HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.12.21CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
December 21, 1977
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission, City of Burlingame, was
called to order Wednesday, December 21, 1977 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Cistulli
Ruth E. Jacobs
Charles W. Mink
Thomas W. Sine, Secretary
Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman
Absent: Jules L. Francard
Everett K. Kindig
Staff Present:
Wayne M. Swan, City Planner
John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner
Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney
Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer
Quorum present; Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman, presiding.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held November 28, 1977 were approved in accordance with
copies furnished to members of the Commission.
SPECIAL
Secretary Sine wanted to congratulate staff on their handling of the signage problem
with Love Chevrolet. Other members of the Commission expressed their congratulation
and commendation to staff concerning this matter.
ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING
On page 6, line 2, Ralph Button to be referred to as "designer" rather than "architect."
Same page, same line, Mr. Button "did know the area was in an R-1 District
rather than "did not know."
Item #10, page 8, add to first paragraph or just before last paragraph: "Commissioner
Sine inquired if the existing signing had a building permit and staff responded that
none had been requested."
Page 8, paragraph 3, line 2, change "irregardless" to "regardless."
With these additions and modifications the December 21, 1977 minutes were approved.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION
Page 2
December 21, 1977
1. RESOLUTION NO. 18-77 RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-44P, FOR
BURLINGAME BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUMS
Chairman Taylor read the item and noted that the members of the Commission had
received an Addendum to this EIR dated December 15, 1977. The City Planner, Wayne
Swan, stated staff had prepared for the Commission's inspection a draft resolution
No. 18-77, with Exhibit "A" showing factual findings regarding the project and that
the data contained in the environmental impact report appeared to be complete.
Ralph Kirkup, City Engineer, added that the purpose of this meeting was simply to
review the findings of the draft resolution to see if it was adequately worded and
that the Commission could pass on the resolution and recommend City Council schedule
hearings on the draft EIR. Commission was referred to Exhibit "A" and was informed
that the Office of Planning and Research had notified staff that their review of the
environmental document was complete, the only comments received being from BCDC
which had been incorporated in the Addendum. It was felt that since the findings
of Exhibit "A" were adequate and complete that it be adopted and passed.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if this EIR was for rezoning and conceptual building only.
City Planner Swan responded that the EIR was informational only. The Commissioner
then asked if there would be another EIR that would describe the project since she
was concerned about the lack of mitigating conditions as it regarded the adverse
effects of the project. She was told there would not be. The City Planner added
that the EIR is not to control and regulate but rather to provide information on
which to base subsequent decisions regarding a permit. With respect to lack of
content, he said that staff shared the concern of the Commission. He stated that
David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, had requested the Bayfront Plan
Report be reactivated by the Land Use and Traffic Consultants, but decision would
be deferred until after the Bayside Redevelopment Project decision was arrived at
in January.
Secretary Sine felt that before any consideration be given to rezoning that the entire
plan should be re-evaluated. Jerry Coleman, the City Attorney, pointed out to the
Commission that every negative EIR need not have mitigating conditions. City Planner
Swan stated that the property owner had made reference that it would be a conditional
zoning and, only if a specific project were approved, would rezoning be necessary.
Processing of subsequent rezoning and condominium permits would be done at the same
time. Commissioner Mink felt the issue was if EIR-44P was sufficient to support a
rezoning. He stated either the Commission had enough information to support rezoning,
or it did not. If it did have adequate information, then it should be referred to
the City Council and they (the City Planning Commission) could deal with other issues
at a later time. But if the Commission were hesitant about the completeness of the
report, then it should be denied. The City Attorney added that the resolution
recommending the current EIR was adequate.
City Planner Swan read the first three items of Exhibit "A", and said that the
Commission might want to express their concern about the lack of mitigation measures
in the EIR. City Attorney suggested that reference to R-4 on Item 2 be stricken
and, in that respect, the Commission could also strike the 7th finding entirely.
Commissioner Mink suggested a further finding in that the Waterfront area is a unique
asset to the City and warrants careful study and specific controls to maintain and
enhance this area. At this point, Commission Mink questioned if he could vote on
this matter since he had been absent at the prior meeting, but had read all the
material and minutes attendant thereto. He was informed by the City Attorney that
he could vote on this resolution.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
December 21, 1977
Commissioner Jacobs moved adoption of the Resolution, providing that on Item 2 of
Exhibit "A" reference to R-4 be stricken and all of Item 7 be stricken, and that
the comments of Commissioner Mink be incorporated in the motion. Commissioner
Cistulli seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote, the motion carried by a vote of
4 to 0, with Commissioner Sine abstaining.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP WITH A TOWING SERVICE IN THE M-1
DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) BY DONALD
STEIN OF ARC AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE (APPLICANT) WITH KATHLEEN DORE, ET AL (PROPERTY
OWNERS) (ND -146P POSTED 11-18-77) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 28, 1977)
Chairman Taylor read the item and City Planner Swan pointed out that the recommendation
set forth in the memorandum dated 12/15/77 by the City Attorney was to deny a special
permit for Mr. Stein: The City Attorney said he was told by the Trust Department
of the Bank of America about a week ago that they were going to give Mr. Stein 30 days
notice to vacate the premises. Discussion among the members of the Commission expressed
their disapproval of the Bank's neglect to live up to the conditions agreed upon.
Mr. Stein stated he had received no such notification from the bank regarding vacating
the premises and that he knew of no plans for clean-up for the Dore property either
by the Bank or the City of Burlingame. Chairman Taylor informed him of the fact
that the Bank of America had agreed to certain conditions regarding their responsibility
in the clean-up of this property but to date nothing was done by the Bank. It was
also noted that Mr. Stein had tried to clean up the property. Commissioner Cistulli
apologized to Mr. Stein, stated the Commission was upset with the Bank and was not
out to deprive Mr. Stein of his business, but apparently might have no alternative
but to deny Mr. Stein's special permit in order to coerce the Bank of America to
clean up this property.
Chairman Taylor asked if there were any more questions of Mr. Stein or if anyone in
the audience wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the application for
special permit; there being no comments, Chairman Taylor declared the public hearing
closed.
Commissioner Mink expressed the feeling that the Bank agreed to a set of conditions
and had not fulfilled those conditions. He added that this is the first application
before the Commission since the Bank had agreed to perform certain actions on the
property and therefore this was a unique situation. Unfortunately, Mr. Stein had
been drawn into this without knowledge of the Bank's prior commitments. Commissioner
Jacobs questioned if the City had any recourse with the Bank of America, rather than
with individual tenants. The City Attorney responded that the Bank would probably
stop making improvements on the property entirely and Chairman Taylor noted that
action would more than likely involve a lengthy lawsuit.
Commissioner Mink moved that the request of Mr. Stein for a special permit be denied,
without prejudice to the applicant, so that subsequent application may be submitted
after the subdivision improvements have been completed by the Bank of America.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. On roll call vote, Commissioners Cistulli,
Mink, Sine and Taylor voted to deny the request of Mr. Stein for a special permit.
Commissioner Jacobs voted against the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1.
Commissioner Mink then requested that staff inform all parties involved of their
right of appeal.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
December 21, 1977
3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040 TO PERMIT A 15 FOOT ADDITION TO THE FRONT
OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 925 LAGUNA AVENUE (APN 026-221-060), ZONED R-1, BY
JOSEPH M. MORAY (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 28, 1977)
Chairman Taylor read the item and Assistant City Planner Yost explained that at the
November 28, 1977 meeting the plans prepared by the structural engineer were found
to be not in character with present housing or with the immediate neighbors and the
matter was continued so*an alternative plan could be prepared He noted that the
proposed addition is still 15 feet back from the front property line. The average
existing setback is just over 20 feet and the variance requested would extend it
an additional 5-1/2 feet into the front setback, but at no point would the house be
closer than 15 feet. He had no objections to approving the alternative plan.
Chairman Taylor asked Mr. Moray why he needed this variance? Mr. Moray responded
that it was only a 2 -bedroom house and he had need of an additional bedroom and bath.
He had one child, but often had overnight guests. Chairman Taylor asked if there were
any additional comments from the audience; there being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
Commissioner Mink felt it was clear from staff and testimony of the applicant that
all exceptional circumstances were present; that it was necessary for continued use
of the property; that the hardship resulting is obvious since Mr. Moray could not
comfortably live in the present environment and would have to change their home to
some other location; and testimony by staff regarding the setback of other properties
on the street indicates this variance would not be out of conformity with the
General Plan of the City. Commissioner Mink moved approval of the variance.
Secretary Sine seconded the motion. On roll call vote, the approval of the variance
carried unanimously.
4. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE TWO BASEMENT PARKING
SPACES TO A 17 FOOT LENGTH; PROPERTY AT 500 PENINSULA AVENUE (APN 029-294-290),
ZONED R-3, BY ROBERT AND SYLVIA PISANI (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 28, 1977)
Chairman Taylor read the item, noting that this matter was carried over from the
November 28, 1977 meeting and that Mr. Pisani was present. City Planner Swan reported
the property had been inspected this afternoon and the plywood storage area had been
removed; however, there was still a 10x10 metal shed that occupied two parking spaces.
Commissioner Mink noted that one of the requirements had been that the applicant
remove the partitions before the Commission would consider the application to create
two compact car parking spaces in another location of the garage. Secretary Sine
added he had visited the garage at 5:00 o'clock this afternoon and in the northwest
corner area they have material along the wall; he could not see how they could park
two cars there because of the tool shed. Commissioner Jacobs recalled telling
Mrs. Pisani at the prior meeting that she would consider giving two compact parking
spaces but would not consider both areas being minus parking. She thought she had
been clear at that time and could not understand how applicant could again come to
the Commission without correcting that problem.
There was further discussion and Chairman Taylor asked Mr. Pisani if he had anything
to add. He said he was in the process of clearing the garage but that other problems
arose which had to be attended to first. Commissioner Sine felt the applicant had
been given enough time to clear the garage and that the applicant had failed in doing
what the Commission had asked of him in order to grant the variance. Chairman Taylor
pointed out that he had stated he would not consider this matter until the property
had been restored to original condition, and this has not yet happened.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
December 21, 1977
The Chairman asked if there were any other comments; there being none, he declared
the public hearing closed. Secretary Sine moved that the application for variance
requested by Mr. and Mrs. Pisani be denied. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the
motion. On roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously.
5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL
PARK (RSM VOL. 58/43) AT 1410 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-102-030), ZONED M-1, BY
EDWARD W. BACA FOR ROBERT HAMMETT OF HAMMETT & EDISON REAL ESTATE (PROPERTY OWNER)
Chairman Taylor read the item and City Engineer Ralph Kirkup noted that the tentative
map was granted by the Commission in 1976 and approved by the City Council with several
conditions contained therein. These conditions have been met by the applicant. The
final parcel map includes emergency access between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2; channel
access easement is under way; all buildings will have sprinkler systems, etc. There
were no questions and Secretary Sine moved approval of the tentative and final parcel
maps. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. On roll call vote, the motion
carried unanimously.
6. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3, 4 AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY 37.50
FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 50, EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 AT 1469/1471 EL CAMINO REAL
(APN 026-013-020/030), ZONED R-3, BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR TERRANCE IRWIN (OWNER OF
1471 AND PART OWNER OF 1469 EL CAMINO REAL); WITH GORDON AND MARION KULLBERG
(PART OWNER OF 1469 EL CAMINO REAL)
Chairman Taylor read the item and City Engineer Kirkup reviewed the final parcel map
with the Commission; he found it was in order, especially as it concerned the granting
of the 10 foot wide easement and a $2,500 bond had been issued to guaranty construction
of required improvements. It was recommended that the City Planning Commission approve
the final parcel map. There being no additional discussion, Secretary Sine moved
approval of the final parcel map. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion. On roll call
vote, the motion carried unanimously.
7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040 TO PERMIT AN 8 FOOT ADDITION TO THE FRONT OF
THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 1424 CORTEZ AVENUE (APN 026-014-280), ZONED R-1, BY
BRIAN M. CASSIDY
Chairman Taylor read the item and Assistant City Planner Yost explained that Mr. Cassidy
had purchased the house which is a 2 -bedroom, 1 bath, intending to remodel. Once
complete it would have 4 bedrooms, 3 baths, a family room, a den and a larger living
room. He explained that Mr. Cassidy called the Building Department and asked if they
could strip -the roof and the answer was 'yes,' at the owner's risk. However, the
Building Department found through a field check that the dimensions shown on the
original site plan were wrong. The plans showed it as 38'4" behind the front property
line and even with an 8 foot addition to the front of the house, the house would be
30 feet behind the front property line. The field check that was made showed the plans
were in error by 14-1/2 feet. The new living room would.be within 15'9" of the front
property line and not 30 feet. The problem is the average minimum setback is 19'6".
Therefore, the addition would be 3'9" into the front setback. That is, he believed,
the central issue of the application. If denied, the room could be enlarged by only
4'3" rather than a full 8 feet. He recommended that applicant's affidavit be
reviewed and motion made to either approve or deny the application.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
December 21, 1977
Chairman Taylor asked if anyone had anything to add. Mr. Cassidy (property owner)
stated that the architect, Ralph'Button, did not know the area was in an R-1 District
and they decided to extend out by 8 feet. John Calwell, Chief Building Inspector,
had given them permission to remove the roof and they went ahead thinking they would
get approval on the overall plan. "When the Building Inspector saw we were out, he
said we were probably in violation," Mr. Cassidy commented. Mr. Yost had inspected
the site and agreed that it was in violation, and work was stopped on the front
section of the house. Ralph Button spoke at this time and said he was guilty of a
gross error, that apparently one of his workmen misunderstood, and he (Mr. Button)
failed to check on the work. He added, Mr. Cassidy had a wife and two children and
a number of relatives that visited him quite often, and the variance was necessary
in order to enlarge the living room. The only other way they could make the living
room larger would be to move the entire house back and they would rather get
permission to build the living room as shown.
Commissioner Sine questioned why the Department of Public Works did not catch the
error on the plan. Assistant City Planner Yost explained that the plan dimensions
showed the front 30'4-1/2" as drawn from the property line, which fully met code
requirements for a permit. There was no way of knowing in the office that there was
an error in the plans.
Chairman Taylor asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak in favor of or
in opposition to the variance. Michael Mahoney of 1429 Cortez Avenue spoke in favor
of the variance, stating he had seen the plans and had talked to other neighbors;
he had compiled a list of 14 signatures of neighbors with the exception of one who
did not want to get involved. All those who signed were in favor of the variance.
Secretary Sine stated at this point that he was in possession of three letters received
by Commission and these were incoroporated into the record as being in favor of the
variance. Chairman Taylor asked again for any further audience comments. There being
none, he declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Mink felt the testimony of staff and applicant and Mr. Mahoney, along with
documents submitted, inferred exceptional circumstances. The home is substantial but
for the purposes of the applicant it should be larger. If he is not able to enlarge
he would be unable to preserve the intended use of the home, the hardship being he
would have to live in substandard housing regarding size only and/or would have to
vacate the premises to purchase another home. Documents submitted by staff show that
at least 10% of the houses on this same block are closer to the property line than
requested by this variance and at least three are less than one foot from that. In
the Commissioner's opinion this application would not conflict with the general scheme
of the General Plan. He then stated that in light of testimony and documents submitted
Commission is allowed the discretion to find h1s foregoing statements are fact and
to approve the variance. Commissioner Mink moved the variance be approved, incorporating
the statement of findings of fact that he commented on. Commissioner Cistulli seconded
the motion. On roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMUNITY GARDEN AND TEACH FRENCH INTENSIVE FARMING
AT 18 CLARENDON ROAD (APN 029-294-090/240/250), ZONED R-1, BY JEAN S. WEAVER
(PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -148P POSTED 12/12/77)
Chairman Taylor read the item and Commissioner Sine stated he preferred to continue
this item to a study meeting where it can be adequately studied because there were
several unanswered questions he wanted to pursue. City Planner Swan said the
Secretary was in possession of a letter from neighbors and a copy of a memorandum
Pa ge 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1977
that he had written just today. On Monday, December 19, the City Clerk had received
an appeal to the negative declaration that had been posted and, as a result, Commission
could not act on the special permit application. The appeal has been scheduled by
the City Clerk for January 9, 1978. City Planner Swan then read the memorandum
and further discussion followed. Chairman Taylor said the matter would be scheduled
for study on January 9 and the Commission would take no final action at that time.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP IN THE EXISTING LION OIL COMPANY
GAS STATION AT 1100 BROADWAY (APN-026-093-040), ZONED C-2, BY ANTHONY MORAN AND
MICHAEL GILMARTIN OF SELECT IMPORT CAR SERVICE (ND -149P POSTED 12/12/77)
Chairman Taylor read the item and City Planner Swan explained that the Jiffy Gas Station
located at 1100 Broadway took over when Phillips 66 stopped merchandising gas and
providing extra service at that particular location. Lion Oil became the leaseholder
and they sublet the property to the applicant for an auto repair garage. He read a
letter of authorization from Anthony Zaro, the property owner. Mr. Zaro is the
property owner and said letter.is his written authorization. With the submission
of this letter, the application is.complete. Mr. Swan submitted a photograph in
evidence and referred to.the staff report circulated Friday to the Commission
suggesting conditions; the number of parking spaces and requirements by the Fire
Department. The reason for a special permit for this type of service is there are
two different business establishments. Jiffy Gas sells gasoline to vehicles and, as
a policy, Commission has requested that an additional business on a service station
lot come before it for a special permit. Chairman Taylor inquired if they ever had
a limitation on the freedom of a gas station to operate a car repair shop at the
same facility. City Planner Swan replied they did not. Commissioner Jacobs noted
there seemed to be sufficient parking. Chairman Taylor then asked what the required
parking was; City Planner responded required parking for a service station under this
circumstance is different.. A gasoline service station has to have at least two
parking spaces for employees.
Chairman Taylor requested audience comments; there being none, he declared the public
hearing closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved approval of the special permit subject to
the conditions set forth in the Fire Department's memo of December 19, 1977.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. On roll call vote, the motion carried
unanimously.
10. MASTER SIGN PERMIT FOR 73 SF OF EXISTING SIGNS ON PROPERTY AT 100 EL CAMINO REAL
(APN 029-221-120), ZONED R-3, BY J. QUETNICK OF SANBUTCH PROPERTIES (OWNER) WITH
REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES LTD., J. M. TAYLOR & CO. AND DR. WEHINGER (TENANTS)_
Chairman Taylor read the item and Assistant City Planner Yost explained this application
was to allow the existing signs on the office building at 100 El Camino Real to remain
exactly as they are. He referred to the staff report, page 1, with the site plan,
which lists all the existing signs. He noted the total present signage on the property
is 73 square feet. Page 2 of the staff report makes comparison between existing
signage and code standards for commercial property. This property, he stated, is
not commercially zoned. 100 E1 Camino Real is primarily residential and there are
residential properties immediately opposite this building. The property is zoned R-3
and Mr. Yost read Code Sec. 22.24.010 relative to that. He said the real estate
sign was too high and too visible. Commission should review the application and
decide if all or some of the signs should be included in the Master Sign Permit
approved for the property owner, but not for the individual tenants. The issue is,
then, whether the present signs on the building be allowed to remain as they presently
are.
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1977
Chairman Taylor inquired whether or not the real estate sign was a roof sign. Assistant
City Planner Yost said that technically it is a roof sign. Chairman Taylor asked if
anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to,the application.
Mr. J. Quetnick, property owner, said he was there to speak in favor of the application.
He explained he was a new owner and has made improvements to the building. The
signage that exists, he felt, conformed to this type of refined office building.
John Kockos of Real Estate Associates Ltd. also spoke in favor of the application,
saying the sign is the only identification his office has and he felt they needed it
in order for potential clients to locate them. He asked, on behalf of the other
gentlemen and himself, that the Commission approve this request. City Planner Swan
advised he had talked with Mr. Kockos and told him that just driving by in his car
he was able to spot the bracket over the parapet and, by definition, it became a roof
sign. He suggested to Mr. Kockos that the sign be removed until a hearing had been
held in order that the Commission would not be prejudiced. He told Commission he felt
it was not consistent with the existing tasteful signs on the fascia and felt it was
the background on the real estate sign that was inharmonious. He felt that in
accordance with the Master Sign Permit all of the signs on the building should be
common to one another.
Commissioner Mink felt Commission might be dealing with several problems, one of which
is nonconformity of use which might warrant some special kind of review and special
consideration. The difficulty is a nonconforming commercial use that, essentially,
faces a residential area and, therefore, it might be wise to consider signage that is
more appropriate for residential use. Also, there is a single sign that appears to
be, by accident, illegal and according to the review and study of the staff through
strict interpretation of the Code, total signage does exceed review lines. He asked
that the applicant understand all the concerns of Commission; it was not just size
alone but all of the aforementioned items. Applicant should come back to the
Commission with a program of signs rather than a collection.. He felt he didn't want
to deny this request arbitrarily. He also felt Mr. Kockos' statement that potential
clients have difficulty finding the building confused the issue and this should be
clarified; is it to identify 100 El Camino Real or to identify office space within
the building, namely, Real Estate Associates Ltd.?
City Attorney Coleman explained the Master Sign Permit and said that where the signs
go and how they are placed on this building is the issue, irregardless of whose name
appears on the sign. Mr. Quetnick mentioned his problem was chiefly that he had two
buildings on this lot; when speaking of 100 E1 Camino Real, he wondered which building
was being referred to. He felt this was the real crux of his problem.
Secretary Sine concluded there was enough input and suggested to Mr. Quetnick that
he research the problem more thoroughly, the matter to be continued to the next
meeting. This was agreeable to all concerned and Chairman Taylor scheduled the
continued hearing to January 9, 1977.
COMMUNICATIONS
11. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR ADELINE ARMS, AN 8 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1469
EL CAMINO REAL BY JOHN YOHANAN FOR SARKIS M. FARD; AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR 8 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1469 EL CAMINO REAL -
Chairman Taylor read the item and City Engineer Ralph Kirkup referred to his memorandum
regarding five conditions, four of which have been met. The condition that has not
been met is in reference to location of utilities. When the matter came up before
Commission staff was directed to bring it back after all required information was
available. Mr. Van Atta's request would waive that condition. In a memorandum to
the City Planning Commission it was noted they have decorative log fireplaces and
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
December 21, 1977
gas lines leading to each unit. PG&E does not recognize them since the PUC prohibits
use of these logs. The Fire Department and the Building Department are naturally
very concerned over this matter. Mr. Van Atta feels it should be a condition prior
to a hearing on the condominium permit. As of now staff does not know whether these
conditions can be met.
Mr. Van Atta, Attorney for Sarkis M. Fard, informed the Commission that KCA Engineers
in San Francisco had tried to locate these utilities. They talked to the subcontractors
and the contractor and were not able to establish this information. They would have
to tear out the walls and felt that this was still a brand new building and would
make the economic position very difficult to resolve. Again he emphasized he thought
this condition should be a requirement of the condominium map. Responding to a
question by Commissioner Cistulli, Mr. Van Atta said these were originally designed
as condominiums, then turned into apartments and then back to condominiums. Commissioner
Mink inquired of staff whether Mr. Van Atta's suggestion would work to the advantage
or to the disadvantage of the City. City Engineer Kirkup responded he was not sure
at this point if conditions could be met and he would hesitate recommending anything
that he himself was not sure of.
Chairman Taylor explained that it was staff's position to get all information requested
now, before the permit to conversion is approved. It seems that staff felt after a
permit was issued there may be undue pressure applied to the Commission regarding
the required conditions. Mr. Van Atta felt that if it was the position of the
Commission that these units have separate shut-off valves, Commission should pass
a resolution, but it it were to become a condition of the final parcel map, then his
client would have to show first that he has done as Commission has requested.
Commissioner Jacobs pointed out to Mr. Van Atta that these requirements for this
permit were in the Code, i.e., that wiring, plumbing, etc. must be presented.
Commissioner Cistulli commented that he would not act upon this request until he had
all the information he wanted. Chairman Taylor noted that at the September 28 meeting
the recommendation was that the conditions be met before issuance of a condominium
conversion permit, and that Engineer Kirkup had represented to the Commission this
was a requirement of the Code. He then read this section of the Code, "That application
for condominium conversion permit shall also include sufficient information to
evaluate the soundness of the proposed condominium project . . ." The City Engineer
also indicated to Commission that the location of the plumbing would be the amount
of information sufficient to evaluate this application.
After lengthy discussion, City Engineer Kirkup offered a possible solution to this
problem. If Mr. Van Atta would submit a letter from the engineer on this project
stating that there are separate shut -offs or they can be provided for within a
reasonable cost and it can be done, then the Commission could sohedule a hearing on
the matter. However, the letter must be submitted prior to that meeting.
Commissioner Sine questioned if Mr. Van Atta's engineer could get this information
to the Commission in time. City Engineer Kirkup added that the letter must state
where the plumbing is located. Mr. Van Atta agreed, saying the letter would be
received by the Commission if at all possible before the next meeting and, if they
could not, reasonable notice would be given to Commission prior to that time.
Chairman Taylor set the hearing for January 9, 1978. The City Attorney noted
Commission may or may not accept the letter from the project engineer at that meeting.
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1977
12. LETTER FROM ANNA ALEXANDER, 1504 HIGHWAY ROAD
Chairman Taylor read the item and said the matter is currently before the Traffic,
Safety & Parking Commission; he requested staff to forward this letter to them.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
13. STAFF REPORT ON RENT -A -CAR ESTABLISHMENTS IN BURLINGAME
City Planner Swan said that information on rent -a -car establishments in Burlingame
will be presented at the January 9, 1978 study meeting.
14. PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR A 6 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1421 EL CAMINO REAL
Chairman Taylor read the item and City Planner Swan said he had made the determination
that this was an underground garage application and a condominium permit is to be
brought to Commission for study and action in January.
15. AJAX RENT -A -CAR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE SKY CHEF PROPERTY
This item is still pending.
16. AZTEC RENT -A -CAR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE MOBIL GAS STATION PROPERTY
This item is still pending.
17. PETRINI'S EXPANSION
Chairman Taylor read this item and Jerome Coleman, City Attorney, explained some of
the conditions required are that they put in some kind of a loading dock, install
an island to divert traffic around it and a requirement for interior garbage storage.
The City Engineer had spoken with their architect and he, in turn, informed Petrini's.
Petrini's will not agree to those conditions. Further discussion took place but no
action was taken at this time.
18. DRAFT EIR-45P FOR ONE WATERFRONT
Chairman Taylor read the item and City Planner Swan requested public hearing be scheduled
on January 23, 1978, with study on January 9 regarding EIR-45P. The City Attorney
said it must be scheduled after 45 days since a State agency is involved; it is 30
days if a State agency is not involved. Chairman Taylor then scheduled hearing on
this item for February 15, 1977.
19. 1978 MEETING SCHEDULE
Chairman Taylor read this item and Commissioner Cistulli recommended Commission have
study meetings the first meeting, hearing meetings the second meeting. Commissioner Mink
suggested the City Planner, City Attorney and City Engineer get together and reconcile
their differences, then report to Commission how these meetings should be handled with
special consideration of the efficient use of Commission's time on hearing items;
sufficient time.to devote to study items and efficient use of staff time to prepare
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
December 21, 1977
items for study and deliberation by the Commission. Chairman Taylor asked that
the meeting date of December 27, 1978 be dropped; meeting schedule for 1978 was
then approved.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business coming before the Commission, Chairman Taylor declared
the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary