HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.11.14COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Cistulli
Francard
Kindig
Sine
Jacobs
CALL TO ORDER
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 14, 1977
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Mink City Planner Swan
Taylor Asst. City Planner Yost
City Attorney Coleman
City Engineer Kirkup
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by
Vice -Chairman Jacobs at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL .
The above -listed Commission and staff members were present. Chm. Taylor and C. Mink
were not present with excused absences and C. A. Coleman arrived at the meeting during
Item #5.
MINUTES
The minutes of October 12 and 26, 1977 were considered.
C. Sine referred to Item #1 of the October 26 minutes concerning 33 Park Road. He
requested that the record show he had questioned why the final parcel map was needed
by the developer for financing when the developer had already poured the foundations
and was proceeding with due diligence on the job. The developers had commented
that these costs were out of their own pocket.
Referring to the October 26 minutes, page 4, Item #3, 320 Lang Road, C. Jacobs
requested that her findings prior to the motion for approval be included: that this
was unusual property; it was difficult to build on because of the easement; the
development would not interfere with neighboring properties; and there was compliance
with the General Plan of the City of Burlingame. It was noted an appeal had been
filed with the City Clerk on this item, but later the appeal had been withdrawn.
There being no further corrections or additions, the minutes of the meetings of
October 12, 1977 and October 26, 1977 were approved as mailed and corrected. .
MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 8,
ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (APN 026-363-170/180); PROPERTY AT 411 AIRPORT BLVD.,
ZONED M-1, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
Chm. Jacobs read the item. C. E. Kirkup briefly reviewed the application, noting
that all utilities are in and recommended approval of the tentative and final map
with some commitment from the developer that adequate access be provided to
Parcel E for the future. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust,
representing the -applicant, stated that they would agree to this.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1977
There being no further discussion, Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There was
no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, and the public hearing was closed.
C. Sine moved for approval of the above -noted tentative and final maps, incorporating
the letter from the Asst. City Engineer dated November 11, 1977, and the City
Engineer's comments at this meeting. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and, upon roll
call vote, it carried unanimously (5-0).
2. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT THE RESUBDIVISION OF TWO
LOTS, ONE OF WHICH HAS TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS; PROPERTY AT 1862 ROLLINS ROAD
(APN 025-169-100/110) AND 1872 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-169-090), ZONED M-1, BY
ARTHUR RUDE, JR. (ND -140P POSTED 11/3/77)
Chm. Jacobs read the item. Asst. C. P. -Yost reported that the proposal is to take
an existing lot with two structures on it and divide the lot down the middle so that
each structure would sit on a separate lot. He stated that the present proposal is
somewhat different than the one presented to the Commission in August, noting that
the property owner has acquired title to a small triangular piece of land immediately
adjacent to Parcel B. If this additional land were paved, the parking would now be
in excess of code requirements on Parcel B. And with an improved parking layout,
Mr. Yost stated, Parcel A would have a net deficiency of only two spaces. In summary,
he noted that the applicant had reduced the proposed deficiency from 18 parking
spaces to two spaces. He said if the Commission chooses to approve the variance,
it might be conditioned that the parkimg areas be paved and striped according to the
plans submitted.
It was noted that the word "proposed" in reference to the ingress and egress easement
would be removed on the final map, and that it was the intent of the property owner
that this be recorded. It was also confirmed that staff had been provided proof
that the triangular parcel had been purchased. As there seemed no problems with the
amended application, the Commission agreed that action could be taken without the
presence of the applicant. It was noted that an agenda had been sent to the
applicant. The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak and
no correspondence, the public hearing was closed.
C. Cistulli moved for approval of the variance as per plans presented with the
condition that the parking spaces be paved and striped. As a finding of fact.,
it was noted that the proposal is much improved over that previously submitted. With
this addition included, C. Kindig seconded the motion and it carried unanimously upon
a roll call vote (5-0).
3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS B AND D (PORTION OF
LOT 1), BLOCK 2, UNIT NO. 1, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK; PROPERTY AT 1862/1872
ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-169-090/100/110), ZONED M-1, BY MARTIN M. RON ASSOCIATES
FOR ARTHUR RUDE, JR.
Chm. Jacobs read the item. The City Engineer briefly reviewed the map and then
recommended that the final and tentative map be approved.
C. Sine moved that the above -noted application be approved in accordance with the
recommendations of the Asst. C. E. in his memo dated November 'P0,1977. C. Cistulli
seconded the motion and upon roll call vote it carried unanimously (5-0).
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
November 14, 1977
4. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT (APPROVED 9/28/77) FOR AMERICAR RENTAL SYSTEMS TO
MOVE THE RENTAL OFFICE FROM 890 MAHLER ROAD TO 1530 GILBRETH ROAD (APN 026-321-
490), BY CHARLES G. MAYO, ET AL (APPLICANT) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF MAHLER GILBRETH
PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -128P POSTED 9/16/77)
Chm. Jacobs read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost noted that this is an amendment to a
previously approved special permit. He referred to a letter from Mr. Mayo dated
October 26, 1977 and stated that with Mr. Mayo's assurances that the details of the
proposed car rental agency would remain unchanged, this proposal could be an
improvement over the original application. He noted that the alley leading to the
original office area would no longer be used by customers as access could now be
from Gilbreth. He further stated that the two customer spaces outside the office on
the Gilbreth frontage seem reasonable and would be compatible with the rental car
storage in the adjacent building at 890 Mahler Road. He further noted that the
original special permit reviewed by the Commission September 28, 1977 was approved
with conditions; Mr. Mayo understands that these conditions would remain and that
staff would report back to the Commission in March, 1978 on the rental operation.
He then stated that staff has no objection to the proposed amendment.
Mr. Mayo was present to answer any questions and stated that he understood and agreed
with the conditions of the original special permit. Chm. Jacobs opened the public
hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the public hearing
was closed.
C. Kindig moved approval of the amendment, subject to all previously approved conditions
being met by the applicant. C. Sine seconded the motion and it carried unanimously
upon a roll call vote (5-0).
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1977 TO SEPTEMBER 30,
1978 IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1290 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-110), BY DAVID H.
KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
FOR STAR RENT -A -CAR (ND -141P POSTED 11/3/77)
Chm. Jacobs read the item. Asst. C. P. -Yost reviewed the history of the application,
and referred to two letters from David Keyston dated October 20 and November 2, 1977
which explain the relationship between AA Auto Rental (a previously approved item
by Planning Commmission action 9/28/77) and the proposed Star Rent-A-Car operation.
Mr. Yost stated that from the facts presented in the two letters there would appear
to be little practical change from the original application. Mr. Keyston confirmed
that Star Rent-A-Car would be leasing year old cars and AA would lease brand new
cars; the same personnel will handle both types of rentals. Both local companies
are owned by the same Los Angeles parent company.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no
correspondence, the public hearing was closed.
C. Kindig moved for approval of the special permit. C. Cistulli seconded the motion
and upon a roll call vote it carried unanimously (5-0).
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
November 14, 1977
6. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT A 690 SF ADDITION TO
THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT AT 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-410), ZONED C-4,
BY ALBERT R. SEYRANIAN (ARCHITECT) FOR RICHARD PATANE, RESTAURANTEUR WITH MIKE
GERALDI (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -139P POSTED 11/3/77)
Before continuing, Chm. Jacobs asked if it would be proper to open the public hearing
at this meeting and continue it to a later meeting. C. A. Coleman advised that this
would be proper legal procedure.
Chm. Jacobs read the item. C. P. Swan reviewed his staff report dated November 14,
1977 which explained the application setting forth facts and figures, referring to
code requirements and containing suggested conditions to the granting of the variance.
(This staff report is attached to these minutes for reference.) Mr. Swan expanded on
some of the conditions as follows.
Condition #1 - Reference was made to a document showing where the compact and
handicapped spaces would be. Condition #3 - With a 30 -day revocable lease, staff
would suggest there be a performance bond that would provide enough money to rent
off-site parking for a period of five years. Condition #5 - The access easement should
be kept open for emergency vehicles. Condition #6 - Reference was made to a letter
from counsel for the Benihana of Tokyo restaurant, dated November 14, 1977; it was
noted that this was the basis of this condition. Condition #7 - It is understood that
a comparable amount of area would be required to satisfy San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC). This variance proposal would extend the restaurant
into an area that had been previously designated as a public access easement between
The Fisherman and Benihana of Tokyo. Condition #8 - Approval by BCDC should be
obtained as a prerequisite for a City building permit.
Mr. Swan noted that the architect, the restaurant operator and the property owner
were present. He confirmed that the applicant had an opportunity to review the
staff report and the conditions: He referred to an exhibit aerial photo with overlays
indicating the site and the off-site parking area. Mr. Seyranian, architect for The
Fisherman, stated that they would be in agreement to the conditions, noting that
Conditions #2 and #4 have already been met. He also noted (re: Condition #5) that
an access easement is shown on the plan although it is currently being used as a
service entrance; he stated that measures would be taken to see that this is not
blocked. With regard to Condition #6 he stated that they are trying to increase
the parking with a better parking plan and did not feel this would be a problem.
He agreed to Condition #6. With regard to Condition #7 he stated that this had
been discussed with Mrs. Quist of BCDC and it was felt that this could be worked
out and would require hearing before BCDC.
Secy. Sine read a letter from Susan J. Passovoy of Ellman, Passovoy & Burke, attorneys
for Benihana of Tokyo, Inc., dated November 14, 1977 and delivered to City Hall by
messenger. The letter expressed the concern that if The Fisherman is permitted to
expand without providing additional parking, the additional customers might use the
parking lot of the Benihana. It was requested that, if the expansion is permitted,
The Fisherman be required to provide sufficient additional. parking to serve the
increase in clientele, or some other arrangement be made to insure the Benihana
parking area be preserved for Benihana's customers.
Referring to the Benihana letter, C. Kindig asked the applicant how he could insure
that each restaurant's customers parked in their respective lots. Mr. Seyranian assured
the Commission that he did not feel this would be a problem. He emphasized that most of
The Fisherman's customers use valet parking and it simply would not be permitted. He
said someone might deliberately park in Benihana's parking lot, but it would not be a
common event.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1977
Commission discussed valet parking at length. Commissioners Sine, Cistulli and
Kindig stated that they personally do not like to have valets park their cars.
Mr. Seyranian stated that the valets would find a place for the customer to park
his own car. C. Sine commented that he was Chairman when the restaurant was initially
approved by the Planning Commission. He stated at that time the property owner had
been urged to retain a portion of the property for future expansion. He noted
building permits had been obtained on various conversions within the building,
and felt that if those conversions had come before the Planning Commission additional
parking would have been reuqired.
Responding to C. Francard's question, Mr. Seyranian said there was a chain link fence
between the two parking lots so that if people parked in one lot and planned to go
to the other restaurant they would have to go back to the entrance driveway.
Responding to C. Jacobs': concerns that the 10-20% compact provision should be
rationalized in some way and a traffic count provided showing the types of cars
being parked there, C. P. Swan noted that the increment of the additional space is
small and eight more parking spaces would be required.
C. Sine and C. Cistulli felt something more definitive should be stated in Condition #2.
They felt a specific number or percentage of customer parking spaces should be
provided or an area designated for customers in the parking lot. It was felt that
valets would use the choice spaces, leaving less desirable spaces for customer
parking. Commission discussed this at length and C. Jacobs felt that reserving a
portion of the lot for customers might further restrict the number of available
spaces. C. Kindig agreed and expressed hope that the proposed customer parking
option would not reduce available parking. Responding to C. Sine's question,
Mr. Seyranian stated that the valet set-up is subleased and operates pretty much on
a full basis.
Mr. Patane, operator of The Fisherman, stated that peak hours were between 7:30 PM
and 9:30 PM weekdays, and later on weekends. He added that it would be difficult
to have customers park in a designated area at night because customer parking
signs would be ignored. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no
one wishing to speak and no further correspondence (ref. letter read during the
discussion), the public hearing was closed.
C. Sine asked Mr. Seyranian if he had a solution for this parking problem.
Mr. Seyranian stated that he could not give a foolproof solution. It would depend
on people parking properly and spaces being clearly designated; however, at night
even this would be difficult. He reemphasized that many of the customers would
utilize the valet service. Mr. Patane referred to the parking layout and stated that
15 spaces could be designated for customers wishing to park their own cars. This
suggestion was briefly discussed. Responding to C. Francard's inquiries, Mr. Patane
stated that employees park along the backwall and on Saturdays they park in the
service station lot. He stated that the new addition would not increase the number
of employees. He noted that cocktail waitresses are permitted to park nearby because
of the late closing hour and safety.
C. Sine moved that the variance be approved with the provision that the plot plan
be as shown on Job #7707, and that the aisle marked for 17 standard size spaces be
designated for customer parking. C. Cistulli seconded the motion. C. Kindig amended
the motion to include the eight conditions contained in the staff report. C. Francard
wished to add that the present parking lot be restored to "first class" condition.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1977
Mr. Patane noted that there is construction on the Benihana site and this construction
has caused the damage to the parking lot. C. A. Coleman, referring to the phrase
"acceptable to City Council" in Condition #3, felt this would not be necessary
unless the item is appealed. C. P. Swan explained it was not the intent that separate
action be taken; actually this would be acceptable to the Council through City Attorney
and City Engineer approval. With the motion for approval amended to include the eight
suggested conditions, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously
(5-0). C. Sine thanked Mr. Patane and Mr. Geraldi for attending the meeting.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 17-77 RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-46P, FOR
WESTATES PARK
Chm. Jacobs read the item. Dermot J. FitzGerald, attorney representing the applicant,
asked that action be taken on this item tonight although the corresponding special
permit might be continued. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item, noting that the
Commission held public hearing on the Draft EIR October 26, 1977. He referred to
an Addendum to the EIR dated November 8, 1977 by Earth Metrics Incorporated which
was prepared in response to public comments at the hearing and letters received from
various public agencies. He stated that if the Addendum and EIR-46P are found to
meet State requirements, the EIR could be recommended to the Council for certification.
He made reference to the draft Resolution No. 17-77 recommending the EIR to Council.
He requested that the Commission review the resolution and the draft findings in
Exhibit A, and noted that Kay Ransom of Earth Metrics was available for questions
and comment on the EIR.
C. Francard referred to page 2 of Exhibit A, paragraph 2, Item #7, and expressed
concern about the berms. He felt that drainage plans 'should be provided and
questioned what is planned along E1 Portal Creek. C. E. Kirkup discussed this with
C. Francard. The Commissioner asked how the berm would protect the shoreline walk
and bikeways against flooding. It had been recommended the berm be placed between
the paths and the Bay; the embankment slope would extend into the Bay. He was also
concerned about the berm along Bayshore Highway and felt that if this property were
enclosed in a berm there might be further flooding problems. C. E. Kirkup replied
that the total height of the berm would be 9 to 10 feet; the berm would be 3 to 4 feet
above the high tide of 6 feet. The 10 feet was to elevation 10 which is above mean
sea level. The property owner would leave the channel open and put a berm along
the channel.
Chm. Jacobs expressed concern about the consistency with the General Plan (Ref.
Exhibit A, Item 4, page 1). C. Kindig and C. Sine agreed that Item 13, Exhibit A,
page 3 should be more strongly stated, suggesting that "could" (second line) be
changed to "should." A brief recess was called so that Mr. Yost could get some
factual material for the discussion; the meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Referring
to the Waterfront Element of the General Plan he reviewed the objective concerning
public access to the Bayfront. The Commission discussed this briefly. It was noted
that C. Jacobs' concerns were mainly problems with Phase I; however, the ultimate
proposal would be consistent with the General Plan. It was agreed that Exhibit A,
Item 4, page 1 should be changed to: "The proposed ultimate project ."
C. Sine stated that approval of the EIR would not be an indication of Commission's
feelings about the project, noting that he felt the proposed project is very poor land
use. C. Sine moved for adoption of Resolution No. 17-77 with revisions (as discussed)
in Exhibit A, #4 and #13. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call vote it
carried unanimously (5-0). C. Sine suggested that the applicant review the land use
because he was not in favor of the project itself as currently planned.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
November 14, 1977
8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 1700-1880 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY (PORTION OF APN 024-380-080), ZONED C-4, BY JESSE D. YOHANAN
Dermot FitzGerald, attorney representing the applicant, requested that the public
hearing be opened and input received and then the hearing be continued. Chm. Jacobs
read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost briefly reviewed the application, making reference
to EIR-46P. He stated that the special permit application is for a commercial
parking lot with space for up to 810 cars and a shuttle bus service to the airport.
He stated that the issue is first to determine if the proposed use is an acceptable
use in the C-4 zoning district and, if it is not, the Commission should make findings
to support denial. If the project is found to be acceptable, conditions should be
established to mitigate the adverse impacts set forth in the EIR. He made reference
to a memorandum from the Director of Public Works, dated October 20, 1977, and the
Addendum to the EIR which bring out additional points for the Commission's considera-
tion. He stated that Resolution No. 17-77 attempted to match impacts with mitigation
measures and suggested the use of the resolution as the basis for any conditional
approval. He noted that Mr. FitzGerald, the applicant's representative, was present
for the discussion.
Mr. FitzGerald spoke briefly, stating that Stage I is to be an interim use and he
would like to prepare more detailed plans for the Commission's review. Chm. Jacobs
expressed concern about the wording "interim," stating that nothing indicates this would
not be the same 20 years from now. C. A. Coleman advised that approval could be
conditioned; it could be a condition for "X" number of years.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating
Trust, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating the proposed park -and -fly
facility was stretching the intent of the C-4 zone and this was not the best use
for the property. With regard to economic hardship, he stated that a number of
commercial establishments (restaurants, hotels, etc.) are interested in choice
bayfront property. There were no other members of the public wishing to speak.
C. Kindig stated that the City has had experience with "interim" airport parking and
expressed concern about this. He also expressed concern about assurance that all
of Stage I would be completed and questioned whether the office building portion
would be constructed. He further stated that this is probably the finest piece of
bayfront property in Burlingame and it could be used for restaurants, hotels, etc.;
he felt it would almost be a crime to use it for parking. C. Cistulli agreed with
C. Kindig. C. Sine reemphasized his feelings, stating he felt it would be bad land
use for the choicest property in Burlingame. C. Francard stated he does not like
telling a property owner what to do with his property; however, he agreed with the
comments of the other Commissioners.
Mr. FitzGerald thanked the Commission for their input and stated that the office
building in Stage I would be the first thing to go in and his client would have no
objection to a time limit on the parking facility, noting that his client plans to
phase it out. He explained that his client is not a developer and the interim parking
would enable him to finance the future phases. He added that he appreciated the
Commission's honest comments. C. Sine said that Burlingame is fortunate to have this
property and in surrounding communities waterfront property is almost gone.
Mr. FitzGerald voiced his appreciation of the Commission's concerns and asked them
to keep their minds open; more detailed architectural renderings would be presented
for the next meeting. The plans Commission currently has, he continued, are conceptual
plans and in no way represent the appearance of the proposed buildings.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
November 14, 1977
C. Sine moved that the hearing on this item be continued to the meeting of
November 28, 1977. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (5-0).
C. A. Coleman advised that Commissioners Taylor and Mink could act on this item if
they reviewed the minutes of this meeting.
9. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR 11 SIGNS WITH 117 SF OF TOTAL FACE AREA AT LIBRARY PLAZA,
401 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, BY MURRAY COHN
Chm. Jacobs read the item. C. P. Swan stated a sign exception was required to allow
more than three signs along Chapin Avenue, the secondary frontage. He briefly
reviewed the application and introduced Murray Cohn, the applicant. Mr. Cohn presented
a rendering of the building, pointing out locations of the proposed signs. He stated
that he was requesting 11 signs, eight signs facing Chapin Avenue and two facing
Primrose Road, and one main directory sign. The directory sign would be 12 feet
in height, six feet from the ground to the bottom of the sign with the sign height
about six feet. The individual signs for the businesses would be four feet in length,
18 inches high and two inches thick, and would be dark brown with gold leaf lettering.
He noted that all the signs would be the same style except the directory.
Responding to various questions from Commission, Mr. Cohn stated that the store units
are approximately 22 feet wide. He further noted that the directory sign would show
the complex' name, address and tenants. He said this is the only sign that would be
lighted and it would be lighted with spot lights from the ground. He advised the
plans did not show the exact height of the sign as the ground level grade has not
been definitely determined. C. Sine felt that it would be best as close to the
ground as possible. He also expressed the hope that the tenants would not be changing
and asking for their own sign exceptions; he asked if Mr. Cohn would be agreeable
to maintaining the situation. Mr. Cohn stated that the signs will always remain
the same; he would have control of the signs through the leases to which the tenants
have agreed. He further stated that he did not expect much tenant turnover as his
tenants were established Burlingame businesses seeking larger or more modern facilities.
Responding to C. Kindig's question, Mr. Cohn explained that two of the tenants are
renting two store units at the corner and would be eligible for a sign on each street.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There being no one
wishing to speak and no correspondence received, the public hearing was closed.
C. Kindig moved that the sign exception be approved in accordance with the plans
presented and the dimensions presented, noting that this would represent the complete
signage for the building and that the sign exception and its conditions go with the
building if it changes owners. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously (5-0).
MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY
ADDED ITEM - SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUE LEARNING CENTER, INC. TO HOLD CLASSES
IN COOLIDGE SCHOOL AT 1400 PALOMA AVENUE
C. P. Swan explained that this item could now be scheduled for hearing at the next
meeting. A letter from Mr. Black of the Burlingame School District, dated November 14,
1977, was referred to and C. A. Coleman stated that this had been discussed at length
with the School Board. Larry Krusemark was present and he was requested to expand on
the parking and traffic situation around the location at the time of the hearing.
With specific reference to Items 2 and 3 of Mr. Black's letter, C. Sine requested that
someone from the School District should enlarge on these points. He requested that a
representative of the Burlingame School District be present for the public hearing.
This item was set for hearing November 28, 1977.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
November 14, 1977
10. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-44P, FOR BURLINGAME BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUMS;
PREPARED BY TORREY & TORREY'INC. FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME
C. P. Swan briefly reviewed the above item and questioned whether the Raiser
Construction Company plans are current. Commission briefly discussed this item.
C. Kindig noted that the public hearing would only be on the EIR. David Keyston,
speaking for the applicant, stated that there has been no change in the project and
the plans in the EIR are the ones that are the preferred project. He explained that
research had begun on the mitigation measures in the EIR and what might be acceptable
if the Commission chooses not to approve the proposed development. Regarding the
right-of-way around the lagoon, it was explained that there would be more than
enough room for a pedestrian path to go around the lagoon on State property, although
it would not be suitable for a bicycle path. C. Cistulli was concerned about the
impacts such a development would have with regard to services, i.e., supermarkets,
schools, etc. Commission discussed traffic impacts and C. P. Swan noted that several
things were not included, i.e., nothing is said about traffic getting in and out of
the development. Mr. Swan further explained that the City had a traffic consultant
for the Bayfront Land Use Study, but he had been directed by Council not to do any
further work until the convention center project has been acted upon. Mr. Keyston
added that he had told the applicants the application would probably not be approved
until the Blaney Report has been submitted.
C. Sine asked, in view of these restrictions, if this study meeting should be continued
rather than the EIR scheduled for hearing. Mr. Keyston felt that many of these
concerns might be resolved through input at the public hearing, i.e., some direction
as to how much of the adverse effects would be acceptable. Chm. Jacobs stated that
the Commission could act on the EIR and it would not mean the Commission is voting
for the project. C. Cistulli reemphasized his feelings that more information should
be included in the report as to the impacts on the surrounding areas. C. Kindig
suggested possible future R-4 areas adjacent to the project should not be used as a
mitigation measure; the project has to stand on its own. C. Sine requested more
information on traffic. This item was scheduled for hearing November 28, 1977.
11. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO PERMIT A 990 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING REAR YARD; PROPERTY AT 144 CHAPIN LANE (APN 028-314-
400), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. NORMAN BROD
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item briefly, stating that the item is ready for hearing
and requesting the Commission inspect the site before the hearing. This item was
set for hearing on November 28, 1977.
12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE FROG POND, A HOT TUB AND SAUNA CLUB, TO OPERATE
AT 1320 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-480), ZONED C-4, BY BRUCE R. QUIE
(APPLICANT) WITH DAVID H. KEYSTON (PROPERTY OWNER
Mr. Yost reviewed the item; Mr. Quie was present and briefly took part in the discussion.
Mr. Quie explained that the proposal is basically for a spa at which customers can
rent rooms containing the equipment. He emphasized that this is not a massage parlor.
Detailed sketches of the room layout showing the equipment were requested, and the
application was then set for hearing on November 28, 1977.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 10
November 14, 1977
13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COURIER SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT
808 BURLWAY ROAD (APN 026-111-120), BY JOHN SWANSON OF LOOMIS COURIER SERVICE,
INC. (APPLICANT) WITH UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FUND LTD. (PROPERTY OWNER)
Staff briefly reviewed this item and recommended it for hearing. Hearing on this
item was set for November 28, 1977.
14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A QUICK PRINT SHOP IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT
1530 GILBRETH ROAD (APN 026-321-490), BY RICHARD HSIEH OF BURLINGAME SUPER
PRINT (APPLICANT) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF MAHLER GILBRETH PROPERTIES (PROPERTY
OWNER)
Commission briefly discussed this item and it was set for hearing on November 28, 1977.
15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP WITH 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)
C. P. Swan reviewed this item and Mr. Stein was present. C. Kindig stated he would
like assurance that cars would be kept off the access easements and that the area
would be kept clean. C. Francard questioned the number of totally wrecked autos
and where they would be stored. Mr. Stein stated he had contracted with wrecking
yards for this. This item was scheduled for hearing on November 28, 1977.
ADDED ITEMS
(1). Mr. Swan noted that the City Council is requesting another hearing by the
Planning Commission on Mr. Pisani's application at Dwight and Peninsula. He explained
that the Planning Commission action was appealed to the Council.but that a revised
parking plan was presented. -to the Council. Therefore, the Council would like the
Commission to consider the revised plans. He stated the hearing would have to be
noticed. This item was set for hearing November 28, 1977.
Items (2) and (3). Mr. Yost explained that the property owners at 925 Laguna Avenue
and 1608 Marco Polo Way were present to request that variances be scheduled for
hearing. He explained that the property owners came in for building permits for
additions and it was discovered that variances would be required. He briefly reviewed
the items and said that both applications were complete; staff recommended they be
set for hearing. These items were scheduled for hearing November 28, 1977.
C. Sine asked if City Hall would be open the Friday after Thanksgiving. Staff noted
that City Hall would be open.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
The Commission briefly discussed the Capital Improvements Program. It was decided
Commission would contact heads of the departments regarding projects needed and their
priorities. C. P. Swan was instructed to find out what Burlingame's share of
HCDA 4th year funds would be.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
November 14, 1977
There was some discussion about the scheduling of December meetings. It was noted
that two meetings were required although it might be feasible to have a long agenda
the first meeting of the month and a brief agenda the second meeting of the month
which could be adjourned to another meeting date if a quorum was not present.
C. P. Swan briefly discussed the upcoming meeting and noted items scheduled for
hearing including six special permits and four variances.
OTHER
C. Kindig expressed concern about the Retirement Inn, stating that the garages seem
to come up to the property line on the south side. He felt the purpose of a setback
was for access, noting that the garage is open and it would not be possible for
people to pass through. Staff stated that the plans would be checked out to see
how it was designed.
An.NN IRNMFN T
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary
Item No. 6
P.C. 11/14/77
STAFF REPORT THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT
1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
VARIANCE from parking regulations to allow addition of 690 SF of GFA to the cocktail
lounge and office area at the northerly end of the existing building. Reference
Negative Declaration ND -139P filed and posted November 3, 1977.
Parking Regulations specify the following (Sec. 25.41.080)
Customer parking to be provided on site @ 1 space/100 SF of GFA
Note: Ten percent of customer parking spaces may be allocated
to compact car; in this instance 10% of 118 is
12 small car (8'x17') spaces
Employee parking within reasonable proximity @ 1 space/1000 SF
of GFA
Total parking required for 11,740 SF of building area
Proaosed Darkin
3 handicapped person parking spaces
36 standard size customer parking spaces
16 standard size tandem parking spaces
41 compact car spaces
4 employee parking --spaces in loading zone
100 parking spaces -on site
30 short term leased parking spaces
off-site at 1499 Bayshore Hwy.
130 Parking spaces
= 118 spaces
12 spaces
130 spaces
Amt. of Variance
16
19
18
53 spaces
Valet parking is not recognized as a legally approved business in Burlingame because
city zoning regulations require a specific number of standard size parking spaces with
safe and proper means for ingress and egress. New specialty restaurants are obliged
to provide adequate off-street parking for both customers and employees. Each customer
should be permitted to park and lock his own car in a 9' x 20' parking space. Valet
parking functions otherwise. Vehicles are parked close together in tandem and at off-
site locations by attendants who are not necessarily employees of the restaurant.
Attendants park customers' cars at the customer's risk. Customer is expected to pay
a gratuity for the valet service. We do not approve a business license for valet
parking.
The Fisherman Restaurant is a non -conforming land use with a present parking deficiency
of 37 parking spaces. To meet code there should be 122 on-site spaces; there are only
85 spaces. When plans were reviewed for a building permit in 1971 the parking
requirement was one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area (GFA).
Original plans showed about 11,000 SF of gross floor area and 93 parking spaces to
satisfy code. A shop area near the front door was converted to a banquet room, and
an office area was added by enclosing a portion of the covered deck. These changes
Increased the GFA and the amount of parking required. When the restauranteur sanctioned
valet parking the actual number of spaces was reduced by modifications to the entrance
drive and addition of the small attendant shelter.
P.C. 11/14/77
Item No. 6 Page 2
The Fisherman Restaurant received a building permit in 1971 because it conformed then
with the requirement of one space per 200 SF of GFA. Following a survey of specialty
restaurant parking needs, the City amended the zoning code by adding Sec. 25.41.080
parking space requirements to the C-4 District Regulations. Ordinance No. 1037 which
was adopted April 21, 1975 and is now effective requires one parking space per 91 SF
of GFA. The restaurant became a non -conforming land use because of less than adequate
off-street parking. The Municipal Code Sec. 25.50.020 limits extension of a
non -conforming use.
The increment of additional parking for the additional 690 SF of floor area is only
8 spaces. However, the Environmental Assessment form submitted by the applicant
estimates the building addition would permit an increase of 57 customers. But to meet
the present code there is no way to provide 122 plus 8 for the building extension.
It is not possible on the present site without a parking structure. Alternatives to
the requested variance are to add a parking deck or to add property and provide a
larger parking area.
The magnitude of this parking variance is described as follows:
a. • 16 tandem parking spaces require valet service.
b. 41 compact spaces amount to 32% of the total number required and 19 more
than permitted by code.
C. The 30 off-site spaces amount to 18 more than permitted 6y code. A lease
that is revocable in 30 days does not guarantee off-site parking. A five
year lease has been suggested as a minimum period of commitment.
If findings can be made to satisfy Code Sec. 25.54.020 requirements, then the following
stipulations are suggested conditions to granting this Variance.
1. All on-site parking spaces shall be clearly marked; and spaces for
handicapped and small cars noted as such.
2. If valet parking is continued, a sign shall be posted to direct customers
to available on-site spaces where they may park their own cars if they
request to do so.
3. A performance bond and Lease Agreement, acceptable to City Council, shall be
provided to guarantee that there will always be not less than 30 off-site
parking spaces within reasonable proximity to The Fisherman Restaurant.
4. The Fisherman Restaurant shall provide adequate liability insurance coverage
for all vehicles removed by employees or agents to off-site parking locations.
5. The twenty foot wide access easement along the westerly edge of the site
shall be open and accessible for bicycles and emergency vehicles at all
times.
P.C. 11/14/77
Item No. 6
Page 3
6. The entrance driveway and parking layout on The Fisherman Restaurant site
shall not infringe upon property occupied by the Benihana of Tokyo Restaurant.
-7. Landscaped open space shall be provided to compensate for public access area
that would be covered by the proposed building addition.
8. BCDC approval of amended Permit No. 25-71 shall be presented to City before
a building permit may be issued.
G�
WMS/s Wayne M. Swan
11/11/77
Reference the following attached documents:
Negative Declaration ND -139P Fisherman Restaurant Addition
Variance Application with Applicant's Affidavit
Applicant's Statement re: Legal Requirements for Variance
Authorization letter of September 28, 1977 by Michael Geraldi, property owner
Interoffice Memo from John Caswell to Ralph E. Kirkup dated October 26, 1977
Re: 1492 Bayshore Blvd.
Bayside Land Use Study - Specialty Restaurants (Preliminary Draft)
Communications from 1499 Bayshore Office Center to The Fisherman from
Doris M. Baughman Re: Off-site parking contract/Agreement
Site Plan and Parking, Fisherman Restaurant Addition '
Floor Plan - Fisherman Restaurant Addition
Parking Layout - Fisherman Restaurant Addition