HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.10.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Cistul1i
Francard
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
OCTOBER 26, 1977
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
None
OTHERS PRESENT
City Planner Swan
Asst. City Planner,Yost
City Engineer Kirkup
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Taylor at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
The above listed Commission members and staff members were present.
MINUTES
The minutes of the October 12, 1977 meeting were distributed.
MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (APPROVED 7/12/77) FOR
PARK WOODS, A 16 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 33 PARK ROAD (APN 029-223-010/020/100/
110/120), ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR MORRIS SINGER AND THEODORE FARLEY
Chm. Taylor read the item. C. E. Kirkup reviewed the application, making reference
to his memorandum to City Planner Swan dated October 21, 1977 (memo attached as ref.).
C. E. Kirkup explained that the developer needs approval of a final map before he
can get financing. He read portions of the memorandum, noting the changes in
conditions: (1) a 4 inch water line with a 2 inch meter connection to the City
system; (2) that sewer into the development will remain private per Council decision
and be built to standards of a City main; and (3) that the driveway approach is
proposed to be built in accordance with City driveway standards rather than as a
street intersection. He explained that rather than meeting the conditions of the
tentative map before final map approval (as is the normal procedure), the developer
could be required to enter into an agreement with the City and submit a bond for
the cost of the required improvements, such agreement to be approved by the City
Attorney and the City Engineer.
The Commission discussed the application with the City Engineer. Responding to the
questions of the Commission, C. E. Kirkup explained that the financing, which is
dependent on final map approval, is for major building construction and the work
completed on the site to date was mainly for the sewer line. He further explained
that such a request has not come up before because this is a different type of
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
October 26, 1977
condominium with separate lots at the ground level. C. Kindig questioned the
possibility that upon completion of the development it might be put into one lot.
C. E. Kirkup said it would be difficult and that it is currently divided equally
into three lots; approval of this application would divide it into 19 lots (16 units
with three common area parcels).
The applicant was present for the discussion. Responding to C. Mink's inquiries,
the applicant stated that he was aware of the conditions in the memorandum
mentioned above and that he would agree to the conditions. C. Mink moved that
Commission recommend Council approval of the application subject to the items
contained in the memorandum from the C. E. to the C. P. dated 10/21/77 and that
the developer post bond for the required improvements as per City Attorney and
City Engineer approval. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call vote
the motion carried unanimously (7-0).
2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4, 5 AND 6,
ANZA AIRPORT PARK NO. 2 (APN 026-331-280/290/300); PROPERTY AT 320 LANG ROAD,
ZONED M-1, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR LAVENSTEIN & COMPANY
Chm. Taylor read the item. C. E. Kirkup stated that the City's requirements have
been met on the map and recommended approval of the tentative and final parcel map
in one action. Responding to C. Kindig's inquiry, C. E. Kirkup explained that a
portion of "Burlingame Avenue" (as shown on the map) is a paper street still shown
on all maps. C. Kindig moved that the above -noted tentative and final parcel map
be recommended for approval. C. Sine seconded the motion and upon a roll call
vote the motion carried unanimously (7-0).
3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.42.055 TO PERMIT AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO BE
CONSTRUCTED TO WITHIN 5 FEET OF A PUBLIC STREET IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY
AT 320 LANG ROAD (APN 026-331-280/290/300), BY RICHARD LAVENSTEIN (APPLICANT)
WITH CROCKER NATIONAL BANK (PROPERTY OWNER) (REF. ND -136P DATED 10/14/77)
Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item and the history,
stating that prior to 1975 setbacks were not required by the City in the M-1 zoning
district; however, when Lots 4, 5 and 6 were subdivided building setback lines
were shown on the subdivision map. He continued that the present proposal equals
or exceeds these map conditions, but falls short of the 15 foot setback required
since April, 1975 when the City's code was amended. He then reviewed the four
findings required for approval of a variance (Ref. Code Sec. 25.54.020). Mr. Yost
said that there are some unusual or "exceptional" circumstances. The property is
very shallow compared with other lots in the industrial zone. There is a PG&E
wire clearance easement over the entire back of the property (covering 43% of its
depth) which prohibits the construction of buildings. Lang Road is a cul-de-sac
with development limited to one side. Mr. Yost noted that ND -136P was posted
October 14, 1977 with the conclusion that there would be no significant effect on
the environment; he also noted that staff have no objection to the application as
the proposed development fully meets code in all other respects.
Cyrus McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, was present and stated that
he felt staff had correctly set forth the facts. He emphasized that the property
is extraordinary in that it is long and narrow with high power lines to the rear
and that it is also adjacent to Bayshore Freeway. He stated he had been advised
that the property owners on Lang Road are not opposed to the proposed development.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1977
He made reference to the earlier subdivision (parcel) map which set forth 5 foot,
7-1/2 foot and 10 foot setbacks in the area, noting that the project has an average
9 foot setback. He said the proposed building would have a low profile (only 15 feet
high) wilth up to 25 feet of landscaping on Airport Boulevard; the building is tiered
so that it will not be a monotonous wall. He then stated that Mr. Lavenstein was
also present.
Responding to C. Sine's concerns, Mr. Lavenstein stated that the height of the
building would be 15 feet above finished floor and was to be of concrete construction.
C. E. Kirkup noted that although he did not have exact dimensions on the lowest
point of the power lines, none of the building would be placed within the PG&E
easement. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, added that the
lowest permitted point in the power line is 29 feet and next to the tower the lowest
point is approximately 60 feet.
There being no further discussion, Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. Howard
Hickey, a resident of the area, spoke in favor of the application, noting that the
development would be an asset to the area. David Keyston, 433 Airport Boulevard,
spoke in support of the application, stating that there was hardship because of
the power lines. He also stated that the setbacks on the earlier parcel map
(Ref. Mr. Yost's staff report) were arrived at after careful consideration and
that this project is completely in compliance with those earlier requirements.
Norman Book, attorney representing Wurlitzer Properties, Inc., owners of 347 Beach
Road (immediately east of the subject property), addressed the Commission, stating
that his client was not opposed to the development, however, would like to question
the justification of granting a variance. He stated that adherence to setback
requirements would provide a much wider belt of landscaping between Lang Road and
the building, enhancing the entire development and that there was concern that
the ingress and egress traffic would come across the private road (immediately
adjacent to the subject property) serving the properties on Beach Road and that
tenants of the new building would use the parking spaces on those properties.
Referring to the findings required for granting a variance, Mr. Book stated that
it is not sufficient that there be extraordinary circumstances; it is also necessary
to find that there would be undue property loss to the property owner. He pointed
out that the applicant is not the property owner, but is buying the property, and
the sale is conditioned (under contract) pursuant to the granting of the permits
for the development. Mr. Book questioned the 9 foot average setback estimate given
by Mr. -McMillan, noting that 150 foot frontage has a 5 foot setback, 126 foot
frontage has a 9 foot setback and the 84 foot frontage has a 13 foot setback; he
stated these figures make it obvious that a 5 foot setback.occupies a predominant
portion of the property. With reference to the statements about a previous parcel
map, Mr. Book stated that he failed to see the relevance as the Commission should
be concerned with the ordinances that are current and govern this particular
situation. In summary, he stated that development of the property could take place
without the variance by a 10% reduction in gross floor area.
There being no further testimony, Chm. Taylor thanked the public for their comments
and closed the public hearing. Mr. McMillan stated that the variance is for Lang
Road, not Beach Road. He admitted that the 9 foot average setback figure was an
estimate,although he felt if calculated precisely, the average would be very close
to 9 feet. He noted that there would be a 25 foot wide landscaped area on Airport
Boulevard. Responding to the concerns about encroachment onto the private road,
he stated that bumper strips could be placed so as not to allow cars to pass between
this property and the Wurlitzer property. Responding to Chm. Taylor's request
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
October 26, 1977
that he address the subject of property loss, Mr. McMillan stated that if the sale
is not made there would be obvious loss. He also noted that in order to have
attractive offices in the front part of the building with the back portion for
M-1 uses, with the depth of the lot and the PG&E power line limitations, it would
not be economically feasible to construct the building another way.
Mr. Book felt it was not the intent of the condition regarding property loss that
because the loss of the sale of a property this would "result in undue loss" to the
property owner. Responding to C. Francard's question, Mr. Lavenstein (applicant)
stated that he is buying the property for himself. He further stated that detailed
landscaping plans would be submitted for approval in accordance with City ordinances.
C. Cistulli felt that the sale of the property was not a concern of the Commission.
He felt that an application had been presented and that is what should be
considered. The Commission briefly discussed the question of the bumper strips
and the use of the private road by cars from the proposed development. C. Sine
noted that he had briefly calculated the setbacks and the average setback on Lang
Road would be 8 feet 9 inches.
Mr. Book's client, Dr. Wurlitzer, wished to speak. Chm. Taylor advised that the
public hearing was closed and that Mr. Book had been permitted to speak as his
statements made at the public hearing were the subject of the discussion, and
further, that Mr. Book was Dr. Wurlitzer's counsel and therefore his voice in this
matter.
C. Jacobs felt that there were exceptional circumstances with the PG&E lines in
the rear portion of the lot and moved that the variance be approved. C. Kindig
seconded the motion, asking that the approval be subject to the condition that
the applicant submit detailed landscape plans for Park Department approval and
that the bumper strips be constructed so as not to permit the passage of cars over
the adjacent property. C. Mink asked if C. Jacobs meant that all facts and findings
necessary for the granting of a variance had been met; C. Jacobs responded "yes."
There being no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion for
approval carried unanimously (7-0). Chm. Taylor stated that the Commission's
decision could be appealed to the Council. He then acknowledged the presence of
Councilman Martin in the audience.
4. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.050 TO ADD A BEDROOM AND PLAYROOM AND EXTEND AN
EXISTING HOUSE TO WITHIN 4 FEET OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE; PROPERTY AT
1105 DUFFERIN AVENUE (APN 025-232-820), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. R. R. MILLER
Chm. Taylor read the item and Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application and the
affidavit for the variance which set forth the personal circumstances of the
applicant. He noted that the house is a 2 -bedroom, 1 bath and 1 car garage home
on a 50' x 100' lot. He further noted that the proposed addition would extend
25 feet into the rear yard and to within 4 feet of the back property line, and that
the applicant states there would be no windows adjacent to the side or rear property
lines within the required 15 foot rear yard. The addition would include a small
third bedroom and a larger hobby room. Mr. Yost said there are several alternatives
that would permit an addition within code, these being a smaller addition to the
rear of the building, a second story addition or an addition in the front of the
building. He noted that the second story addition alternative would be more costly.
In reviewing the findings required for variance approval (Ref. Code Sec. 25.54.020)
he stated that financial hardship is not legal justification.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
October 26, 1977
The Commission briefly discussed the application with Mr. Miller, the applicant,
who was present to answer questions; he presented photographs and drawings.
Mr. Miller said he intended to keep the present patio cover for shade. C. Kindig
felt the patio cover made the lot appear to be completely covered by buildings
and felt it might be better to remove it. C. Jacobs felt that a second story
addition would not be the best alternative as most of the neighborhood is single
story. Chm. Taylor asked the applicant if he had considered the alternatives.
Mr. Miller indicated that he did not wish to add a second story or extend the front
of the house. He further stated he did not intend to contact an architect.
There being no further discussion, Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. As there
was no one wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to the variance, Secy. Sine
read a letter dated September 27, 1977 which Mr. Miller had sent to his neighbors
explaining his proposal and asking for their comments. The resident of 1101 Dufferin
signed the letter indicating that he had no objection to the variance. Chm. Taylor
closed the public hearing.
The Commission discussed the proposed addition with Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller indicated
he would remove a portion of the patio cover if that were a condition of the granting
of the variance. There was a brief discussion about the parking requirements and
it was noted that adequate parking would be provided even with the additional bedroom.
Upon review of the findings required for variance approval, C. Mink stated that the
variance would have to be denied on the basis that it is not in keeping with the
intention of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Chm. Taylor added that he
felt the applicant had not met his obligation of looking into alternatives.
Noting that the applicant had not been able to show that the application meets the
four conditions required for variance approval, C. Mink moved that the variance be
denied. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon a roll call vote the motion
carried 4-3 (Jacobs, Kindig, Sine dissenting). Chm. Taylor noted that the decision
of the Commission could be appealed and that such appeal would have to be submitted
by 5:00 P.M., Monday, November 7, 1977. C. Kindig explained that several members
of the Commission feel the alternatives should be considered and Chm. Taylor
directed the applicant to discuss this with City staff.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL AND SERVICE BOATS AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT;
PROPERTY AT 390 LANG ROAD (APN 026-331-370/400), BY HOWARD G. HICKEY (PROPERTY
OWNER) (REF. ND -137P DATED 10/14/77)
Chm. Taylor read the item. In reviewing the application, Mr. Yost explained that
three uses of the property are proposed: (1) the selling of boats at retail;
(2) the servicing of boats; and (3) the storage of boats in a paved, off-street
location (available to boatowners on a rental basis). He noted that the property
is somewhat unusual, being the last parcel at the end of the Lang Road cul-de-sac,
with two sides adjoining water (the lagoon and the connecting channel to the Bay),
the third side adjoining Bayshore Freeway and the fourth side being the only one
adjoining private property in the M-1 zoning district. He said that the total lot
area is 34,800 square feet with the present building covering only 9 percent of the
property (3,300 square feet) and of the remainder, 25,000 square feet is a paved
parking area. He referred to a letter dated September 30, 1977 from Mr. Hickey
(applicant) describing the proposed use (on file with application). In summary,
Mr. Yost noted that no additional improvements to the present property are proposed
and a negative declaration was signed with the conclusion that the proposed change
of use would have little impact upon the environment. He stated that Mr. Hickey was
present to answer any questions.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
October 26, 1977
Mr. Hickey had nothing to add to Mr. Yost's summary except that he felt there would
not be as much traffic generated with the proposed use as with many permitted uses.
Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. Richard Lavenstein, owner of the adjoining
property, addressed the Commission speaking in support of the special permit, and
noting that because it is largely a weekend use it would not create a traffic
problem. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, spoke in favor of
the application noting, with reference to his letter of October 5, 1977, that if
the property were zoned C-4 the permit would not be necessary. There being no one
else wishing to speak, Secy. Sine read a letter dated October 5, 1977 in support
of the application from David Keyston (ASLT); this letter is on file with the
application. There being no further public input, Chm. Taylor closed the public
hearing.
C. Jacobs moved that the above -noted special permit be approved. C. Cistulli
seconded the motion. C. Kindig felt, considering the location and the fact that
the sale of boats is not a typical commercial business, that such conditions
would warrant approval of the special permit. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion for approval carried unanimously (7-0). It was noted that the decision of
the Planning Commission would be effective November 8, 1977.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN APARTMENT HOUSE THAT EXCEEDS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT;
PROPERTY AT 729/731 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 028-141-070), ZONED R-3, BY JACK WOODSON
(ARCHITECT) WITH TERENCE O'NEILL (OWNER) (REF. ND -138P DATED 10/14/77)
Chm. Taylor read the item. C.P. Swan reviewed the application and the statements
contained in the negative declaration, noting that the proposal calls for: a 22
unit apartment building with four stories, including three levels for the units
and one level for parking (a development of 44 units per net residential acre);
the proposed building will be 39 feet 6 inches above grade at the front property
line. He stated that the site is where the Peninsula Conservatory of Music was
located. There is a creek along the southeasterly side and very large eucalyptus
trees (approximately 120 feet in height) next to El Camino Real. The original plans
were not presented to the Planning Commission because the applicant believed the
plans were in compliance with code; the discrepancies were discovered when a building
permit was submitted and reviewed by staff. He noted that the regulations of the
R-3 zoning district in Sec. 25.32.060 stipulate that 4 -story buildings, 55 feet in
height would be permitteds however, this section of the code was amended to add a
review procedure for any structure higher than 35 feet. Mr. Swan said a meeting
was arranged between the architect, builder and owner and City staff members,
and it was concluded that the special permit would be a better alternative than
excavating for the garage. A high water table requires a water tight foundation
(with additional expense). The development as proposed without a slope down into
the garage from E1 Camino Real would be safer. Mr. Swan recommended approval of
this special permit, based on the facts noted in his presentation, and stated that
Mr. Woodson was present to answer questions.
Jack Woodson, Palo Alto, architect for the proposed development, said he regretted
the misinterpretation of the code and stated they were not trying to "get away with
anything" (Ref. minutes of October 12, 1977 in which the misinterpretation of the
codes, resulting in the special permit, were explained). Chm. Taylor opened the
public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the
public hearing was closed.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1977
C. E. Kirkup, responding to C. Francard's question, stated that the creek is private.
Responding to Mr. Sine's questions regarding a statement about dirt mounds covering
the parking, Mr. Woodson explained that the grade slopes evenly from the back of
the sidewalk up to the face of the building, providing an on -grade walkway or steps
following the contour up to the building. The driveway, he stated, is circular
because of the narrow space between the eucalyptus trees. He noted there would be
little mounds with landscaping on the slope; no trees would be removed.
C. Jacobs moved the special permit be granted, noting the trees and the location,
i.e., the creek and water table levels and the ingress and egress safety. C. Mink
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously upon a roll call vote (7-0).
It was noted that this item could be appealed to the Council; however, if not
appealed, it would be effective November 8, 1977.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCTA BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT; 25 -UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 1210 BELLEVUE AVENUE (APN 029-133-210/220), ZONED R-4, BY
JACK WOODSON (ARCHITECT) FOR THOMAS J. GLYNN (OWNER) (REF. ND -122P DATED 8/12/77)
Chm. Taylor read the item. C. P. Swan stated that this item has basically the
same circumstances as Item #6 except there are no eucalyptus trees, and noted that
the condominium permit plans satisfied zoning regulations and claimed the building
would be 35 feet in height. Upon review of construction plans the project was
found to be more than 35 feet in height. He reemphasized that 55 feet is allowed
in R-3. (Ed. 75 feet is allowed in R-4.) He also noted that 1 owering of the
building would cause difficult entry to the lower level parking and the ramp to
the upper level would have a flatter grade. He stated that the design being
considered is the best one for the site and recommended approval of the special permit.
Responding to C. Jacobs' request for further explanation of the problem with the
driveways, Mr. Woodson explained that the problem was mainly with the slope of the
driveway and he also mentioned a condition for flood control on Bellevue Avenue
which was placed on the condominium permit. He stated that in order to comply with
that condition the ground has been sloped up 6 inches higher than the back of the
sidewalk which causes a loss in the length of the driveway, making the slope more
severe. The design, he continued, was felt to be the most desirable in that the
driveway is easier to negotiate and safer. Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing.
There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the public hearing was
closed.
C. Sine moved that the special permit be granted, noting the facts presented during
staff review. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (7-0)
upon a roll call vote. It was noted that the decision of the Commission would be
effective November 8, 1977 unless appealed to the City Council. C. Kindig requested
that staff take necessary steps to see that such misunderstandings do not occur again.
Mr. Woodson apologized for taking up the Commission's time, emphasizing again that
it was not an intentional mistake.
Commission had a brief discussion about landscaping and some type of assurance to
the City that landscaping would be installed as presented and bond posted. It was
decided that this is a just concern and something to discuss at a future study
meeting.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
October 26, 1977
8. PERMIT PER SEC. 25.4I.020(j) FOR JILLY'S ENTERTAINMENT CENTER AT 450 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD (APN 026-361-120/170 AND A PORTION OF 026-361-160), ZONED C-4, BY
MARK TRACY FLOWERS OF FLOWERS, GEFAELL & ASSOCIATES WITH DAVID H. KEYSTON,
TRUSTEE, ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (REF. ND -134P DATED 9/20/77)
Chm. Taylor read the item. C. P. Swan reviewed the application and the negative
declaration statement. He referred to Waterfront Commercial District regulations,
Sec. 25.41.020(j) which stipulates that Jilly's would be a permitted use if after
public hearing it is found to be desirable and compatible with the purposes of the
Waterfront Commercial District. He read from Sec. 25.41.010 of the code which
explains the purposes of the waterfront regulations. He pointed out various areas
of bayfront properties and those overlooking the Bay which are in the C-4 District
(referring to a chart on the bulletin board). Mr. Swan noted that the Jilly's site
is owned by the State and that as a condition of the settlement agreement for leasing
the property uses should be compatible with the C-4 District. He stated that the
Commission's concern is to'find if the proposed showroom is compatible and desirable
as part of the entertainment center. Mr. Flowers and Mr. Patri were present to
provide information and answer any questions. Mr. Swan noted that a 25 foot public
access strip would be required between the building and the shoreline and that there
is a seating capacity of 600 persons.
Piero Patri, architect for Jilly's Entertainment Center, confirmed that a 25 foot
setback was to be provided along the Bay right-of-way. In making a general
description of the project he noted: the ground level would contain 26,000 square
feet with 5,000 square feet on the second level; uses include 150 seat restaurant,
50 person cocktail lounge and a 150 person discotheque area; it is designed with
step platforms to function as a meeting room and designed when appropriate to have
a view of the water; the 600 seat showroom is designed with flexibility including
a stage, and with the service access fog trucks in the rear; the property is now
separated from the Bay by a dike; the parking would be below street level, along
Airport Boulevard, with buffer landscaping along the main access road shielding
trucks servicing the building.
Mr. Patri emphasized the layout as being flexible in terms of servicing a range of
needs, entertainment to convention and conference needs. He noted that the building
would stay within the 35 foot height review line with a public walkway along the
water. The building wuld be staggered, 20 to 24 feet high on the portion adjacent
to the Bay and the showroom would be up to 35 feet high. He stated that this
staggered effect would reduce the bulk of the building from the street. In conclusion
he stated that the concept of the entertainment center is not one of just a single
facility that changes at one time with everyone leaving at once, but there would
be a range of activities and overlapping uses. People might go to dinner and stay
afterwards to go to a show. He pointed out this type of facility, with early evening
and nighttime uses, would not conflict with the surrounding offices which are weekday
and daytime uses. He stated that access and available parking is good and the project
consists of complementary uses to the surrounding area.
Mr. Patri confirmed that 31,000 square feet was the total usable floor area and
that figure includes the service area. He referred to a diagram pointing out where
the cars would be parked, claiming there would be 375, not 350, spaces and the service
area is located below Airport Boulevard so the view to the Bay would be protected.
C. P. Swan stated that the parking was adequate and pointed out two large State-owned
parcels that would be used. He stated that this is on the agenda for approval of the
concept rather than specific building plans.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
October 26, 1977
Chm. Taylor noted that this item was referred to the Planning Commission from the
City Council to determine if the theater is a compatible use in the C-4 zoning
district and that part of the compatibility deals with possible high traffic
impacts on narrow streets, etc. David Keyston commented on the parking impacts,
noting that in the same area a four -screen drive-in theater is permitted with 2,100
parking spaces, getting out at the same time. He felt the proposed project would
have substantially less an impact on the area as no large group of people would be
leaving at any given time.
Mr. Keyston believed the entire project to be quite consistent with the uses in C-4.
He noted public access is provided; there is a recorded 25 foot easement which would
be landscaped substantially in excess of the requirement of the City; and there would
be landscaping around the building and the parking area so that aesthetically the
project would be in accordance with the C-4 zoning. He further noted that views to
the Bay would be obstructed to a lesser extent than any other projects in the C-4
zoning district. He also stated that the concept of depressed parking is one
suggested at a Council meeting so as not to obstruct the view of the Bay. He
noted that the project was approved by the State Lands Commission at their September
meeting. Mr. Swan stated that there was adequate parking although there was
difficulty in determining the number of spaces needed for the entertainers.
Responding to C. Cistulli's concerns, Mr. Keyston stated that a 25 year lease with
two five-year options has been agreed to with the State (for the parking parcels)
and that there was no provision that the State can break the lease.
Tracy Flowers was present, explaining the operating procedures and answering questions.
He stated that the purpose of having a discotheque was that "they are in right now"
and it would incorporate several different types of music (music of the 30's, 40's,
50's and current) to attract all ages from 25 to senior citizens. He further
explained that it would close at 2:00 A.M. With regard to parking, he explained
the parking plan on a diagram and stated the parking would be limited to the
parcels shown with no leased parking. He said that the searchlights would be
focused on the building and that the developer would take care of security for
the facility. He stated that if the convention center does not come about, that
would have no effect on the operation as it is planned to serve the community. He
noted that the landscaping would be approved by the Park Department. Mr. Patri added
the plans are only concept plans and landscaping will more than meet the minimum
requirement.
Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. Daryl Nick, 808 Burlway Road, spoke in favor
of the application, noting that it would be an asset to the Burlingame community.
There being no further public input, the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs stated that she felt the combined uses and how they complement the Bay
make a very compatible project within the C-4 zone. She added that if it were a
separate use, then she would feel differently. C. Mink stated that in light of
the extensive studies of the Redevelopment Agency and the discussion at this meeting,
i:e., traffic and parking and the surrounding uses being daytime/weekday with the
proposed use being early evening and nighttime/weekend mainly, he, too, felt that
the project as a whole would be compatible. It was noted that the size of the
project had nothing to do with compatibility, but it was a matter of function.
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1977
C. Mink, making reference to Mr. Flowers' letter of October 19, 1977 setting forth
certain conditions, stated that those conditions make it possible to find the
project more compatible. He moved that if the conditions listed by the applicant
in his letter of October 19, 1977 are met with regard to control of external
lighting, i.e., searchlights (page 1, paragraph 2), traffic control (page 2,
paragraph 4), and security and demands on City services (page 3, paragraph 1),
that the Commission.finds this use compatible in the C-4 zoning, "this use" referring
to the total combined project. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously (7-0). A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 10:00 P.M.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-43E AND ADDENDUM REPORT FOR THE BAYSIDE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1977)
Chm. Taylor read the item and C. P. Swan explained that the amendment to the above
EIR is divided into four parts: (1) revised set of alternatives; (2) written
responses to the comments from public agencies; (3) minutes and responses to the
comments raised at the public hearing September 28, 1977; and (4) including all
the information and materials., specifically the Donald K. Goodrich Parking Needs
Analysis for the Sheraton Hotel and, finally, an overview of the report. He stated
that the Addendum and the Draft EIR are adequate for action and referred to
Resolution No. 16-77, reading some of the Findings of Exhibit A.
C. Cistulli was concerned about the relocation of Bayside Park and who would pay
for the relocation. C. P. Swan stated that the funds would be obtained from
Redevelopment bonds. Attorney Ken Jones of Wilson, Jones, Morton & Lynch was
present; he stated that the report meets the requirements of the law and that it
would be proper procedure to act on the report at this time. C. Jacobs was concerned
about the lack of specifics with regard to the park relocation and growth inducement.
She further stated the discussion of traffic in the EIR did not deal with the
surrounding developing lands and she felt the EIR was not adequate. Mr. Jones said
that the basic function of the EIR is to identify and set forth impacts of a project,
noting that specific plans were not available. He stated that the EIR is not a
control document. Control is not its function; the control comes up at the design
and construction stage when the details are required.
There being no further discussion, C. Mink moved for adoption of Resolution No. 16-77.
C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call vote the motion carried 6-1,
C. Jacobs casting the negative vote.
Mrs. Dorothy Cusick requested permission to ask several questions. She expressed
concern about certain dollar amounts in the Draft EIR and the Supplement to Feasibility
Study, noting there was a decrease of $1,000,700 in the cost of bonds. She stated
that the Draft EIR noted an 8.5 acre park and the amendment noted a 9.5 acre park;
she asked which was correct. Chm. Taylor stated that the approved document is correct.
There was a brief discussion. Mr. Jones explained the -net reduction results from
a transfer from public to private financing. He noted that the construction of the
park would come from the proceeds of the sale of bonds. It was noted that this
would be sent to the November 16, 1977 meeting of the City Council as the Redevelopment
Agency. Chm. Taylor acknowledged the presence of Mayor Harrison in the audience.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
October 26, 1977
10. VARIANCE FROM CODE CHAPTER 25.70 TO PERMIT THE ADDITION OF 210 ROOMS TO THE
EXISTING SHERATON INN AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-290-310), ZONED M-1,
BY BARRY SILVERTON WITH PHILIP WASSERSTROM (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1977)
Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item, noting that the
application is to add 210 rooms to the present Sheraton Inn and provide only 351
off-street parking spaces to City standards, versus a code requirement of 766 spaces.
He said that Sheraton submitted a 1975 survey of their parking lot which can be
projected to show a probable future average daily parking demand of 239 vehicles
and by use of valet parking and a small number of compact spaces, possibly 400
vehicles could be parked on their site. It was further noted that several times
a'year there would be a peak demand and it is suggested that 100 off-site spaces
be provided to accommodate the overflow events. Mr. Yost explained that Sheraton
has an offer from Anza Parking Corp. to park up to 100 cars without notice on the
Anza Airport Parking lot and that parking for up to 500 vehicles has been offered
to Sheraton with 30 -day notice.
Referring to a staff report dated September 28, 1977, Mr. Yost stated that the
questions raised by this report were responded to by a letter dated September 27, 1977
submitted by Mr. Keyston. The Asst. C. P. read portions of the letter from
Mr. Keyston (attached for reference). In summary, he noted the four legal requirements
for a variance (Sec. 25.54.020) and stated that a decision should be taken on the
maximum days a year that overflow of cars should be permitted, maximum number of
cars that should be permitted to overflow at any one time, acceptable off-site
locations for the "overflow" cars and reasonable assurances that such off-site
facilities will be available or that other solutions acceptable to the City would
be implemented by the Sheraton.
Cyrus McMillan, Attorney representing Barry Silverton, the applicant, stated that
he felt the variance was justified as it is an unusual site in that it is landlocked
and adjacent to the convention center area. He noted the parking available through
Anza and asked the Commission to consider the airport nature of the hotel where
as much as 80 percent of the clientele arrive and leave by limousine or bus. He
felt a loss of property right is a concern as it would not be possible to build
without the variance. He stated that the granting of a variance would be consistent
with the use intended in the Bayside Redevelopment area and that it would be
consistent with the zoning code and legal requirements, and consistent with the
existing uses. Mr. McMillan confirmed that with or without the convention center
the addition is needed, although he stated he felt the convention center will
become a reality.
Addressing himself to the Commission's concerns, Mr. Silverton explained that even
with the additional rooms, the volume could be increased in the coffee shop and
restaurant without having to make additional space available. He noted, however,
if the convention center is developed, then additional facilities are planned.
If the convention center is not developed, the present dining facilities are
adequate. Mr. Silverton explained the purpose of combining the convention center
and this addition as a package, stating that there were legalities with regard
to funding.
C. Jacobs was concerned about the parking requirements, noting that if the Commission
grants a variance based on the fact that the Sheraton is an "airport" hotel and
therefore requires less parking spaces, all the hotels will want reduced parking
requirements. She stated if the present code is too stringent on parking she
thought it should be studied and possibly changed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 12
October 26, 1977
C. Sine felt there was adequate parking; however, he was concerned about the
overflow days. Mr. Keyston noted that because the property is landlocked, inadequate
parking would affect the operation of the hotel., not surrounding properties. He
stated that a parking structure could easily be built without changing a great deal
of the building, and that National Feasibility Corporation's study showed there is
enough income projected from the hotel to permit building of a parking structure.
He reemphasized that parking could hurt the applicant himself, but not adjacent
property owners or the City.
C. Mink moved that the Commission approve the variance subject to the conditions
that (1) an irrevocable agreement for not less than 100 off-site parking spaces
be guaranteed and available on demand basis, (2) agreement between City and
applicant whereby applicant will provide signalization of the intersection at the
entrance to the Sheraton Hotel,and (3) agreement between applicant and City for
applicant to provide by easement sufficient lands so that the City may relocate
Airport Boulevard between the hotel and Bayside Park at a location to be determined
by the City Engineer if Alternative Two is to be effected. C. Cistulli seconded
the motion and upon roll call vote the motion carried 5-2 (C.ers Jacobs and
Francard dissenting).
11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ADDITION MORE THAN 35 FEET IN HEIGHT IN
THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-290-310), BY
BARRY SILVERTON WITH RAISER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE SHERATON INN
(CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1977)
Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application, noting that
Code Sec. 25.42.030 requires a special permit for any building in the M-1 District
which exceeds 35 feet in height. He stated that the proposed 7 -story addition to the
present Sheraton Inn is planned to be 60 feet in height to the main parapet and 69
feet to the top of the elevator shaft. He noted that the project is described in
Alternative One, EIR-43E and in the Addendum Report dated October 21, 1977. He
referred to the Addendum Report, pointing out areas of concern, i.e., soils and
geology, visual considerations and energy. He stated that approval or denial of the
special permit would require findings and, if the site is considered to be waterfront
development, then the General Plan should be referenced; project to be in accordance
with plans that were circulated to the Commission September 12, 1977.
Cyrus McMillan, attorney, was present for the discussion. It was noted that there
were no changes on the plan since the last meeting. Chm. Taylor opened the public
hearing. There being no public input, the public hearing was closed.
C. Sine moved for approval of the special permit as per plans and specifications
presented. C. Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call vote it carried 5-2
(C.ers Jacobs and Francard dissenting).
A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 11:30 P.M.
Page 13
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1977
12. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-46P, FOR WESTATES PARK; PREPARED BY
EARTH METRICS INCORPORATED FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME
Chm. Taylor read the item and asked the Asst. C. P. to give the staff report.
Mr. Yost stated that the Westates Park project is a proposal by Jesse Yohanan to
develop a commercial "park -and -fly" facility on 9.4 acres of shoreline property
along Bayshore Highway just south of the Millbrae/Burlingame boundary. The proposed
facility would include parking for up to 810 cars with a shuttle bus service to the
airport. Additionally, a 3 -story 24,000 square foot office building is proposed
together with a 25 foot wide recreational easement along the easterly property line
adjacent to the Bay; this easement would allow pedestrian and bicycle travel between
Avis and El Portal Creek channel. The fourth element of the project would be
street, gutter and curb improvements along Bayshore Highway. In summary, Mr. Yost
stated these four elements are Phase I of the project and are the principal focus
of the EIR.
Mr. Yost briefly described Phase II and Phase III, Phase II being a restaurant of
approximately 6,000 to 10,000 square feet at the northern end of the development
property, reducing the "park -and -fly" facility by 200 to 300 spaces and taking place
approximately 5 to 8 years after completion of Phase I. Phase III, Mr. Yost
continued, could occur in 10 to 18 years after Phase I, and anticipates the closing
of the remaining "park -and -fly" spaces and replacing those spaces with 96,000 square
feet of additional office space. He noted that on page 4 of the EIR it is stated
that "depending on the specific plans developed for Phases II and III at a later
date, additional environmental review may be required by the City of Burlingame."
Mr. Yost then described the EIR itself, stating that it reviews the project within
seven categories: (1) Geology, (2) Hydrology, (3) Biology, (4) Traffic and
Circulation, (5) Noise, (6) Visual and Aesthetic Patterns and (7) Economics. He
pointed out that Fig. 3 page 6 shows the architect's schematic designs for Phase I
and Phase III, noting that no additional drawings were available to detail the
office buildings, the restaurant, the landscaping of the 25 foot shoreline easement
or to detail the public improvements, especially turning lanes or other traffic
improvements that might be required. He further noted that Figure 11 on pages 42
and 43 shows four alternative traffic improvements that could be made, but which are
only -presented at present as diagrams for further study. He noted that compatibility
with the General Plan and other municipal policies is addressed in Section G,
pages 66-70, where it is stated that the "initial development appears to be
consistent with the General Plan;" the section concludes that from a land use
standpoint the proposed facility is not incompatible with the convention center,
though a new "park -and -fly" service would raise economic issues for consideration.
Mr. Yost noted that this section includes alternatives to the proposed project.
On procedures, Mr. Yost emphasized that the EIR should be found to be legally
adequate, but that action on the EIR does not commit the City to approval of the
project or details of the project. He further noted that the special permit for
the project is the next item on the agenda and, while the public hearing on this
second item could be opened at this time, the hearing should be continued to such
a time as the Commission is able to conclude its work on the EIR. Without the EIR
it would be inappropriate to either approve or deny the proposed special permit.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 14
October 26, 1977
The Commission briefly discussed the EIR. There was some question regarding the
upkeep of the landscaping and it was felt this was a question to be considered
under the special permit. The entire Commission felt the report was very well
done. C. Sine said that page 22, paragraph three should have the added phrase
at the end of the last sentence, " . . . and hill seepage."
Ms. Kay Ransom of Earth Metrics Incorporated was present to answer any questions.
Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. Secy. Sine read a letter dated September 21,
1977 from Elin Rigby addressing the project itself (not the EIR), noting that the
area should be reserved for public services and made available to the citizens of
Burlingame. There being no further public input, Chm. Taylor closed the public
hearing.
The Commission briefly discussed the EIR and suggested that staff should have
a resolution prepared for the Commission's approval for the November 14 meeting.
There was some discussion about the design of the proposed office buildings;
C. P. Swan noted that no elevations and very little information had been provided.
Mr. Yost stated that the architect had indicated that the final designs of the
buildings would be different from those in the EIR to avoid monotony. C. Kindig
felt that some mention should be made in the resolution that when Phases II and
III come up for consideration a new EIR should be prepared or an addendum to this
EIR. C. Mink felt some reference to mitigation measures should be included in
the resolution, i.e., design review, etc. C. P. Swan said that the resolution
could include the mitigation measures to overcome the adverse impacts. He stated
that staff would draft a section subject to Commission modification at the next
meeting.
The Commission commended Earth Metrics on the report. Staff was instructed to
prepare a resolution for the next meeting on November 14, 1977.
13. 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
Chm. Taylor continued this item to the next meeting (ref. Item #12 above).
C. Mink stated that as he was not present at the last meeting during which Items
#14 and #15 were discussed he would abstain from voting.
14. RESOLUTION NO. 14-77 RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-48P
Chm. Taylor read the item. C. Jacobs moved that the above -noted item be sent
to City Council for certification. The motion was seconded by C. Cistulli and
upon a roll call vote carried 6-0 (one abstention).
15. RESOLTUION NO. 15-77 RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFICATION
OF A PORTION OF TWO PARCELS AT 911/915 EL CAMINO REAL FROM R-1 TO R-3 DISTRICT
Chm. Taylor read the item. C. Cistulli moved that the above -noted resolution be
sent to the Council for adoption. C. Kindig seconded the motion and upon a roll
call vote it carried 5-1 (C. Jacobs dissenting and C. Mink abstaining).
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Page 15
October 26, 1977
16. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT THE RESUBDIVISION OF
PROPERTY AT 1862 and 1872 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-169-090/100/110), ZONED M-1,
BY ARTHUR RUDE, JR. (PROPERTY OWNER)
Chm. Taylor read the item. Mr. Yost briefly reviewed the item, stating that -
information is complete and recommended that hearing be set. Chm. Taylor set the
hearing on this item for November 14, 1977.
17. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, UNIT NO. 1,
MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK; PROPERTY AT 1862 AND 1872 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-
169-090/100/110), ZONED M-1, BY MARTIN M. RON ASSOCIATES FOR ARTHUR RUDE, JR.
Chm. Taylor read the item. It was reported that this item is ready for hearing.
Chm. Taylor scheduled the item for hearing on November 14, 1977.
18. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCK RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 808 BURLWAY
ROAD (APN 026-111-120) AND TRUCK STORAGE AT 855 MAHLER ROAD (APN 026-322-190)
BY DARYL NICK FOR AZTEC RENT-A-CAR/RYDER TRUCK RENTALS (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
AUGUST 22, 1977)
Mr. Yost explained that the applicant, Daryl Nick, had been present earlier but had
to leave. Mr. Yost briefly reviewed the item (Ref. to minutes of 8/22/77) and
stated that C. A. Coleman had read the new lease and found it to be satisfactory
and the conditions of 8/22/77 fulfilled. With this information, the Commission
acknowledged the special permit was now valid for this item.
19. PROGRESS REPORT ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM PARKING REGULATIONS FOR
THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT
This item was briefly discussed and was found to be ready to set for hearing.
Chm. Taylor set the item for hearing November 14, 1977. It was requested that a
representative of the property owner and others concerned be present for the hearing.
VI. CITY PLANNER REPORT
C. P. Swan reported that the Council has scheduled tentatively to meet November 16
for a hearing on the Bayside Redevelopment Project. Construction of a new water
main is under way on the Dore property. He recommended that Loomis Courier Service
at 808 Burlway Road be required to apply for a special permit. He reported that
EIR-44P for Burlingame Bay Club Condominiums Project has been scheduled for study
at the November 14 meeting.
C. Cistulli expressed concern about the number of requests for variances on parking.
The Commission suggested the possibility of limiting meetings to 10 items.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine, Secretary