Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.07.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 11, 1977 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT . COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Planner Swan Francard Assistant 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 Chm. Taylor at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the June 27, 1977 meeting were approved as mailed. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BAYSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (AMENDED JULY, 1977): RESOLUTION NO. 8-77 SUBMITTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6-77; RESOLUTION NO. 9-77 APPROVING A REPORT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 7-77 C. A. Coleman discussed this item, noting Commission had received the revised Redevelopment Plan. On page 5 the blanks should be filled in as follows: "The convention center building will be initially restricted to 2 stories or 24-32 feet in height." The amount of the bond issue, on page 7, should be $17.2 million. The Plan has been updated to the 210 room concept on private property and some of the language has been eliminated. Chm. Taylor asked if any contact had been made with the Planning Dept. as to whether the Redevelopment Plan met planning guidelines. The C. A. did not believe planning concepts had been changed very much from the last draft. C. P. Swan advised there had been no time to evaluate and report on the revised plan in that it arrived just before sending the packet to Commissioners. C. Mink referred to paragraph 103, second line on page 2; the "established hotel and office complex" is on the 'east,' not 'west' as written. C. Jacobs asked if this plan would come before Commission again if there were no changes and was told by the C.A. it would not except for the environmental impact report and/or variances/special permits. C. Jacobs questioned the need for this action before the EIR came to Commission and before Council meetings that will address specifics of the project. The C. A. told her the EIR is not related to the present action by P.G. The Commissioner hesitated to approve this very general plan and wished to have more specific information; site plans, leases, mortgages, etc. are alluded to but she wished to have more complete data. She found it difficult to vote on a general document. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 11, 1977 C. A. Coleman explained that this Redevelopment Plan was not a specific plan, merely a generalized plan for the area. A redevelopment plan is a very general document of what an agency wants to do with an area. Chm. Taylor and C. Mink agreed with this concept. C. Mink described Commission action as 'successively approximating' what will be done.with the area; does this proposal meet the requirements of the law to describe a location in the city which may reasonably undergo redevelopment. C. Sine commented this redevelopment project was much simpler than projects where there is redevelopment of a downtown area after tearing down existing structures. C. Francard remarked on adding 210 rooms but with no indication of adequate parking. He was told that was a different issue. C. Cistulli understood this as a general redevelopment plan to give the Redevelopment Agency the go-ahead. Chm. Taylor asked Ken Jones, counsel for the Redevelopment Agency, to describe the legal and sufficiency requirements. Mr. Jones advised Commission of the actions involved and the steps required by law to implement the Redevelopment Plan. The convention center was presented as a way to develop this area. In order to finance it, some appropriate public agency has to be in a position to borrow money; City of Burlingame could not and should not do that directly as it would involve complications that would not work in this environment. Therefore, the Redevelopment Agency was conceived as the way to handle the project. State law requires certain legal steps in order to make a Redevelopment Agency, to issue bonds and 'to go forward. One of the steps in the process is to declare, in the manner provided by law, that the area is blighted within the meaning of the statute. He noted Commission concern with the legal definition of blight during its previous discussion, and commented that the case for saying the.Sheraton, the disposal site, etc. are legally blighted is thin. However, in order to put out the bonds for financing, it is necessary to go through this blight exercise. If the project were in some deteriorated downtown area there would'be a much clearer source of blight. The city is going through this exercise for the purpose of financing a convention center and a document has been written which meets the legal requirements of a redevelopment plan in the area under consideration.. It is a procedural step, a process leading to the financing of an improvement which is considered important for the City of Burlingame. The details of the project will be included in the EIR, the variances and use permits, if any, which is the normal function of the Planning Commission. This might be called an abnormal function of Commission which is under consideration this evening. Chm. Taylor reviewed previous Commission actions: designating the area, setting up boundary descriptions and describing the scope of the project. He asked Mr. Jones to indicate to the Commission who his client was. Mr. Jones replied his firm comprised a number of lawyers and it has been employed by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burlingame, which in reality is the City Council. They were employed to work out a program to minimize the financial exposure of the City. Attorney Jones described himself as special counsel for the Redevelopment Agency. In that capacity he is representing to the Commission that the Redevelopment Plan meets the legal requirements of redevelopment for the purposes of the Redevelopment Agency. This is just one of the steps to accomplish that purpose. It was the observation of C. P. Swan that there has been little or no expenditure for project design studies; and the Redevelopment Agency does not have an on-going budget this year. C. A. Coleman advised that time by staff is being recorded for future reimbursement. C. Kindig found Mr. Jones' comments enlightening and in laymen's language. C. Mink stated he only felt competent to review Chapters 1 (History and Description of Project), 2 (Land Use Plan), 3 (Space, Streets, Building Restrictions and Property for Public Use), and 6 (Conformance with General Plan). He added his appreciation for the work of staff and attorneys in changing the first three chapters which did clear up his previous questions. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 11, 1977 Chm. Taylor felt the original resolution dealt more in conclusions than it did in evidence, and the changes met many of Commission objections. He then asked for the pleasure of Commission. C. Sine, noting that he had made the initial motion for approval, moved approval of the amended Redevelopment Plan as presented, and moved adoption of Resolution No. 8-77 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame Submitting Report and Recommendation for Approval of Redevelopment Plan and Rescinding Resolution No. 6-77. Second C. Cistulli and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE C. A. Coleman advised the attorneys had also asked for a second resolution, that P.C. find the Report in conformity with the General Plan. C. Jacobs questioned if there were any specifics in the General Plan regarding parking in the C-4 District and was told there were not. C. Mink moved adoption of Resolution No. 9-77 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame Approving a Report and Rescinding Resolution No. 7-77. Second C. Kindig and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 2. RESOLUTION NO. 10-77 DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF A NON -CONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING AS A PLAYROOM; PROPERTY AT 1517 NEWLANDS AVENUE (APN 028-294- 210), ZONED R-1, BY TEOFILO C. MEDEIROS Chm. Taylor announced this item, noting Commission had denied this special permit application and at the request of the C.A. were being asked to establish its prior action for recording purposes. C. Sine moved adoption of Resolution 10-77; second C. Francard. C. Cistulli noted he had been at the study meeting but not at the public hearing for this special permit; he was advised by C. A. Coleman he should not vote. Resolution No. 10-77 adopted on the following roll call voter AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI (upon the advice of the City Attorney) C. A. Coleman told Commission this resolution would be given to the City Clerk for recording with the County Recorder. Replying to C. Sine, Mr. Coleman said that as far as the art studio is concerned there is nothing the City can do until that use has ceased for six months. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR STUDY Page 4 July 11, 1977 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 21 (APN 027-223-060) AND A PORTION OF LOT 20 (APN 027-223-070), EL QUANITO ACRES, ZONED R-1, BY HUGH ANTON FOR MELVIN SCHEINMAN.AT 2703 EL PRADO ROAD AND CALVIN LARSEN AT 8 EL QUANITO WAY C. E. Kirkup advised this map proposes to transfer approximately 900+ SF, a portion of Lot 20, to increase Lot 21. There are no specific conditions required and the C.E. recommended Commission set the map for hearing. If the developer or engineer can have the final map in sufficient form, Engineering would recommend Commission hear the tentative and final maps concurrently. C. Kindig questioned why this change had been proposed. The C. E. told him this approximate 9 foot area would accommodate stairways along that side of the property; Hugh Anton, representing the owner, advised this proposal would make Lot 21 conform to the existing fence line and save landscaping. With no objection, Chm. Taylor set this item for tentative and final map action on July 25, 1977. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 1, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 1 (APN 024-390-160/170); PROPERTY AT 890 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY KIER & WRIGHT FOR CROW-SPIEKER-HOSFORD, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP C. E. Kirkup advised this map combines two lots into a single parcel. No conditions or improvements are required, and the C.E. recommended the tentative and final map be set for hearing at the next meeting. Chm. Taylor scheduled these maps for hearing on July 25, 1977. 5. TENTATIVE 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 The C. E. told Commission Mr. Nicolaides has acquired these three properties and the map would combine them into one single parcel. Engineering had only one condition: that the buildings be removed to conform to the Zoning Ordinance which allows only one building on a residential lot. The C. E. recommended this map be set for hearing. Mr. Nicolaides advised that all buildings would be removed. C. Francard questioned City liability with this proposed condominium on an open creek, and was told by C. A. Coleman there would be no City liability since this was private property and not a City creek. C. Sine commented on the ingenuity needed by an architect or designer in trying to save some of the trees; the Commissioner believed these trees should be saved. Mr. Nicolaides said it was his plan to save most of them that could be seen from.the street; they will plan to build around the trees. Chm. Taylor scheduled this map for hearing July 25, 1977. 6. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE PARKWOOD COURT, A 16 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 33 PARK ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR MORRIS SINGER AND THEODORE FARLEY C. E. Kirkup advised this is a subdivision map for a townhouse type of condominium. The property is now divided into three lots; the final parcel map for the three lots has yet to be signed but it is sufficient at present to schedule this subdivision map for hearing. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1977 C. Mink noted there would be 16 subdivisions inside three lois and questioned the numbering for these 19 parcels. It was suggested that the three common areas and 16 properties be identified very clearly, either by consecutive numbering or a combination of letters for the common areas and numbers forthe 16 parcels. Chm. Taylor scheduled the map for hearing July 25, 1977. 6-A. FINAL MAP TO RESUBDIVIDE THE LANDS OF KILBOURNE AND LOT 8, VIEWLAND ESTATES C. E. Kirkup advised that Florin Rhoads' final parcel map for #2 La Mesa Court is expected to be prepared prior to the next P.C. meeting. The tentative map was approved at the June 27 meeting and by City Council; C.E. recommended final map be set for hearing at the next meeting. The Chairman set this final map for hearing July 25, 1977. 6-B. FINAL PARCEL MAP, EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL PARK; 50 EDWARDS COURT; ROBERT F. EDWARDS The C.E. noted the tentative map had been approved by Commission and Council to resubdivide Parcels 1 and 2 for National Car Rental System, Inc. Access easements have been granted to the City as required in tentative map approval. Mr. Kirkup advised the final map will be ready for hearing at the next P.C. meeting. Chm. Taylor scheduled this map for hearing July 25, 1977. Items 7, 8 and 9 were set aside until the arrival of the applicants. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO RESTORE CLASSIC CARS IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1557 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-321-370), BY LEW KUMETAT AND ROBERT TAYLOR OF CONCOURS INC. (APPLICANTS) WITH V&T INVESTMENTS (PROPERTY OWNER) Asst. C. P. Yost explained this application by Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kumetat to operate a detail shop for classic or special interest cars. The property to be leased is a 30' deep x 100' wide rear portion of an existing concrete tilt -up warehouse. There would be a small office, a small display space for finished cars and the remaining 2,000 SF would be used for light body work, some paint spraying and normal detailing work. The applicants have the approval of the property owner and the application appears to be reasonably complete. Mr. Yost told C. Jacobs there were two warehouse uses on the property as well as some contractor storage areas. C.ers Kindig and Sine were concerned about fire hazards and a report was requested from the Fire Department. Asst. C. P. advised that the Building Inspector was aware of this proposal; the application suggested that the only real construction work involved would be installation of a second overhead door. The 3,000 SF area would require three parking spaces; two are indicated on the plan. The applicants told Commission no major rebuilding or heavy painting was contemplated, the operation would be merely woodwork and iminor touch-up to maintain classic cars for people who have already restored them. C. Mink requested some definitions at the time of the public hearing in order to make them a part of any action Commission might take. Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing July 25, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 11, 1977 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE ON PARCEL A, A PORTION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1417 BURLINGAME AVENUE (PORTION OF APN 029-201-090), ZONED C-1, BY JOSEPH KARP 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE ON PARCEL B, A PORTION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1417 BURLINGAME AVENUE (PORTION OF APN 029-201-090), ZONED C-1, BY MARIO R. CASTRO C. P. Swan circulated a colored illustration of the proposed project and referred to the copy of Del Campo Associates' meeting notes dated 6/30/77 which had been circulated earlier. The plans Commission received in its packet were dated July 6; these plans have added an elevator straddling the property line between these two lots. Mr. Swan read the definition of a building in the Zoning Code: "A BUILDING is any structure with substantial walls and roof securely affixed to the land and entirely separated on all sides from any structure by space or by walls in which there are no communicating doors, windows or openings; and which is designed or intended for the shelter, housing or protection of persons, animals or chattels." The plans indicate a central mall without a roof; the elevator providing access to shops on the second level would be on the exterior of the building. Zoning regulations require a special permit if a building covers more than 75% of the lot. It had been staff interpretation that each building exceeded this 75% coverage and, consequently, two applications on the agenda this evening. The net parking deficiency for each building would be three spaces for a total of six exclusive of the basement. If this were considered as one building, the net parking deficiency would be 32 spaces. He noted that parking could be provided on ground level in the rear. Retail stores are planned on both levels and possibly a restaurant on the second floor. But for a quality restaurant there could not be a wall separating the two buildings. Mr. Swan explained that to meet code with two separate buildings each should satisfy both Building and Zoning Code requirements, and it would be the same as if only one was built at a time. Then, after the first one has been constructed, build the second one. However, if they are built side by side with no walls between them, it must be considered one building. He added that the applicant claims it is two buildings, one on each lot. Plans show there are two buildings with no wall between them on the second floor. Plan -wise it would appear to be one building. C. Mink suggested, if this is two buildings, it would not appear to meet fire code requirements for two separate exits per building. He believed Commission should first determine whether it is one or two buildings before proceeding. Chm. Taylor agreed. C. Sine asked about the applicants' intent as far as the 70' x 90' basement was concerned; would each basement be built separately. The applicants' representative replied that it had not been decided. Joseph Karp addressed Commission, introducing Robert Forscutt and L. Del Campo, architects and Mario Castro, owner of Parcel B. He stated two separate buildings could be constructed but it would restrict.the design of the second floor severely. The applicants have decided to sprinkler the entire building. Mr. Karp reported that Chief Building Inspector Calwell had told them if the entire building were sprinklered the four hour walls between the two buildings could be eliminated, and an imaginary line down the center would be sufficient for him. A wall down the center on both sides of the building on the second floor would kill this area for a quality shop or restaurant. Mr. Karp commented on the difficulty in marketing second floor space. In order to make a more viable project they decided on 10 foot wide decking. The Code allows a 44 inch wide balcony, but the applicants preferred a quality building and a viable project. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1977 C. Kindig asked if the project could be handled as a variance if it were considered as one building on two lots, and questioned if the application were merely to avoid six or seven parking spaces. He believed in order do=get a viable and attractive building this parking requirement would not be too large. Mr. Karp felt the money involved was a large sum, and he was asking Commission for a waiver of the parking requirement. The applicant told C. Sine the basement would be fire sprinklered also. The Commissioner asked about the proposed use of the basement and was told most probably for storage, mechanical, service and bathroom facilities. Architect Forscutt claimed that the coverage of the second floor deck could be reduced and they would be within restrictions of the code. C. Sine remarked he would feel more comfortable if the project were one building and the applicants made their separate partnership arrange- ments. Chm. Taylor thought the additional expense for six or seven parking spaces was not a great amount. C. P. Swan commented that if the building were considered one building the net parking deficiency would be greater and a larger contribution of money would be needed. Discussion continued regarding the one or two building concept and the need for two four-hour fire resistive walls on the second floor. Chm. Taylor believed the applicants were asking Commission to agree the -building should be built but that the applicants should not be confronted with.the parking requirements. Mr. Karp commented that the parking requirement penalizes a quality project. He added it would be possible to locate the elevator on the side of the building but this would decrease project viability. C. Francard asked if the elevator would go all the way to the basement. Mr. Forscutt said this had not been considered as yet but it would be desirable if there were a basement; it would be a passenger elevator. The doors of the elevator would be located outside but under cover of the overhang. C. Mink commented on the attractive design and stated he would like to cooperate with the developers to meet the requirements of the code. He asked for technical guidance from staff as to whether it is one building or two, and how Commission should deal with it. C. E. Kirkup stated his belief it was one building on two lots without a building wall. He thought it bad practice to construct one building across property lines. C. Mink stated he could go along with separate ownerships of two parts of one building which were totally sprinklered, and believed the problem of parking could be solved. Chm. Taylor talked about the impact of this building on the area itself; Commission would have to deal with the parking problem and the impact it would have in increased parking demands. The Chm, and C. Mink pointed out that discussion so far had been dealing with how to avoid parking. Mario Castro discussed the amount of time the applicants had spent in design of this project; they were before Commission to ask that they not be penalized for this ornamental structure, with the resultant sacrifice in appearance and safety. C. P. Swan asked: is it one building or two buildings? Chm. 'Taylor suggested granting a variance from the requirement of 'substantial walls' in the definition of 'building.' C. A. Coleman advised variances are not given for definitions. C. Jacobs objected to the position of the applicant before the Commission in order to get the best project; it was her belief any architect could follow codes and make a good project. Mr. Karp submitted the applicants would build two separate buildings, and restated that the purpose for not having a separation on the second floor was to include a restaurant at that level. C. Cistulli believed the project to be one building on two lots. C.ers Cistulli and Kindig felt that putting in the walls would ruin a very good design. C. Sine suggested going up three or four stories, and was told the applicants were not sure enough tenants could be produced in that case. The Commissioner added that he liked the project. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1977 C. E. Kirkup asked Commission consider this project as two separate buildings in order to make the parking requirement only six spaces. C. Mink inquired, assuming the project as two separate structures, if it would be possible to grant a variance from the section of the code which requires some sort of separation, or if there were some way to allow two buildings to flow one into the other. C. A. Coleman replied this was not possible. Chm. Taylor wished to treat this as two buildings in accordance with the applicants' request, but eliminate the center wall. It was pointed out again by the architect and Mr. Karp what the wall would do to the design. At this point in the discussion Mr. Karp and Mr. Castro submitted they would put the wall in on the second floor to make two buildings on two lots. C. Jacobs commented on Commission's work with new codes for the city for the betterment of the city. She felt it was the applicants' obligation to solve their code problems. The Chm. thought design discussion was part of Commission duties in order to improve the quality of environment in the City of Burlingame. C. Sine commented that in the overall picture Commission must work with developers for what is to the best advantage of the city. With regard to parking, Chm. Taylor told the applicants this matter would be considered at the public hearing. Discussing a building more than two stories, Mr. Karp told C. Kindig he believed there had been trouble renting the third story space at the Avenue Arcade. In researching this matter they had found, in Carmel for instance, shops on the third and fourth floors were not doing as well as those on the first and second The location of the elevator for the proposed building was chosen so that it could be seen and people would go to the second floor. Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing on August 8, 1977 at the request of the applicants. A short recess was called at 9:40 P.M. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COURIER SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 859 COWAN ROAD (APN 024-401-510), BY TOM MONK FOR PUROLATOR COURIER CORPORATION (APPLICANT) WITH SARMIENTO INTERNATIONAL INC. (PROPERTY OWNER) Asst. C. P. Yost reported that a courier company is a special use in an M-1 District. This firm has been in business in Burlingame for eight years. They recently moved to 859.Cowan Road and. Planning Dept. received the application for a business license. Sincethey operate nine vehicles over two shifts it is a service establishment and will require a special permit in an M-1 District. The application is not complete. A site plan is needed as well as information about where the vehicles are serviced and the application requires written approval of the property owner. Joel A. Auslen, operations supervisor, indicated he thought that the supplementary information could be provided within two weeks. This item was set for hearing August 8, 1977. Commissioner Mink was excused at 10:00 P.M. 11. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-47P, FOR PROPOSED, RECLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 TO C-2 OF 12,920 SF OF PROPERTY AT THE TERMINUS OF SAN MATEO AVENUE; PREPARED BY REIMER ASSOCIATES FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME 12. RECLASSIFICATION OF TWO PARCELS ON SAN MATEO AVENUE FROM R-3 TO C-2; PARCEL A (APN 029-053-110) BEING SWLY 43.33 FEET OF LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 1 AND ADJOINING PORTION OF SAN MATEO AVENUE WITH NELY 75 FEET OF LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 2, DE COULON SUBDIVISION; PARCEL B (APN 029-053-200) BEING LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 2, DE COULON SUBDIVISION; APPLICATION BY OSCAR F. PERSON, PROPERTY OWNER C. P. Swan introduced Steve Brothers of Reimer Associates and, briefly reviewed EIR-47P. He called attention to three graphic exhibits: (1) the location and zoning map showing Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes the Oscar Person property at the end of San Mateo the area to be rezoned; (3) the preliminary site which showed where the proposed shop or warehouse questioned two-way traffic on San Mateo Avenue. housing units would be lost if this R-3 District Draft EIR and Reclassification application were s OTHER Page 9 July 11, 1977 Avenue; (2) the site map showing and building plan in Appendix A would be constructed. C. Kindig C. Jacobs asked how many potential area were rezoned to C-2. The cheduled for hearing July 25, 1977. Chm. Taylor moved and C. Cistulli seconded that all meetings of the Planning Commission be held in the Council Chambers. Motion was unanimously approved 6-0 (C. Mink having been excused earlier). CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner reported on the consultants' proposals to prepare a land use study. He related questions discussed with Chm. Taylor: (1) What is the primary objective for the study? (2) How do we want the different areas to develop? (3) Should the city plan for development and subsequently consider traffic? (4) Should the study area be built out in 5, 10 or 20 years? There was Commission discussion. Chm. Taylor favored an integrated study of land use and traffic. The city will have a single shot capital improvement cost and operating cost for continuing municipal services. Commissioner Sine suggested staggered employment hours. C. Cistulli recommended that the number of people working in the area be counted and also the number living in Burlingame. C. Jacobs asserted there is a need to spend money now to know how to develop the remaining property. The land use study has been given top priority by the City Council and the following Planning Commission studies have been rescheduled as future tasks: carports in front setbacks, parking in sideyards, planned development/townhouse guidelines, the Housing Element, and the HCDA Housing Rehabilitation Program. C. P. Swan reported progress on the current EIRs. Commission scheduled Revised Draft EIR-40P for the Charles King project and Final EIR-41E for the Broadway Grade Separation project for hearing July 25, 1977. A copy of EIR-43E for the Convention Center will be available July 15 for administrative review by staff. OTHER C. Cistulli reported his personal survey of a local supermarket. He found that only two of 53 employees live in Burlingame. He reported that many trucks are parked behind Petrini's on. Magnolia. Forty foot long trucks block traffic, the sidewalks are crowded with produce, and people are forced to walk around. C. A. Coleman advised it would be considered at the staff meeting on Wednesday in hopes of gaining a coordinated city policy. Chm. Taylor suggested the loading zone on Primrose at Walgreen's also be considered. Everett Kindig asked to be excused from the July 25, 1977 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine, Secretary