Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.09.28COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman 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 named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of September 12, 1977 were approved as mailed as there were no additions or corrections. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 61 BURLINGAME GROVE (APN 026-086-270/280) AT 1477 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ALBERT AND JUDITH MUROLO Chm. Taylor read the item. C. E. Kirkup stated that the tentative map had been approved subject to two conditions, those conditions being: (1) the granting of a public utility easement along the rear property line, and (2) removal of the building. C. E. Kirkup stated that both conditions had been met on the final map and recommended its approval. There being no questions, C. Jacobs moved that the above -listed application be approved; the motion was seconded by C. Cistulli and carried unanimously (7-0). 2. DRAFT EIR-43E, BAYSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Chm. Taylor read the item and briefly introduced the concept of the convention center known as the Bayside Redevelopment Project. He noted that the Commission would be considering the adequacy of the EIR for the redevelopment project. C. P. Swan reviewed the function of the EIR, staff's responsibility and the Commission's responsibility in dealing with the EIR, noting that the EIR is part of a planning process that helps establish guidelines and generates alternatives, identifies impacts and introduces mitigation measures to overcome some of those impacts. He stated that H.K.S. Inc. was contracted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City to prepare the EIR and satisfy State requirements, and the first step was to prepare an initial study Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 28, 1977 which is included in the EIR as Appendix I. He made specific reference to a letter from H.K.S. to the Project Coordinator, Jerome Coleman, which stated that the redevelopment plan would have significant impacts in several major areas of concern, i.e., traffic, community services, social and economic conditions, biotic conditions, etc. C. P. Swan then read a paragraph of an agreement which outlined the scope of the EIR (agreement.between Redevelopment Agency and EIR consultants) which states that the facts contained in the EIR should consist of "the construction and operation of a convention center, the installation and operation of a driving range, golf course and club house, the construction and operation of bedroom and meeting room facilities associated with the convention center and the adjacent Sheraton Inn, and the construction and/or improvement and operation of parking facilities adjacent to the convention center and additional parking facilities to be located at the eastern perimeter of the golf course." In reviewing the Commission's role, C. P. Swan stated that it is up to the Commission to determine if the information contained in the EIR is adequate, accurate, complete and consistent. With that finding the Commission could then make a recommendation to the Council to consider the Draft EIR for certification as the City's Final EIR for this project. He made reference to staff reports dated September 23 and 26, 1977 which raised questions about the EIR, i.e., number of rooms and existing parking. He explained how the 326 guest room figure in the National Feasibility Report came about (i.e., 306 guest rooms, plus 10 guest rooms on the ground floor which are usually used for offices and meeting areas, a manager's suite on the ground floor and 9 "suites" or parlor areas provided between guest rooms on the 2nd through 10th floors. These suites are available to the occupants, providing economic benefits without additional people). He further noted that in a subsequent report by Mr. Goodrich reference is made to existing parking as 325, not 425 spaces; with the average number of parking spaces occupied by guest vehicles as 190 whereas the EIR states that figure to be 160 vehicles. The total seating capacity in the restaurant, bar and coffee shop. is 380 rather than 300 seats as indicated by the Draft EIR. He stated that these are minor discrepancies and the Commission might consider them a modification to the Draft EIR. Responding to Chm. Taylor's inquiries about the incorporation of findings into the EIR to make it consistent, C. P. Swan stated that the minutes of the meeting would be incorporated into the EIR as an addendum and that any testimony would be included. Before review of the EIR by the consultant, Chm. Taylor acknowledged the presence of Mayor Harrison and Councilman Mangini and welcomed them to the meeting. He then introduced Mr. Charles Eley, representative of H.K.S., Incorporated, consultants for the Redevelopment Agency to prepare the Draft EIR. Mr. Eley stated that the EIR is based on drawings submitted in May, 1977, and that there have been some minor modifications to the project since that time. In the area of traffic Mr. Eley noted that the EIR is based on a convention center that would generate 3,000 cars per day and would create a significant increase in traffic volume (at the entrance, 30%; at Bayshore and Broadway, 30% and service levels would remain acceptable). The intersection at the hotel entrance would require signalization. With regard to the park and community services, Mr. Eley stated there would be limitations to further development of Anza Park. The City would gain a new golf course, but there would be some problems associated with the relocation of Bayside Park. There is a possibility of a temporary closing of the old park before the new park is completed. There is a potential drainage problem requiring a system of pumps or considerable fill. The new park would lack mature landscaping for a certain period of time. Access to the new park would not be as good for pedestrians and bicyclists because there would be greater distances and some of the conditions could be hazardous. The convention Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1977 activities would create a new demand for police services (Police Chief estimated the addition of four or five new police officers). With regard to social and economic factors, Mr. Eley noted that this portion of the EIR was taken from a report by the National Feasibility Corporation and the report states that convention delegates would spend about.$100 million in the first five years, creating a number of ramifications, i.e., employment of about 150-160 persons and, in addition,.secondary employment benefits in facilities surrounding the center. The City could anticipate new applica- tions for additional hotel rooms.. -,and restaurant facilities. The report further estimated that between $135,000 and $175,000 could be broughtinthrough property taxes or possessory interest tax. Turning to soils and geological concerns, Mr. Eley stated that a number of problems could be associated with this site as much of the land is on the bayfront area where there is about 10 to 15 feet of bay mud and about 5 to 10 feet of fill, which is very irregular. Problems arising from this condition could be dealt with; however, the construction of the golf course would require a massive amount of fill with an estimate of 300,000 cubic yards and 12,000 truck trips being required. Because .the golf course is on the land fill site, considerable settlement can be expected, as much as 3 to 4 feet. It is suggested in the EIR that buildings placed on the land fill be supported on piles or be built on floating mat foundations. Referring to visual impacts, Mr. Eley stated that such impacts result from the loss of trees in what is now Bayside Park. He noted that the earlier plan showed the back of the convention _center facing Airport Boulevard, exposing the service area entrance which is not desirable; however, the newer plan takes care of this problem. There are some beneficial visual impacts, i.e., enhanced views from Hillsborough and Burlingame Hills and from Airport Boulevard and Bayshore Freeway, because the land fill site would become a landscaped golf course. With reference to the biotic conditions, Mr. Eley noted that the main impact would be the loss of trees from the present Bayside Park. In considering hydraulic and water quality conditions, Mr. Eley noted that treated sewage effluent would be used.in the irrigation of the landscaped areas and on the golf course and Bayside Park. Some risk is present as contaminants could flow into the Bay; however, through careful monitoring the runoff could be directed back on the land and absorbed. Mr. Eley stated that the EIR contains several mitigation measures that could reduce the impacts, i.e., a bus service to alleviate vehicle trips between the civic center and hotels and motels servicing it, traffic signals at Airport Boulevard and a pedestrian overpass at Winchester Drive, requiring the operators of the center to provide private security to avoid hiring of new police officers, requiring new design plans so that the new Bayside Park would at least meet the standards of the existing Bayside Park and provide local residents equal access to the golf course facilities, and modifications to the site plan to retain existing trees, strict monitoring of the use of pesticides and herbicides and a carefully monitored irrigation system to avoid flow from going into the Bay. Mr. Eley also noted that the buildings could be designed to reduce energy consumption. Mr. Eley briefly mentioned several alternatives noted in the EIR to the redevelopment, those being a 210 -room addition to the Sheraton Hotel property rather than on City property and the realignment of Airport Boulevard along the southerly side of the golf course rather than along the Bay side. C. Sine requested that the record show the overpass Mr. Eley referred to at Winchester Drive is to be a pedestrian and bicycle overpass. Responding to an inquiry from C. Jacobs, Mr. Eley confirmed that he had written the alternative to the proposed redevelopment. Chm. Taylor then invited public comment and input. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1977 Frank Pagliaro, 1337 Drake Avenue,.Burlingame briefly addressed the Commission, stating that there were two areas he felt the EIR could have been more detailed in: (1) the Broadway overpass and whether or not the additional trips would mandate this, and (2) the moving of the parks, i.e., he would like to see some information given on the removal of Bayside Park with something the same size, perhaps something larger, and how long a period of time would elapse between destruction and construction of the parks. David H. Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, 433 Airport Blvd., Burlingame stated that he had read the report and was impressed with its completeness. Mr. Keyston's comments were directed more to the problems of traffic circulation, he felt it might be advisable to consider the realignment of the roadway, i.e., extending four lane Bayshore Highway through the project, either on the south side or north side. He noted several circulation items the State is studying in the area and felt the Commission should coordinate with CalTrans to improve traffic circulation in the area. He said that through proper traffic patterns there would be a possibility of saving most of the present Bayside Park. He emphasized that there would be great advantages in connecting the four lane portion :in front of the Sheraton Hotel to the existing four lane Airport Boulevard. This would.alleviate some of the traffic improvement expenses of a convention center -project. He _stated that Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust would be willing to devote some funds to construction of this roadway because it would obviously help their properties. Barry Silverton, Sheraton Inn, 1177 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame noted as a point of information that the developer has no intention to take down all the trees around Bayside Park. He stated that there are 480 trees surrounding the park and he anticipated the removal of 25 of those trees and the replacement with about 700 trees. He also noted that the idea of a park swap was presented to the various organizations utilizing the athletic facilities (i.e., Soccer Association, Little League, etc.) and they sent letters supporting this. He also mentioned contacting the Recreation and Park staff and it was his understanding that they were very much in favor of this. Ray Wagner, Director of Recreation, noted that the new park would include two softball fields instead of one and a completely drained and lighted soccer field. He noted that the proposal of the park swap is athletically,.better, but aesthetically not as good. He felt the new location was adequate although there would be less protection from the wind without mature trees; however, the golf course would provide a natural buffer. Responding to C. Mink's question as to whether the park swap proposal is part of the EIR being considered, C. P. Swan referred to page 137 and page 16 of the Draft EIR, noting that the park relocation is included. Dorothy Cusick, 1716 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame addressed the Commission stating that the concept of a convention center is pointless unless the City gets a better park; she felt the park must be better than the present Bayside Park. Mrs. Cusick expressed deep concern about a number of unanswered questions in the EIR with regard to the park. Some of her concerns were the loss of the bicycle path south of the dump, and she noted that removal of the path reduces the size of the park and if the path were to stay there would be a problem of flying baseballs hitting the bicyclists. She asked where the path is to be located and who would pay. She stated that the EIR mentions better facilities but noted that they would be better only if the drainage problems can be adequately dealt with. She felt that a lot is being cramped together in the new park, i.e., there will be more parking, more athletic facilities, etc., yet this is to be included in the same area. The new park would not give the same amount of beauty. She noted a positive point with regard to the swap, "we would lose the sewer plant." She asked where the money is to come from, noting that specific dollar amounts were included for other items, however, references to park relocation funding are vague with the statement that the funds would come from the developer's profit. She asked Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1977 what if there is no profit and how much of the profit would the developer be willing to share. She felt the park had'been treated as an afterthought and stated that detailed plans and specifications would be required to make any decision, including detailed landscape plans, drainage plans, etc. She asked how much time would pass before the new park is completed and how many seasons would be lost with the temporary closing of the present park. She also noted that the endorsements of the park swap by the athletic organizations were with the understanding that the City would be getting better facilities and a better park. Chm. Taylor thanked the public for their comments and concerns. With specific reference to Mrs. Cusick's.concerns, he stated that the Commission would certainly not ignore these concerns and that many questions would be dealt with through the actual plans and specifications that would be developed, which are not necessarily related to the adequacy of the EIR report. There being no further public comment, Chm. Taylor closed the public hearing and opened the discussion to the Commission. Chm. Taylor asked Mr. Eley to comment as to what extent the analysis of the EIR includes consideration of the John Blayney Report relating to land use for the area and J. D. Drachman's study on traffic. He asked if the reports would be included in a subsequent EIR and expressed concern about growth inducing impacts in the area. C. Jacobs also questioned the growth impacts and referred to page 61 of the EIR. Mr. Eley stated that the studies were contracted subsequently so they were not dealt with in the EIR at all. He emphasized that the EIR is more for a concept than a specific plan. The growth inducing factors are dealt with on page 98 and in the National Feasibility Report. That feasibility study projects increases in employment, business activity and the creation of new demands on lodging facilities; and growth inducing impacts beyond the project area in terms of secondary employment, transient population, and, indirectly, residential demands as Burlingame has a shortage of available sites. It would not have the same type of growth inducing factors as a factory would. Mr. Eley continued that in the time allotted (approximately one year ago) it was impossible to go into a detailed growth inducing impact study. The comments in this EIR are addressed to the information that was available when the report was prepared. Chm. Taylor felt that the Blayney report would deal with much of this; however, he felt that this EIR would have to deal with this matter if the Blayney study was not adequate. C. Jacobs asked about including the revised draft, page 100, Alternative One, Phase 1. Mr. Eley stated that this was not prepared by H.K.S. but by City staff. It was indicated that the Draft EIR could be updated to include this new information. Commission held lengthy discussion on various documents and proposals. It was noted that the EIR does not address impacts of recent project changes as they were presented after the EIR was prepared. C. P. Swan stated that the supplementary reports, revised plans and other documents could be considered alternatives to the redevelopment project. C. A. Coleman noted that the information received after the printed Draft EIR could be included in the EIR as addenda. He complimented H.K.S. for the job they had done on the EIR as little information was available. Chm. Taylor requested Secy. Sine to read any correspondence received on this item. The Chairman explained that staff had sent copies of the EIR to various public agencies and requested comments. Secy. Sine read or made reference to letters from the following public agencies: (1) September 15, 1977, from the Department'of Transportation; (2) September 20, 1977, from San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District; (3) September 14, 1977, from Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; (4) September 21, 1977, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District; (5) September 21, 1977, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. C. Sine asked staff to send copies of these letters to each of the Commissioners for information. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 28, 1977 C. Francard asked if land was to be set aside in case the wastewater treatment plant was ever to be enlarged. C. E. Kirkup stated that though land has not been set aside there are two areas that could be used for expansion. C. Jacobs expressed concern about the lack of details in the EIR. C. A. Coleman stated that in a project of this size, at this stage, it is a conceptual phase. Past EIRs on past projects have been much smaller and therefore details were more readily available. Responding to C. Francard's question, Chm. Taylor stated that though the project would probably be constructed a little at a time or in stages, it is being considered as a single project. C. P. Swan confirmed that the EIR is for a single project, the last stage of the concept for development. Chm. Taylor stated that he felt the Commission was to the point that staff should be instructed for the continuing study -of the proposal. C. A. Coleman confirmed that at this point the Commission should direct staff or the consultant to incorporate comments to the concerns expressed by the citizens, comments to the concerns of the other public agencies and incorporate these into a revised draft by attachment for acceptance by the Planning Commission to recommend a Final EIR to the Council. C. Mink made reference to Mrs. Cusick's concerns, agreeing that proponents offered the hotel and other facilities, but not the park and recreation facilities. He agreed that the EIR should deal specifically with the park and recreation plan. He also felt more information was needed to prove that the mitigation alternatives would solve more problems than they would create. If, in light of the comments brought up by Mrs. Cusick, the EIR is found.to be incomplete, he stated the City has an obligation to make it complete, either through staff or augmentation of the contract for the EIR. Chm. Taylor stated that these are the concerns of the entire Commission; however, much of this would be dealt with when specific pians and specifications are presented. The Commission further discussed how the concerns of the public could be incorporated into the EIR. Chm. Taylor stated that available Blayney Report and Drachman Report could be included by reference. C. Mink felt these reports should be expanded and included in the EIR. Mr..Keyston informed the Commission that 60 -day reports by the two consultants are to be rescheduled after the City reaches a decision on the Convention Center Project. Chm. Taylor called for a brief recess and the meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. C. Mink stated that some of his comments on the Blayney and Drachman reports might have been premature; however, before any project decisions are made he felt the two reports should be referenced in the EIR. He then asked if finalization of the EIR is in the scope of the contract with H.K.S. C. A. Coleman stated that extra funds would have to be contracted for further consultant work on the EIR. C. Mink moved that the Commission go on record requesting the Council to appropriate additional funds to finalize EIR-43E so that it can be declared adequate, with the fastest turnaround possible. The motion was seconded by C. Kindig. C. Jacobs asked if this was already included in the contract. C. A. Coleman stated that when the contract was negotiated it was expected that staff would do some of the preparation. Chm. Taylor felt that demands on staff for more and more planning matters would not warrant their doing this. C. A. Coleman stated that the money would come from redevelopment funds. There being no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1, C. Jacobs dissenting. C. P. Swan noted that staff reports would be added and subsequent reports could be incorporated in the EIR by reference. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 28, 1977 3. PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR A 210 ROOM ADDITION TO THE SHERATON INN: D. K. GOODRICH REPORT DATED 9-21-77 TO AUGMENT EIR-43E ALTERNATIVE ONE Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application and a staff report dated 9/28/77, noting that Alternative One of EIR-43E describes a 210 room addition within the context of a convention center project. He noted that the timing of a final City decision on this project is uncertain and that the principals of the Sheraton Inn have therefore decided to initiate an application to build this addition in advance of the City's decision on the convention center. Asst. C. P. Yost further stated that the Goodrich Report being considered does three things: (1) reviews parking survey data supplied by the Sheraton Inn for 1975, and updates this data with two 1977 parking checks; (2) develops a set of parking space coefficients that describe parking demands at various times of the year, and (3) uses these coefficients to project likely future parking demand on the Sheraton property with.the proposed 210 room addition. The report notes that two factors are central to Sheraton Inn parking demands: (1) number of guestrooms and (2) number of seats in the restaurant and cocktail areas. There has been some debate as to the precise number of each at present and in the future. He referred to a range of possible answers in Exhibit A that accompanies the staff report on this item and the next item (Variance Application). In summation, Mr. Yost stated that the intent of this item is for the Commission to review the current draft of the Goodrich Report and determine its suitability for inclusion as an addendum to EIR-43E, Alternative One. Chm. Taylor was concerned about how the Commission could deal with the variance without first having found that the EIR is acceptable. Mr. Yost explained that the hearing could be held, however, no decision made to approve or deny it until the EIR is found to be adequate. The Commission discussed this item at length with Mr. Yost, noting some concerns about acceptance of this item and the ongoing convention center discussions. C. Cistulli was very concerned about the manner in which the request was being presented. He felt it should be presented after action on the convention center. He emphasized that he is in favor of the project, however, feels the applicant was jumping ahead. He moved that until action is taken on the convention center this item be tabled. Commission discussion continued and C. Sine indicated his agreement with C. Cistulli as to the timing of the request. He felt it should come after action on the convention center. C. Mink expressed a different point of view. He felt that many of the concerns of C. Cistulli and C. Sine would be taken up under Item 4, the Variance; however, if the Goodrich Report is found to be adequate it should be incorporated in Draft EIR-43E. It was confirmed that this item deals with a report from a consultant dealing with parking needs as related to Alternative One, without a convention center. C. A. Coleman confirmed this report is a supplement to the EIR and the Commission could determine that Agenda Item 4, the Variance from Parking Regulations, requires an EIR and the Commission could not take action on Item 4 until it has approved the convention center EIR. It was also noted that the applicant could, as an alternative, file a separate or independent EIR for the proposed hotel addition. Asst. C. P. Yost emphasized that the report should be looked upon as additional information and if found to be adequate it could be used to arrive at a decision on the application for Variance from Parking Regulations. He stated that there is no inconsistency between the two alternatives and approval of the Goodrich report would not interfere with the approval of the redevelopment project. He did note, however, that there might be several variations for the remodeling of the Sheraton Hotel, depending on whether the redevelopment project is approved, i.e., whether additional restaurant space would be required, etc. He further stated that the variance could be viewed as Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 28, 1977 an alternative if the convention center redevelopment project does not come about. Mr. Yost confirmed that the coefficient Mr. Goodrich developed indicates that the 210 room addition is the maximum addition that would be expected. C. Francard felt the application should be considered on its own merits and the convention center should not be a constant part of the discussion. Chm. Taylor stated that this is an application that can be considered in two ways; with or without the convention center. As submitted, it is not to be considered as a part of the convention center project. Donald Goodrich, traffic engineer, was present to explain the manner in which the 1977 data was obtained. It was emphasized that a complete parking survey was not possible unless a six month time span was permitted. Commission discussed the report with Mr. Goodrich at length. C. Cistulli reiterated his concern that the convention center matter be resolved before such items are considered and re-emphasized that he would be in favor of the project if it were presented under different circumstances. C. Mink, reading from page 13 of the Goodrich Report, noted that if the Commission were to proceed with AgendatItem 4, this could become a condition of the Variance. He stated he found the conclusions in the report reasonable and acceptable. C. Sine was concerned that no additional cocktail, coffee shop or restaurant seating would be provided with the addition of 210 rooms. It was noted that this would be considered under Item 4. Chm. Taylor opened the hearing for public comment. Mr. Silverton reaffirmed Mr. Goodrich's explanation on the conducting of the 1977 parking survey figures. There being no one wishing to speak further, Chm. Taylor closed the public hearing. C. Jacobs moved that the Commission find the Goodrich Parking Needs Analysis for a 210 Room Addition to the Sheraton Inn adequate and factually accurate. C. E. Kirkup noted that the motion should include a directive to staff to show one set of figures for the number of rooms at the Sheraton Inn and one set of parking figures. With this notation to be included in the motion, motion was seconded by C. Kindig, and a roll call vote was taken; motion carried 5-2 with C. Cistulli voting negatively because he was not satisfied with the report and C. Sine voting negatively because he did not feel the report was up to 1977 standards. 4. 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 Chm. Taylor read the item. A very brief discussion was held as to the conducting of a public hearing in light that no EIR is available. C. Mink moved that this item be removed from the agenda until the EIR is presented and declared adequate. C. Sine seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (7-0). 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ADDITION MORE THAN 35' 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 Chm. Taylor read the item. It was noted that this item would also be removed from the agenda until the EIR is presented and declared adequate (as per Item 4 above). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 28, 1977 6. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOT 15 (APN 029-121-060/070) AND A PORTION OF LOT 16 (APN 029-121-080), BLOCK 10, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY; PROPERTY AT 1429/1433/1435 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4, BY.WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR D. A. NICOLAIDES ET AL C. E. Kirkup indicated that all staff conditions have been met and recommended approval of this item. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the above item; the motion was seconded by C. Cistulli and carried unanimously (7-0). 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR REDWOOD CREST, A 27 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1435 BELLEVUE AVENUE .(APN 029-121-060/070/080), ZONED R-4, BY DAVID A. NICOLAIDES FOR 1435 BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES (APPLICANTS) WITH FIR -FED SERVICE CORP. (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -125P POSTED 9/16/77) Chm. Taylor read the item. C. P. Swan reviewed the application, referring to the staff report in the Commission's packet, and a report from the Director of Public Works dated September 23,. 1977 regarding the procedures for condominium permits. He noted that a condominium application needs to satisfy municipal codes, specifically Title 25 Zoning and Title 26 Subdivisions, and that the application meets the Zoning Code. He made reference.to a memorandum from Asst. C. E. Rebarch_ik which contains suggested conditions. He noted that all conditions should be satisfied when the tentative subdivision map is prepared. He briefly summarized the conditions of approval: (1) that Condominium Project Guidelines (Item #9) for single -line diagrams showing the location of all utilities be provided before.a building permit is issued; (2) that off-street parking areas be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; (3) that landscape plans.be approved by the Park Director; (4) that site improvements comply with regulations of Title 26, specifically, (a) flood protection design be approved by the City Engineer, (b) furnish plans and obtain. the City Engineer's approval of separate utility service to each unit, .(c) show identity and location of climate control for each unit to the City Engineer's satisfaction, (d) obtain City Engineer's approval of driveway profile and structural design, (e) comply with plans and maps submitted or as otherwise agreed by the City Engineer and other City departments. Arthur Dudley, 1009 California Drive, Burlingame, stated that all the conditions were acceptable; he noted that the creek running through the property had been traced back to Occidental Avenue where a 4' pipe limits the flow of water. He felt, if there were to be any problems, they would not occur at the proposed.condominium site. He also noted that the property owners listed on the agenda item should be corrected to show Fir -Fed Service Corp. as property owner. Chm. Taylor asked for comments from the public. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs asked about the width of the walls. C. E. Kirkup stated that the wall widths must meet both the Fire Code and the Building Code; insulation would be required and basically there would be a double wall. There being no further discussion, C. Sine moved that the application be approved, noting the property owner as Fir -Fed Service Corp., approval to be subject to all conditions outlined by the City Planner and the approval of final specifications and plans by the City Engineer and City Park Director. C. Francard seconded the motion; a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously (7-0). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 28, 1977 8. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 27 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1435 BELLEVUE AVENUE (APN 029-121-060/070/080), ZONED R-4, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR W. 0. NICOLAIDES & SON, INC. Chm. Taylor read the item. C. E. Kirkup noted that all conditions are on the map itself and recommended its approval. C. Mink moved that the above -noted Tentative Subdivision Map be approved; the motion was seconded by C. Cistulli and upon a roll• call vote carried unanimously (7-0). 9. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR ADELINE ARMS, AN 8 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1469 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-013-030), ZONED R-3, BY JOHN YOHANAN FOR SARKIS M. FARD (APPLICANTS) WITH GORDON KULLBERG AND TERRANCE IRWI.N (PROPERTY OWNERS) (ND -126P POSTED 9/16/77) Chm. Taylor read the item. C. P. Swan briefly reviewed the application noting that he felt staff did not have full details to recommend approval at this time. It was also pointed out that this is the first condominium conversion since the adoption of a condominium conversion ordinance. A City inspection and report will be required, as -built plans to show by single line diagrams the location of utilities and Title 26 Subdivisions requirements must be satisfied and approved by the City Engineer. Noting that the application was not complete, C. Mink moved this item be removed from the agenda until such time that complete information is provided staff so that recommendations can be made for the Commission's consideration. The motion was seconded by C. Cistulli and carried unanimously (7-0). 10. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 8 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1469 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026- 013-030), ZONED R-3, BY KCA ENGINEERS, INC. FOR SARKIS FARD (APPLICANT) WITH GORDON KULLBERG AND TERRANCE IRWIN (PROPERTY OWNERS) As this item was related to Item 9, the same ruling applied. 11: VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO CONVERT TWO BASEMENT PARKING SPACES INTO A WORKSHOP; PROPERTY AT 500 PENINSULA AVENUE (APN 029-294-290), ZONED R-3, BY ROBERT AND SYLVIA PISANI .(ND -127P POSTED.9/16/77) Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. reviewed the application, noting that the applicant feels he has more off-street parking than he needs and could use more storage area. He also noted that removal of two parking spaces would bring the parking 17% below code. He reviewed the guidelines for granting variances and stated that staff could not recommend approval of the application. Robert Pisani stated that he chose this area for storage because the equipment he plans to store would get rusty if stored in a metal shed outside. He also stated he would bring the shop up to code. The Commission discussed the application and several Commissioners expressed concern about the loss of parking. It was noted that though not all the parking spaces might be in use at this time, with tenant turnover this could change and then parking would be inadequate. Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. There'being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Secy. Sine read two letters. One from Mrs. Ross Smith, 15 Dwight Road, dated September 22, 1977, who wrote in opposition to the application, noted that loss of off-street parking would crowd the street. She also felt the need for storage could have been anticipated when the building was constructed. A second letter in opposition to the application was received from Mr. and Mrs. Phil Knight, 23 Dwight Road; this September 17, 1977 letter is incorporated in these minutes by reference. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 28, 1977 C. Mink directed a question to the applicant, asking what would make this particular property unusual.(ref. to guidelines for granting variances) to warrant the granting of the application. Mr. Pisani responded that because he is living at the property and needs more storage area. It was noted that there are several illegal structures on the site (i.e., storage sheds). C. Mink moved that because no unusual circumstances are present and the application does not meet the requirements necessary for granting a variance, and it may be detrimental to the City, the variance be denied; further, that the illegal structures be removed from the site. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (7-0). C. A. Coleman will advise the applicant on the removal of the buildings. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 890 MAHLER ROAD (APN 026-321-500) BY CHARLES G. MAYO ET AL FOR AMERICAR RENTAL SYSTEMS (APPLICANT) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF BURLINGAME/MOUNTAIN VIEW PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -128P POSTED 9/16/77) Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application and explained the proposed operation, referring to a letter from Mr. Charles Mayo, dated September 1, 1977 which stipulated six standards for the proposed operation. This letter .is incorporated in the minutes by reference. Mr. Yost felt it was important to note that off-site parking was available for other tenants in the building, and that the proposal would have little effect on the M-1 District other than the generation of a small amount of traffic. He said that the Commission could approve the application with review of the operation in.6 to 12 months. The applicant was available to answer any questions. C. Mink asked if he would agree to a condition that the fleet be limited to no more than 38 cars at this time, rather than having to return shortly to the Commission for approval of a larger fleet. This would allow for an increase in the size of the fleet, without requiring Commission consideration until such time as an even larger fleet than 38 would be required. The applicant indicated that he would agree to this. Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. Secy. Sine read a letter dated September 12, 1977 from Joan Chase requesting denial of the application because she owns the adjoining property and there is a common driveway that requires repairs by both property owners. She felt most of the damage to the driveway is done by the tenants of the site and approval of the permit would only allow this to continue. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. C. Kindig stated, with reference to Ms. Chase's letter, that denial of the application for that reason would be penalizing an applicant for something over which he and the Commission have no control. C. Mink moved the application be approved, subject to the conditions of the applicant's letter dated September 1, 1977; and that the area be limited to that stipulated on the documents submitted, that the rental fleet be limited. to 38 cars, and that staff report on the operation in six months. It was noted that the permit would not be transferable. C. Kindig seconded the motion. C. E. Kirkup referred to the applicant's intention to investigate low water use, and asked that it be required that the wash rack will recycle water. C. Mink included this stipulation in the motion. Upon roll call vote, the motion for approval carried unanimously (7-0). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 September 28, 1977 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY FROM OCTOBER 1, 1977 TO OCTOBER 1, 1978 IN THE C-4 DISTRICT;. PROPERTY AT 1300 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-480), BY DAVID KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR DODGE COUNTRY RENT -A -CAR (ND -129P POSTED 9/16/77) 14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY FROM OCTOBER 1, 1978 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1983 IN THE C-4 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1310 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-330), BY DAVID KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR DODGE. COUNTRY RENT -A -CAR 15 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1290 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-110), BY DAVID KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR AVCar RENT=A-CAR 16. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 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 KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR AA AUTO RENTAL Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the four items together because they are all related by physical proximity, proposed permit periods and type of business. He referred to a diagram, pointing out the various locations for the proposed car rental agencies. He noted that AVCar is presently located at 1310 Bayshore Highway. The applications would permit three car rental agencies to operate from October 1977 to October 1978 as follows: (1) Dodge Country Rent-A-Car at 1300 Bayshore Highway; (2) AA Auto Rental at 1290 Bayshore Highway and (3) AVCar at 1310 Bayshore Highway. On October 1, 1978 Dodge Country Rent-A-Car would then move to 1310 Bayshore Highway, displacing AVCar; AVCar would move to 1290 Bayshore Highway, displacing AA Auto Rental and AA Auto Rental would have to reapply to the Commission for a new permit at some new location not presently specified. He referred to a letter from David Keyston, dated September 1, 1977, describing both the Dodge City and AVCar operations, and noted that this letter is supplemented by a second letter, dated September 9, 1977. The letters state: "We have had experience with both these firms. They do no servicing or washing on the premises and the use on the average is little or no parking. On.weekends up to 10 cars may be parked on our premises by each applicant. Our lease requires that AVCar park all but two cars across the creek behind the Standard Station (actually 1300 Bayshore property). We have cross parking arrangements with Hyatt Corp. which gives us excess parking on.weekends when these applicants may have up to the maximum cars on site. "Any storage over the permitted 10 cars will be accommodated on other vacant land where we have car storage permits. "AVCar presently, and I assume in the future, would have approximately three employees while Dodge Country Rent-A-Car feels that two employees will probably service their customers. I believe they will both operate during hours of 7:30 am to 9:00 pm. "The estimated rentals per day would probably involve about ten cars for Dodge Country and about 15 cars for AVCar. Both companies have made arrangements off-site on other locations for all service and washing of their cars. "You will note there are only two parking places utilized or reserved on the 1290 Bayshore building. All other parking is in the theatre building where there is substantial excess parking." Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 September 28, 1977 Mr. Yost further noted that parking would.be available for present tenants and visitor parking would also be available. He stated that the AA Auto Rental operation (Item 16) was less well documented, i.e., number of employees, hours of operation, size of rental fleet, or similar information is not supplied. He said that though these are four separate applications, they can be considered as one package or considered separately; he noted that one negative declaration was filed for all four. C. Sine asked what type of signing would be used for the four businesses. Mr. Keyston said that.the design of the signs would be within the sign ordinance and would not require Planning Commission approval. Chm. Taylor opened the meeting to the public, requesting any comments or questions about the four items. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. C. Mink asked if all the applicants would be willing to comply with all the conditions, specifically regarding where they would park the cars, etc. John Kelly of AVCar stated that there would be an office change in one year. He agreed to comply with the conditions. Carl Martin also agreed to comply with the conditions. C. Jacobs was concerned about AA Auto Rental. Chm. Taylor noted that at the end of the year (October 1978) it would either be out of business or at another location. C. Mink moved that the four applications (Items 13, 14, 15 and 16) be approved subject to the conditions contained in the documents submitted by Mr. Keyston (letters dated September 1 and September 9, 1977). C. Kindig seconded the motion and upon a roll call vote it carried unanimously (7-0). 17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP TO THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 988 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 029-214-220), zoned C-2, BY RAYMON R. KLIEWER ET AL (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR PRUETT'S OLDE ENGLISH GARAGE (ND -130P POSTED 9/16/77) Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application, stating that the proposal calls for a 5,560 SF addition. He noted that there was adequate parking and that there is no setback requirement on the back property line and on the Myrtle Road frontage, though the property immediately across the street is zoned R-3. He stated that the design meets code and the proposal is on the agenda because it is an alteration to a gas station. Responding to C. Kindig's inquiry, Mr. Yost stated that notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the site. There was some question about the present special permit to store cars on the back portion of the property. Reference was made to the applicant's letter dated September 6, 1977 (incorporated by reference), and the C.A. stated that the previous permit to store cars would be cancelled. There was some concern about the setback requirements and the provision of landscaping. It was noted that the application meets code requirements and the applicant felt a wider strip might become a catch-all for trash. Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was'closed. C. Mink moved that the application for special permit be approved, noting that it should be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted and that the stipulations contained in the applicant's letter of September 6, 1977 be adhered to. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon a roll call vote it carried unanimously (7-0). Page 14 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1977 CORRESPONDENCE A letter dated September 2, 1977 from Fidelity Federal Savings was read which requested an opportunity to have the Commission reconsider the sign on Paloma Avenue for illumination. It was decided that this sign permit amendment be scheduled for review and action on October 12, 1977. CITY PLANNER REPORT C. P. Swan briefly reviewed the items scheduled for the meeting of October 12. He specifically noted that he had just received an application for an addition to The Fisherman restaurant which would require a variance from the parking requirements. The applicant would like the item up .for consideration as soon as possible to be able to commence construction before the holiday season. C. Mink stated that he would like to see a traffic count history on this. C. Sine stated he would go along with the Commission's wishes; however, he did not think special treatment should be given any applicant. The Commission agreed that if the application is presented in complete form it could be scheduled for the October 12 meeting. Mr. Swan also noted that Jilly's Entertainment Center could be scheduled for hearing October 12 to consider whether or not the proposed uses are desirable and compatible with the purposes of this district. C. Kindig and C. Sine felt that a study meeting should be held on this item rather than listing it as an item for action. It was agreed that this item would be included on the October 12 agenda as an item for preliminary review. C. P. Swan, continuing his review of the upcoming agenda, noted that the continued application for a special permit for True Learning Center had been postponed until the School takes action. The Commission briefly discussed the problem of coordinating applications between the two agencies (Burlingame School District and City). This item will not be scheduled on the October 12 agenda. Mr. Swan also stated that Draft EIR-43E for the Bayside Redevelopment Project might also be included on that agenda, as the Commission had stipulated fastest possible turnaround on this. He noted that Zoning Code amendments would also be scheduled along with other items. The City Attorney announced that the Commission's conflict of interest statements should be submitted by November 1, 1977. L1I11fI11iI7► Iul�di 1 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary