HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.09.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 12, 1977
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
CistulIi None City Planner Swan
Francard Asst. City Planner Yost
Jacobs City Attorney Coleman
Kindig City Engineer Kirkup
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
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 August 22, 1977 were approved as mailed
as there were no additions or corrections.
MEETING ITEM FOR ACTION
1. SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL A 4' x 8' WALL SIGN AT THE MYRTLE ROAD ENTRANCE OF
THE RETIREMENT INN OF BURLINGAME; PROPERTY AT 250 MYRTLE ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY
BOGDANICH BUILDING COMPANY FOR RETIREMENT INNS OF AMERICA
Asst. C. P. Yost indicated correction on the item. The Sign Code specifies that signs
in the R-3 District should be limited to 20 SF. This sign can be considered an
identification name plate for a group residential facility, and Sec. 22.34.060 permits
one sign not to exceed 32 SF for a building with 21 or more units. The Retirement Inn
of Burlingame has 74 units. Staff advised that this item could be removed from the
agenda and a building permit issued for Sign A which is not to exceed 32 SF.
Chm. Taylor questioned if the application was redundant because it met requirements
of the Code without a sign exception. Mr. Yost responded 'yes'. The application was
dropped from the agenda.
Chm. Taylor asked if all conditions of the special permit to construct a retirement
home were met. Asst. C. P. Yost responded that there was a written condition that
15% of the residents be on Supplementary Support Income (SSI). He said he believed
C. A. Coleman had talked to the attorney for the company and he thought someone had
said 15% welfare recipients. Copies of the Agreement, the Council resolution and
minutes of both the Commission and Council hearings were mailed to Mrs. Gray, manager
of the Retirement Inn in Burlingame, so she had been made aware of this condition.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
CITY PLANNER ITEMS
Page 2
September 12, 1977
2. URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 1113: EXTENDS ORDINANCE NO. 1107 WITH MODIFICATIONS
C. P. Swan explained Ordinance No. 1113 extends with modifications Urgency Interim
Ordinance No. 1107 for a period not to exceed six months. This would allow time for
new regulations, guidelines and procedures to be established. In a letter to the City
Council David Keyston requested that four projects be exempt. On Tuesday, September 7,
the day following the Council meeting, four applications were received for Study Area
Permits. Staff is preparing CEQA documents for each of these four applications.
They will go to Council this week for action September 19. C. P. Swan submitted a
handout on Study Area Permit procedures to Commission for the period of time the John
Blayney Associates study is under way. Study Area Permits were distinguished from
Special Permits which require public hearing by the Planning Commission. A Study Area
Permit is a building improvement which may be approved at the discretion of Council.
These projects are also required to satisfy CEQA requirements. Jilly's includes a
discotheque and a showroom that may attract many people at one time. The disco and
showroom are deemed to be permitted uses under Sec. 25.41.020(j) . . . if after a
public hearing by Commission, the uses are found to be desirable and compatible with
purposes of the C-4 District. Under this stipulation of the Municipal Code, Jilly's
is a discretionary project and C. P. Swan believed an EIR should be prepared. Chm.
Taylor said he understood that items which will normally not require action before
the Commission will go directly to the Council. C. P. confirmed the Chairman's
statement was correct and reminded that projects would require an initial assessment
as to whether an EIR would be required. Council determined that EIRs are not required
for all projects.
C. Mink inquired if staff would prepare summary documents to keep the Commission and
the various consulting firms informed. C. P. Swan replied yes; of the four projects
for which Study Area Permits have already been requested, three will go forward with
negative declarations. C. Mink requested that staff keep Commission aware of the
status of those applications and staff accepted this charge. Chm. Taylor concurred
with C. Mink's statement, saying that Commission would surely appreciate that.
David Keyston said all of these projects have been considered by the consultants thus
far within their previous instructions. There are no new projects here. There is a
question whether a showroom falls under Sec. 25.41.020(j), other uses in the Waterfront
Commercial District, or whether it is under (e) as a commercial recreation use which
is permitted without review by the Commission. He felt it would just be a determination
of whether this is a commercial recreation use or another use. He said he would be
glad to furnish Commission and staff information on any of the projects.
Chm. Taylor asked Mr. Keyston if he had informed the Council that Avis, in its generosity,
had agreed to a 10 foot strip whenever 25 foot strips were available to the north and
south of the property. Mr. Keyston said a letter was submitted with a commitment for
10 feet of level area plus 15 feet of the slope easement that extends out to the Bay.
3. PROGRESS REPORTS ON CURRENT EIRs: i. EIR-43E CONVENTION CENTER
C. P. Swan reminded the Commission of the hearing previously scheduled for September 26
to consider Draft EIR-43E for the Bayside Redevelopment Project. Notices had been
mailed to surrounding communities and to public jurisdictions requesting their
comments. Chm. Taylor suggested that the meeting be rescheduled from September 26 to
Wednesday, September 28 and that C. P. Swan take the necessary action. C. P. Swan
said he would notify all applicants that the meeting will be on September 28, 1977.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1977
ii. EIR-44P BURLINGAME BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUMS
C. P. Swan reported that Torrey & Torrey Inc., consultants on contract to the City,
will prepare information essential for a General Plan Amendment, reclassification of
the site from C-4 to R-4 and a condominium permit. Specific plans for the condominium
project are being finalized. The preferred project has two 14 -story towers with 336
units on 4.7 acres of fee title property plus 2.0 acres of State land. This is a
residential density of about 50 units per net residential acre. The Draft EIR will
be brought to the Commission in October.
iii. EIR-45P ONE WATERFRONT, 700 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
C. P. Swan reported this project is a major office building, about 300 feet in length,
4 stories in height (54 feet approximately), with about 78,000 SF of gross floor area.
Those project plans have been reviewed by staff. There are three different schemes
involved, one for a U-shaped building and the second for the so-called Chevron -shaped
building. Plans have been reviewed and sent to the EIR consultants, Madrone Associates;
the Draft EIR will also be brought to the Commission during October. There are two
other reports of note: (1) a supplement to the National Feasibility Corp. feasibility
study on the Bayside Redevelopment Project, and (2) the Bayfront Traffic Report from
J. D. Drachman. The NFC report mentions that the 210 room addition will eliminate
approximately 50 spaces and that a 70% parking ratio "is more than ample to meet the
requirements, (but not City regulations)." Projected operations of a 536 -unit Sheraton
Inn are expressed in this particular report without the Convention Center complex.
MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY
5. JOHN BLAYNEY ASSOCIATES' BURLINGAME BAYFRONT REPORT NO. 1: BASIC DATA AND ISSUES
C. P. Swan announced there is a special study meeting scheduled Saturday, September 17
at 11:00 A.M. The Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission has received this report and
has been invited to attend. Council discussed the JBA report at their study meeting
Wednesday, September 7. They decided to meet Saturday with the Planning Commission
and the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission to review development issues posed by
Report No. 1 prepared by JBA. Staff input for these 30 -day reports by John Blayney
Associates and J. D. Drachman assumed developments that would be in place in Burlingame
in 1980. The C. P. stated he had prepared this list of projects for the first 30 days
but now his assumptions are no longer valid. He said it is now an opportunity for the
Commission, the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, other people in the City and
the Council to decide on those assumptions. C. P. Swan asked Commission to review
the list of assumed projects on page 6. JBA expanded the study area slightly to
include Northpark and the M-1 zoning district located south of Broadway. Report topics
are the market potential, current City policies, regional government policies in
question and the Bayfront development issues. Staff has received comments that the
absorption rate of office space appears to be too low. Full development with 100%
build -out can occur within 10-20 years. Answers to these development questions will
provide certain guidance to JBA for preparation of sketch plans focused on different
development patterns. Should the area on the other side of Bayshore Freeway be
planned for land use to produce revenue or should it be integrated with the residential
areas and be a part of the City of Burlingame?
Nine development issues are listed on pages 22-25; the JBA Report raises many questions.
Commission asked many questions including: Are assumptions complete; are they valid
now? What are spinoff needs of Convention Center? What else, in addition, should be
questioned? What are the other impacts with a Convention Center Project? Will
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
September 12, 1977
residential have priority? Which questions need more precise answers? What happens
to other areas?
C. E. Kirkup said staff has a water study report already prepared for the City which
was completed by George S. Nolte the first of the year and which clearly states that
additional improvements are needed to serve the study area, both east and west of
the Freeway. The Engineering Dept. is currently preparing a review of the sewer
and storm drainage facilities for the study area and at the end of the 60 days they
will have what the existing facilities can service. C. Mink noted the section
entitled "Regulation of Developments"; the City will make determinations based on
a set of collective values of Commission and Council and the people who speak for
both bodies, and out of that will grow a set of ordinances which will essentially
control the development. The second section of Part 9 points out that as the City
proceeds with developments it must deal with the cost of providing public facilities
and services.
Chm. Taylor commented this is a collective decision of Commission to decide what
recommendations to make,. what questions they wish emphasized and what priorities
they should assign to various individual aspects of the proposal, in order to give
Blayney Associates some guidance. C. Mink noted that Anza Shareholders' Liquidating
Trust territory is one area which has high potential for development. The reason
for this study is because of the trade-off impacts on other parts of the City.
The Report does not say what will happen to marginally developed land. It is a critical
question which is missing from the listed questions. Mr. Keyston said that Blayney
was told he should assume the projects between now and 1980 are the ones that are
really before the City for consideration today and, therefore, said the average
project takes 2-1/2 to 3 years to get a permit. He added, if economic conditions
remain the same and if there were no zoning restrictions, the entire area could be
absorbed in 3-4 years. That is the potential. Regarding criteria for the land use
determination, David Keyston reported John Blayney had said he would take the
traffic study and reduce the office development by residential until the residential
impact equals the office impact, which would balance the traffic and minimize the
traffic requirements. Traffic costs are overwhelming and there seemed to be little
traffic study input in the land use report. It was Mr. Keyston's hope Commission
would consider traffic in deciding what direction to go.
C. Cistulli thought consideration should include retailing for the residential, how
much land could be used for residential purposes, what the density would be and
traffic impacts. Chm. Taylor asked how much building could be done with these levels
of traffic and improvements. Mr. Keyston responded about 40%; about 900,000 SF
of office space of the proposed office development could be accomplished within the
capacity of the two existing roads. C. Mink requested the section on traffic mention
transportation and moving people. C. Francard felt the size of the disposal plant
would have to be increased to handle all the new developments. Chm. Taylor noted
that traffic could be a roadblock to any development. C. Sine pointed out no mention
was made about possibly changing the Peninsula Avenue Interchange and amending Broadway
for further traffic circulation. C. E. Kirkup responded that this report is based
on a set of assumptions of what will be built in 1980 and what the traffic impact
would be within that period of time. This report deals primarily with traffic
between now and January 1, 1980. The next report will investigate what is practical
as far as additional on -ramps and off -ramps, interchange modifications and transporta-
tion.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
September 12, 1977
C. Sine's major concern was the Convention Center. C. Mink, assuming the Convention
Center to be built to its maximum potential, thought the City should look at related
uses. What will the impact be on the M-1 District property between Bayshore Highway
and Route 101? What would be the impact on other M-1 Districts? There would be
impact on facilities and services. He believed Commission shouldlook seriously at
rezoning part of the M-1 District between Bayshore Highway and Route 101 as well as
the impact on the remaining M-1 in that area and the M-1 across Bayshore.
6. RECOMMENDED TITLE 25 CODE AMENDMENTS .(CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 8, 1977)
i. Chapter 25.70; Off -Street Parking
ii. Sec. 25.66.50; Side Yard Requirements
iii. Chapter 25.62; Setback Requirements
iv. Sec. 25.70.030(b)(3); Parking Prohibited in Side Setback
C. A. Coleman reviewed this item and said the first section of the ordinance amends
a number of sections in the Ordinance Code. For every reference in the chapter on
setback lines, it adds'structures and buildings.' Section 2 eliminates the phrase
"for dwelling purposes." The final section is a response to an inquiry from Chief
Fricke who was unhappy about parking in side yards. Mr. Keyston believed this last
prohibition could be a great hardship in C-4 Districts. After further discussion
this item was set for hearing on October 12, 1977.
7. PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR A 210 ROOM ADDITION TO THE SHERATON INN: D. K. GOODRICH
REPORT DATED 9-6-77 TO AUGMENT EIR-43E ALTERNATIVE ONE
Asst. C. P. Yost discussed this application. The project to which the Goodrich report
refers is the 210 -room addition to the existing Sheraton Inn. The expanded Sheraton
Inn will have a code requirement of approximately 680 off-street parking spaces, while
only 340 to 400 may be provided. This shortfall is the subject of Item 8 on the
agenda which is a variance application from off-street parking requirements. Item 9
is an application to exceed 35 feet in.height in the M-1 zoning district. The proposed
7 -story addition will be 60 feet to the main roof line and about 69 feet to the top
of the elevator shaft in the mechanical penthouse.
There are four supplementary items to the Goodrich report: (1) memo from Barry
Silverton to the Commission dated 9/7/77; (2) memo from Rudy Rausch to Silverton
dated 9/7/77; (3) letter from Silverton to Goodrich dated 9/7/77; (4) a set of
preliminary drawings of the proposed additions prepared by Joseph Kent of Raiser
Construction Co. and received by the City on 9/8/77. He said, reading the Goodrich
report and the comments by Silverton and Rausch, it is apparent that there is some
disagreement on the number of parking spaces presently available on the Sheraton
property. Goodrich, having field -counted the parking lot and basement area twice,
said 385-390 spaces can be claimed. Mr. Rausch, however, suggests there are presently
427 spaces. He hoped that staff, Goodrich and Rausch could sit down together and
get a precise figure for the Commission prior to the hearing later this month.
Mr. Yost said Commission should consider two basic questions about the variance
application: (1) What is the maximum number of days per year that an overflow of cars
should be permitted from the Sheraton property? (2) What is the maximum number of
cars that should be permitted to overflow at any one time? Related to these two
questions are two other points raised in Goodrich's memo. There is a question of
what is the maximum percentage of compact cars that should be permitted on the
Sheraton property in the future. In the Goodrich report there was a 40% observed
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1977
operating figure and the suggestion in the Goodrich report was that up to 30% compacts
could be approved. The second point is the off -premise location of overspill parking.
If some number of cars at some regular frequency over -spilled, where are those cars
to go? Some firm commitment should be made now by the applicant to identify more
suitable off -premise locations and to submit some evidence that he has the property
owner's consent for this use.
All of the above assumes that a variance from parking requirement could be justified
and would be acceptable to the City. Asst. C. P. Yost said if this assumption should
be incorrect, or if the variance were conditioned to some maximum number of overspill
vehicles, then some additional on-site parking should be considered. The Goodrich
report mentions a hypothetical parking area under the new hotel wing. Amore practical
alternative may be a commitment to a parking deck at the back of the new addition.
The third option might be the enlargement of the present Sheraton Inn site through
acquisition of land from an adjacent parcel. Mr. Yost suggested Commission discuss
these points so that a more precise proposal with mutually agreed figures could come
back to the Commission at a public hearing -on September 28.
Mr. Silverton indicated that Mr. Drachman, in his original report, said if there is
going to be a Convention Center, a coefficient of 0.34 appears to be acceptable and
Goodrich said if there were not going to be a Convention Center and the City is
considering the property within itself, he would recommend 0.43 coefficient. He
commented that Mr. Yost's analysis was thorough and it was his hope Commission would
consider 0.38 coefficient.
Referring to page 9 of the Goodrich report, C. Mink did not find it helpful to have
information about hotels which are designated A to I unless he had a complete study
of comparable depth from those hotels. He would like staff to consider extending
the number of alternatives. It might be possible to require as a condition that
there be a bonding to create a parking structure by some time specific following
perhaps one to three years or so. In response to suggested use of compact cars,
Mr. Silverton mentioned he preferred to lower the coefficient with the proviso that
if the smaller number of on-site parking spaces proved to be inadequate, he would
commit to the City a restriping of the parking lot to obtain the additional 20-25
parking spaces at a compact size to increase the proper number.
8. 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 AUGUST 8, 1977)
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. He said the processing procedure assumed
an EIR is required. The Convention Center EIR was found to be inappropriate with the
"no convention" alternative selected by Mr. Silverton for this application and this
was the reason for the addendum by Mr. Goodrich. Mr. Yost suggested that the procedural
method to handle this is to first act on the Goodrich report and use the material
developed in that report to support findings that would be relevant to this
application for a variance. Chm. Taylor asked if the Goodrich report met the
requirements of an EIR. Mr. Yost responded that it will not stand on its own; however,
it would form an addendum to EIR-43E for the Convention Center which, of course, has
to be reviewed on its own and found to be legally adequate. Chm. Taylor asked what
kind of a report would be required to submit to City Council that would meet the
requirements of dealing with an EIR for 210 rooms of the Sheraton Inn Hotel unsupported
by any other structures or activity. Mr. Yost said the EIR for the Convention Center
should be a legally adequate document which can be certified by Council whether or not
the Convention Center project happens. This report by Goodrich will form a portion
of that EIR.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
September 12, 1977
9. 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
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. He noted that Commission had received
plans that were prepared by Raiser Construction for the building which are somewhat
preliminary at this stage but which do show a 7 -story addition with 30 rooms per floor.
The indicated building height is not actually marked on the drawings, but at one inch
scale it does scale 60 feet above grade,about 69 feet at the top of the elevator
penthouse. The supportive material that will be used to make findings on this
application will be drawn from the HKS Draft EIR which did have statements about
aesthetic judgments and visual impacts, noise, etc. C. Sine questioned if Mr. Silverton
had any plans for expanding the use of the coffee shop and the dining room since he
is increasing the total number of area by 210 rooms. This item was set for hearing
on September 28, 1977.
10. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: REPORT, EIR-46P, FOR WESTATES PARK PROJECT; PREPARED
BY EARTH METRICS INCORPORATED FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME
11. 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
C. P. Swan reviewed this application. He stated Commission had a page entitled
"Highlights" for review, in which the most significant portions of the EIR were
mentioned. There will be 810 parking spaces, a 24,000 SF 3 -story office building,
and a restaurant with 6-10,000 SF of gross floor area. Over a period of time
the park and fly facility will be phased out, the restaurant will remain, but for
the ultimate development as proposed and described in the EIR, there will be five
office buildings with an aggregate of 120,000 SF of floor space. Diagrams in the EIR
indicate the access driveways will be located directly opposite existing cross streets.
Even so, traffic conflicts.will be one of the major environmental effects of this
project. One advantage to the City of Burlingame might be the shoreline improvement
with a 25 foot wide recreation easement. The Commission will recall this is one of
three vacant properties remaining between Broadway and the Millbrae city limits;
the other two being the property at 1220 Bayshore Highway next to California Trucking
and the King Center project. These three shoreline projects will require permits from
BCDC. Before an applicant can apply for BCDC hearing, they are obliged to provide
documentation showing that the City of Burlingame has reviewed and approved the project
and show that they have satisfied CEQA.requirements. Draft EIR-46P is adequate and
could be scheduled for hearing concurrent with the special permit to allow a parking
facility.
C. Kindig said he would want some access somewhere on that property to the 25 foot
strip. C. Jacobs questioned if there were an access to the 25 foot strip at the
northern part of the project. Ms. Kay Ransom of Earth Metrics Incorporated said the
plan does not show the access but it is suggested that it be considered as a
mitigation measure.C. Francard commented that 18 years is too long for a 25 foot
easement along the IBay. Ms. Ransom advised the project does include a 25 foot
easement as part of the initial development. Items 10 and 11 were set for hearing
on October 26, 1977.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
September 12, 1977
12. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-48P, FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION TO THE
R-3 DISTRICT THOSE R-1 PORTIONS OF PROPERTY AT 911/915 EL CAMINO REAL; PREPARED
BY CHARLES ELEY FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME
13. RECLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 23 and 24 OF BURLINGAME PARK
SUBDIVISION NO. 5 (PORTION OF APN 028-131-020/030) FROM THE R-1 TO R-3 DISTRICT
BY ZEV BEN-SIMON
C. P. Swan reviewed this application. A parcel map was acted upon in June and one
condition for approval of the parcel map to combine two properties was to rezone from
R-1 to R-3 so that the entire holding would be one lot in an R-3 zoning district.
The two lots are side by side, in the middle of a block, and the rear one-third of
the total area is in the R-1 District. An EIR is required because rezoning requires
code amendment. Questions: What would the impacts be from a development possible
in an R-3 District? What options are there? What range of impacts would result if
only the R-3 portion of the lot is developed? In reviewing the Draft EIR prepared by
Mr. Eley there are four exhibits that should be considered. Exhibit 2 on page 6
indicates site conditions; on page 8 code limitations are mentioned; Exhibit 3 on
page 10 gives the existing development potential, and a diagram indicating how it
Tight be developed without consolidation of the two lots and without a change in
zoning district shows two separate apartment buildings, one on each of the existing
lots. This is an illustration of what might be done with that property with no
further change; Exhibit 4 indicates that a single building could be constructed
containing 18 dwelling units; and Exhibit 7, a comparable intensity of development
with consolidation but no change in zoning. To accomplish this the Commission would
need to reconsider the condition placed on the tentative parcel map requiring that it
be rezoned. By doing this the development might take place as indicated on Exhibit 7.
The overview of the Draft ETR is given on page 28 and some mitigation measures are
suggested on pages 30 and 31. These deserve close review and should be considered
at the time of hearing on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is adequate and complete and
the rezoning application could be considered at that meeting also. Items 12 and 13
were set for hearing October 12, 1977.
14. 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 reviewed this application. There was no further discussion on this item
and it was set for hearing by Commission September 28, 1977.
15. 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 R&S COMPANY AND KATHERINE MEYERS
(PROPERTY OWNERS)
Asst C. P. Yost reviewed this application. The project is the demolition of the
14 dwelling units on the property at 1429/1433/1435 Bellevue Avenue. The site plan
shows the building will be set back not less than 27 feet from the front property line
and one portion of the building will be set back 103 feet. The building will be in
the form of a reverse "C" with a pair of small pools in the center and with considerable
landscaping along the existing creek which will remain open. The basement area has
53 parking spaces, 44 of these are covered and 9 uncovered. The ground floor has two
one -bedroom units, five two-bedroom units and two additional two-bedroom units each
with dens which could function as a third bedroom, for the total of nine units per
floor.
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1977
The second and third floors are .identical,with a total of 27 units; community facilities
in the project include a spa and sauna on the ground floor, a billiards room on the
second floor and a social room on the third floor. One possible weakness to the design
is the guest parking; only one guest parking space has apparently been allocated next
to the front entrance driveway. The building meets all zoning requirements and the
application is complete. This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977.
16. 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.
This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977.
17. 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 IRWIN (PROPERTY OWNERS)
18. 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)
Asst. C.P. Yost discussed this application to convert an existing 8 -unit apartment
building to an 8 -unit condominium. The design shows a 3 -story building, two floors
over parking. Each floor will have four units. The site plan shows 13 covered
parking spaces plus four open spaces. The total is one more than required by code
and, in addition, the plan shows there is owner storage area where an 18th space could
be provided, so technically there are two more than the code requires. Open space
on this project is the most sensitive issue. At ground level the building is set back
24 feet from E1 Camino Real; there is a seven foot sideyard on the southerly side of
the property. At the corner of Adeline and E1 Camino Real there is an existing park
and immediately next to that a vacant lot which is now framed up; next to that is
this building which has recently been finished. The landscaping shows there is asphalt
all along the common driveway between this building and the one that is under
construction, and all asphalt at the back where the parking garages are located. The
24 foot front setback is landscaped as well as the southerly side yard. Each of the
eight units has a balcony and there is an average of 80 SF per balcony among the units.
Chm. Taylor inquired why Commission could not consider this building with the building
that is now under construction. Mr. Yost replied that the applicant, with consent
of the property owner, foresees the Adeline Arms project as Phase I; when the building
under construction is completed a condominium permit application will be submitted,
and the two buildings will function as one project. This particular design did
qualify for a building permit and meets all of the present code regulations. Commission
was concerned that the apartment and condominium conversion meet minimum requirements
of the condominium project guidelines. The Asst. C. P. noted Chap. 26.30 Condominium
Subdivisions, specifically Sec. 26.30.060, Standards and Sec. 26.30.070, Minimum
requirements. The requirements tend to be those that are consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance does not differentiate between apartments and
condominiums. Therefore, this building which received a building permit as an
apartment house does meet the technical classifications for a condominium. Condominium
guidelines specify that site plans shall include parking spaces for guests and owners
but do not say how many guests. This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977
together with Item 18.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 10
September 12, 1977
19. 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
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. He noted a letter from Mr. Pisani dated
9/1/77. The owners of the apartment building believed that the amount of off-street
parking they presently have in their basement is more than they actually need. They
are applying for a variance to take two of the parking spaces at the back right and
construct a workshop storage area to keep tools for maintenance of the building.
C. P. Swan said when the Code was amended to increase the number of parking spaces
required for a family, the Council made it very clear that the requirement included
guest parking. This item was set for hearing on September 28, 1977.
20. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUE LEARNING CENTER, INC. TO HOLD CLASSES IN COOLIDGE
SCHOOL; PROPERTY AT 1400 PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026-073-110), BY LARRY KRUSEMARK
(APPLICANT) WITH BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT (PROPERTY OWNER)
C. P. Swan reviewed this application. Larry Krusemark is requesting approval for
a private school to occupy one classroom and a previous office on the first floor of
Coolidge School; they would use existing classrooms and some of the playground. The
type of lease to be executed would be similar to the one with Country Club Day Care
Center; it is revocable after 30 days. This is a non-profit private school with
three employees. It would have about the same kind of impact as the Country Club
Day Care Center except that the children will be older. They are accredited by the
State as a non-profit school. Mr. Swan commented it is difficult to write a negative
declaration and say there will not be any significant effect without adequate
information.
C. A. Coleman said he was contacted by the School District today and their approach is
that they are basically agreeable to whatever conditions are set by the Commission.
C. Mink desired to go back to the basic issue with the Burlingame Elementary School
Board and have them come in with some kind of a permit request if they wish to have
multiple tenants in a single building. C. Sine said he would like Commission to
formally request the School Board to declare its intentions with regard to use of
the property. C. Mink believed it would be difficult to make a fair judgment on the
application until the School Board provided information about total property use.
C. Sine wished the School Board would provide Commission with some direction as to
their intent. Ci: Francard asked if this was a non-profit operation. C. P. Swan
advised.the State had so authorized. It was his feeling the City should protect
existing uses and consider compatibility of new uses. Chm. Taylor summarized
discussion: Commission does not want to take action until clarification is received
from the Board of Trustees and the Elementary School District with regard to their
proposed use of the land.
21. 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)
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application, noting that Commission had a copy of
September 1, 1977 letter from Charles Mayo with the other documents submitted. The
application is complete. It is to operate a car rental agency at 890 Mahler Road
and to keep the cars within an existing warehouse building. A parking layout is shown
on the third page of the attachment sent to Commission. The portion of the plan within
a heavy solid line is the existing building, of which 935 SF is office area and 5,353 SF
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
September 12, 1977
is warehousing. The plan shows there is additional outside parking area for the
rest of the rental fleet. This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977.
22. 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
23. 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
24. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1290 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
(APN 026-142-110), BY DAVID H. KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
(APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR AVCar RENT -A -CAR
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed these three applications.for two car rental agencies, Dodge
Country and AVCar. Item 22 is to permit Dodge Country to operate at Suite 108,
1300 Bayshore Highway from October 1, 1977 to October 1, 1978. Item 23 is to allow
the same company to move to 1310 Bayshore Highway next year and remain there until
September, 1983. The two applications are related but cover different periods of time.
Item 24 is to permit AVCar which is presently at 1310 Bayshore Highway to move to
1290 Bayshore Highway. Details of these moves and numbers of employees, site plans,
parking reserve, etc. were submitted to staff this afternoon at 4:00 P.M. This item
was set for hearing September 28, 1977.
24a. FINAL PARCEL MAP, COMBINING LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 6, BURLINGAME GROVE
(TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/77)
This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977.
24b. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP TO THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION
AT 988 HOWARD AVENUE
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application to add the car repair business to this
property. Basically it will consist of moving Pruett's Olde English Garage from its
present location to what was Carl's Exxon. The reason for the application is because
a gasoline service station requires a special.permit in any zoning district, and this
is a change, or an amendment, to the gas station special permit.
COMMUNICATIONS
25. 1045 EL CAMINO REAL; AUGUST 30, 1977 MEMO FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
There was a special permit approved for the Aikido School at 1045 E1 Camino Real
and the original permit was approved by Commission with the following conditions:
(1) that the classes be limited to two instructors and 12 students at any one time;
(2) that classes be held on Monday and Wednesday evenings only from 7:30 to 9:00 P.M.;
(3) that the non-profit status of the organization be legally established; (4) that
the requirements of the Building and Fire Departments be satisfied within 30 days or
this special permit shall be terminated. The Building Inspector has been out on a
number of occasions to inspect the property and found that the conditions had not been
met. Staff was directed to contact the property owner for compliance.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 12
September 12, 1977
26. 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD; SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 LETTER FROM THE ASST. CITY PLANNER
At their February 28, 1977 meeting Commission approved a variance application to
enlarge an existing building with the stipulation that the exterior and yard
improvements be completed within six months. Six months have elapsed and the
neighbors have been complaining.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary