspection or file will be turned over to City Attorney. March 4, 1975 - City Attorney writes to Mr. and Mrs. Topping requesting they arrange for final inspection, and drawing attention to their new pool equipment building which has no sideyard setback. (undated) - City attorney sends second letter requesting Toppings' appearance at his office April 2, 1975. April 2, 1975 -Mr. and Mrs. Topping fail to show up for meeting with City Attorney. City Attorney sends letter advising that court action will follow. May 6, 1975 —City Attorney sends fourth letter to Toppings; advises that the City is proceeding with a court action. May 22, 1975 - City of Burlingame action against Mr. and Mrs. Topping filed with Superior Court. July 3, 1975 - City Attorney requests Police Department to serve copy of Summons and Complaint upon defendant, Mrs. Maureen Topping (property owner). July 29, 1975 - Building Inspector makes final inspection. Three code violations noted. Copy of Inspector's letter to Lee -N -Carol Pools, Inc. attached (EXHIBIT A). Their August 6, 1975 reply is also attached (EXHIBIT B). The illegal work was apparently not done by the pool contractor, but rather by Mr. Topping, who has a contractor's license. Staff Report Item No. 6 May 24, 1976 VARIANCE MR. AND MRS. FLOWERDAY, 1448 Balboa Avenue Summary The present .2 bedroom, 1 bath house at 1448 Balboa Avenue has a 17' wide garage. Code Sec. 25.70.030 specifies that no.additional bedrooms shall be added to such house un- less additional parking space is provided behind the front setback. The 17' setback on this house does not allow tandem parking which conforms to the above code section, and thus a variance is required to add 3 new bedrooms, 1 bath and family room. Background Mr. and Mrs. Flowerday have two children and are expecting a third. They propose to add a family room at the back of the present house, and then add a second story with 3 bedrooms and l bath over the new family room. The single story house at 1448 Balboa Avenue was constructed in 1941/42. It has an attached garage at front approximately 17' behind the property line. The garage is 3' too narrow to conform to present off-street parking regulations. Lot area is 7,000 SF; future lot coverage would-be 33%, which is well within the 40% permitted by code. Front setback, side and rear yards all conform to code. No technical deficiencies exist with this application except the 3' non -conformity of the present garage. There are four conditions required for the approval of a variance. The applicant's affidavit addresses --the first two of these conditions; their adequacy should be reviewed. JW ,; Building elevations of the proposed addition show that there will be little visual impact to properties along Balboa Avenue, as the addition will be at the rear of the present house and will have similar roof lines and roofing materials. Some.overlooking of neighbors' backyards may exist. WMS/J RY/ k Staff Report Item No. 7 May 24, 1976 VARIANCE .:MR. AND MRS. BRIAN JOHNSON, 609 Concord Way Summary 609 Concord Way is a single story,2 bedroom house with detached single car garage. The garage location is non -conforming, because the original construction placed it only 34" away from the house. Present code requires a full 48" of separation between struc- tures on a lot. A variance is requested because the house is to be enlarged with a second floor: 2 new bedrooms, study and bath. Code Sec. 25.50.080 specifies that addi- tions can be made to a non -conforming structure only if it is brought into conformance with the present code. Mr. Johnson believes that moving the existing garage 14" would constitute hardship. Background Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have two children, a boy and a girl. Their home has two bedrooms and one bath. They propose to add a second story with two new bedrooms, a study and a bath. The house at 609 Concord Way was constructed in 1936. It has a detached, single car garage to the rear of the house, but .separated by only 34". This is non -conforming by 14". Additions to non -conforming structures are prohibited by Code Sec. 25.50.080. The construction plans for the proposed addition have complicated the above situation by introducing a cantilevered second floor that projects out beyond the present rear wall towards the garage. Separation between structures was therefore to be diminished from 34" down to only approximately 20". This would be non -conforming by 28", and probably unacceptable to the Fire Department because of potential fire spread between structures. ;The garage is an accessory building located along the side property line. At the Commission's meeting May 10, 1976, Mr. Brian Johnson stated that this 20" separa- tion had been an oversight on the part of his architect, and that the second floor plan would be amended to preserve not less than 34" between house and garage. These new plans have since been received, and show that the second floor has been redesigned to permit a 41" average separation. The obvious question is: Will a 34" ground floor separation and a 41" second floor separation satisfy the Fire.Department safety concerns? This question is addressed in the attached memo (see EXHIBIT A). 609 Concord Way is a 50' x 100' lot; present lot coverage is 34%,.which is well within the 40% permitted by code. Front setback, side and rear yards for the house all conform to code. However, the garage is non -conforming for two reasons: 1. Itis only 34" from the house (already mentioned). 2. It is built to the side property line, although it should have a 4' sideyard. As it is not in the rear 30% of the lot. it does not aualifv for a sidevard exemption under Code Sec. 25.66.060. The heart of the issue raised by this application can be traced to the improper location of this non -conforming garage in 1936. If the garage had been located a further 10' to the rear of the lot, this variance would not be necessary today. There are no technical deficiencies with the house itself. There are four conditions required for the approval of a variance. The applicants' affidavit addresses the first two of these conditions; their adequacy should be reviewed. WMS/JRY/k Staff Report Item No. 8 May 24, 1976 VARIANCE Deci MR. AND MRS.;LUCETT, 1225 Majilla Avenue Summary The present 3 bedroom, 1 bath house at 1225 Majilla Avenue has a 16' wide garage. Code Sec. 25.70.030 specifies that no additional bedrooms shall be added to such house unless additional parking space is provided behind the front setback. The 17' setback on this house does not allow tandem parking which conforms to the above code section, and thus a variance is required to add 1 new bedroom with bath. Background Mr. and Mrs. Lucett have five children,.4 boys and 1 girl. Their personal reasons for applyiing for a variance are explained in their letter attached to this application. The single story house at 1225 Majilla Avenue was constructed in 1931. It has an at- tached garage at front, excavated under the main floor, approximately 17' behind the property line. The garage is 4' too narrow to conform to present off-street parking regulations. Lot area is 6795 SF; future lot coverage would be 38%, which is within the 40% permitted by code. Front setback, side and rear yards all conform to code. No technical deficien- cies exist with this application except the 4' non -conformity of the present garage. There are four conditions required for the approval of a variance. The applicants' letter addresses the first two of these conditions; their adequacy should be reviewed. The proposed addition will be 1 bedroom and bath at the first floor level. At its closest it will be 16'0" from the side property line. No intrusion on the privacy of neighboring properties will exist, and its style will be architecturally consistent with the present house. WMS/JRY/k