Loading...
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