HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.06.13COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Cis tulIi
Francard
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
June 13, 1977
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None 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 7:32 P.M.
ITinrvi"M
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
The minutes of the May 25, 1977 meeting were approved as mailed.
MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BAYSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (DATED MAY 23, 1977):
RESOLUTION NO. 6-77 SUBMITTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (CONTINUED FROM MAY 25, 1977)
C. A. Coleman discussed this item, stating it seemed doubtful Commission could act this
evening. Presently there was some uncertainty regarding the number and location of
hotel rooms; this might affect figures in the Redevelopment Plan, but would not change
the concept. It was Mr. Silverton's hope that action could be taken at this meeting.
Mr. Coleman advised that Resolution 6-77 submits the Redevelopment Plan to Council
with findings that the Plan is in conformity with the requirements of Redevelopment
Law, that it is consistent with the Preliminary Plan formulated by Commission and that
it is in conformity with the General Plan of the City of Burlingame.
Chm. Taylor questioned whether relocation of the publicly owned rooms would affect the
determination of Commission. C. A. Coleman replied that knowing the nature of the
public facilities that are being approved would be helpful. C. Sine agreed with the
C.A., felt it was a nebulous plan and stated he was not prepared to act this evening.
C. Mink noted that at no place in the resolution was Commission asked to attest to the
accuracy of the Plan, and that he found gross inaccuracies in the Plan and wished to
discuss the text. Barry Silverton stated his understanding, as expressed by the
attorneys and consultants hired by the City, that a conceptual plan was all Commission
would be approving. Chm. Taylor pointed out the information in the Bayside Redevelopment
Plan which Commission has been asked to approve is changing. Discussion continued
between Mr. Silverton, Commission and the City Attorney regarding whether the Plan was
in sufficient final form to enable P.C. to adopt the resolution.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1977
It was the Chm.'s belief that Commission should rely on the advice of the C.A. as
coordinator of this project. Mr. Coleman told Commission if the Plan were adopted
this evening it was highly probable it would be back to them at a later date for
amendment. Mr. Silverton related discussion with the attorneys representing the City
concerning the 150 rooms on City property and the presentation of documentation to
the Internal Revenue Service. He did not see what difference it would make if
Commission approved the Plan and it did come back to them later; by not approving it
now there would be more delays and the project could be killed by attrition. C. Jacobs'
concern was not with another change sometime in the future but in knowing there is
change being discussed at present with no comment on these changes from City Council.
C. Francard was concerned about the parking which would be needed and was uncomfortable
not knowing what possible further developments might be included.
The C.A. stated this is an adequate report for a project with 150 rooms on public
property and no additional rooms at the hotel. If there were changes, it would be
back before Commission because it would then be a different Redevelopment Plan.
C. Mink discussed the text of the Redevelopment Plan for the Bayside Redevelopment
Project. He referred to Chapter 1, paragraph 103, Subsection a), "Conditions to be
Remedied," - ". . . adjacent to a major transportation facility, namely, 101 Bayshore
Freeway." The problem of access to 101 was not addressed and the Commissioner
requested a policy statement regarding this access, either at Broadway, Millbrae Avenue
or Peninsula Avenue. Further, access to and from the public parts of the City for this
type of facility had not been included. He suggested adding a statement to the effect
that the project is adjacent to a major transportation system "that cannot be entered."
In the second paragraph under 103. a), C. Mink questioned the statement that one of
the factors in economic disuse of this area was "faulty planning manifested by the
location of a fill and cover dump operation upon the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. ."
He pointed out that the fill and cover operation was planned in order to create land
on which something might be built, and believed this 'very good planning.' The
Commissioner thought, by innuendo, there were a number of inaccuracies. Referring
specifically to the statement that the continuation of the dump operation could have
serious economic effects on all areas, he noted it was never the City's intention to
continue this indefinitely, or to close it without further action; it had been the plan
for years to create an open space in that area.
C. Mink also objected to the statements that the dump area has no functional utility
once it is filled and that inadequate open space could not be remedied without
redevelopment. He commented that it was designed to be filled to create a recreational
facility, and also suggested that if Anza could contemplate selling in that same general
area, why couldn't the City also. The statement that "the dump has been used for these
purposes for some 15 years" was noted to be accurate. The paragraphs referring to
submerged land and existing natural marshland were explained by the C.A. as necessary
in order to meet legal requirements under Redevelopment Law.
Chm. Taylor commented on the need for supportive statements for the conclusion Commission
was being asked to make. C. Mink did not think this document establishes that "blight"
exists. It was pointed out by the C.A. that this involved a particular definition of
blight. He added that several of C. Mink's comments might more properly be addressed
when considering the EIR and were not relevant to redevelopment of this property.
C. Cistulli related the history of the dump site, and felt the statements in the
document were incomplete in this regard.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1977
C. Mink referred to Chapter 3, page 5, Sec. 303, Subsection b). With regard to the
dimensions of the buildings as included in Exhibit C, all that is mentioned is square
footage. The C.A. told him these figures might be inaccurate. Under Sec. 303,
Subsection c), C.A. Coleman clarified the reference to number of stories: the main
convention center building should read initially 2 stories;the meeting room and guest
room facility, 4 stories; and other structures initially 2 stories.
C. Kindig indicated his agreement with the statements made by C.ers Mink and Cistulli,
but noted the document was written to justify the Redevelopment Plan. C. Jacobs
inquired about the use of the word "initially" in every paragraph and was told by
the C.A. it was to allow for expansions. Chm. Taylor read Resolution No. 6-77. He
was told by C.A. Coleman that as stated in the resolution the Plan is in conformance
with Redevelopment Law and it is consistent with the Preliminary Plan formulated by
the Commission. Asst. C. P. Yost told the Chm. he believed the land uses as proposed
are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Burlingame. C. Mink found conformity
with the text of the General Plan but not the General Plan Diagram. Referring to page 1,
second paragraph, C. Jacobs had concern with the phrase . a community redevelopment
project was necessary to correct physical and economic liabilities in the interest of
the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Burlingame." The
C.A. had no doubt that the attorneys for the City had made a statement that was
sufficient with Redevelopment Law. He also told her Commission would have control
over parking and other concerns when the EIR is considered. C. Jacobs questioned tax
increment financing which the C.A. explained would only be used if the project failed,
to recoup costs. The Commissioner noted the City owns over 50% of this project and
has had it for a long time.
C.ers Jacobs and Francard requested that the suggested changes be made and brought to
the P.C. in two weeks; they would prefer to vote on the finished document. C. Kindig
was hesitant about #2. in the Resolution, "That . . Commission . . recommends . . the
Plan as submitted . . ." He was not convinced Commission was ready to recommend.
C. Mink remarked that the previous action of Commission was to establish boundaries
for the Redevelopment Agency. It appeared to him this was the first opportunity the
P.C. has had to deal with the Plan; it was a possible plan but he was not convinced it
was an appropriate plan for the City of Burlingame. C. Kindig commented on the fact
that City Council had been studying the project for many months; he believed Commission
was quite willing to let Council go ahead, but hesitant to recommend the Plan because
Commission had not had the chance to study it thoroughly.
Chm. Taylor noted Commission options: adopt the Resolution recommending that the
Redevelopment Plan be approved, recommend that this Plan not be approved, or continue
the matter to the meeting of June 27 to consider another revision. He reminded that
the C.A. had advised the document was legally sufficient, and requested the pleasure
of Commission. C. Sine thought the P.C. decision somewhat minor since the final
decision would be by Council. He said he shared the concerns of C.ers Kindig and Mink
but had no personal objection to approving this Plan in principle this evening,
including the suggestions for revision. He also pointed out the control Commission
would have when hearings on the EIR were held.
C. Sine moved adoption of Resolution No. 6-77 Submitting Report and Recanmendation for
Approval of Redevelopment Plan; second C. Cistulli. At the suggestion of Chm. Taylor,
C. Sine amended his motion to incorporate the remarks of C. Mink in the adoption of the
resolution. C. Mink briefly restated his previous discussion which recited several
errors in the description and history; there were certain inferences in the Plan about
which he was concerned; there were some technical errors on page 5 which had been
cleared up by the C.A. Resolution 6-77 adopted by the following roll call vote:
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1977
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, MINK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
2. REPORT AS TO CONFORMITY WITH GENERAL PLAN OF PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE BAYSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7-77 APPROVING THIS REPORT
AND SUBMITTING IT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CONTINUED FROM MAY 25, 1977)
Secy. Sine read this resolution at the request of the Chairman, with the date of
May 23, 1977 to be inserted in the text. C. Mink moved adoption of 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
3. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, T014N OF BURLINGAME
(APN 029-201-090) AT 1417 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR
MARIO CASTRO AND JOSEPH KARP
C. E. Kirkup reviewed this map. Commission, at their May 23 meeting, had approved the
tentative parcel map to divide the Fox Theater property into two 9,000 SF lots with
the condition the existing building would be removed or bond posted for demolition
prior to filing of the final map. Mr. Kirkup advised that Mr. Karp had arranged for
bonding to guarantee demolition of the building and reported the map was technically
correct. The C.E. recommended approval..
Mr. Karp told C. Jacobs demolition would take place in the next month or two, otherwise
they would wait until after Christmas. C. Sine moved approval of this final parcel map.
Second C. Cistulli and approved on unanimous roll call vote.
4. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A NEW 6' HIGH FENCE TO ENCLOSE THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING
APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1511 NE14LANDS AVENUE (APN 028-294-220), ZONED R-1, BY
WILLIAM VALLIVERO.
Asst. C. P. Yost reported that Mr. Vallivero, who recently purchased this apartment
building, occupies the ground floor, front unit, and would like more privacy in his
front yard than a 5' fence would provide. He noted the site plan which shows the
proposed fence extending from the side property line of the lot to the entrance driveway,
and then extending.back 15-1/2' to the face of the apartment building. Code Sec.
25.78.050 was noted which allows fences of a greater height than permitted by Code
if the petitioner shows there are exceptional circumstances, no public hazard, that
neighboring property owners will not be materially damaged and the regulations cause
unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. The applicant had submitted a letter
addressing these points and was present to answer any questions.
Durinq Commission discussion the applicant told C. Sine the existing fences fronting
on Newlands Avenue, on the property line and the driveway would be removed. It was
determined the proposed fence would have a 2'2" setback from the sidewalk along
Newlands Avenue. The 5' requirement for fences in the front setback in R Districts
was noted. C. Kindig stated his concern about 6 foot fences.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
June 13, 1977
There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the
public hearing closed. Mr. Yost advised that seven notices of hearing were mailed out
to adjacent property owners. C. Francard commented on the aesthetic value of landscaping
and stated he would be opposed to a board fence in front of this apartment house. He
also noted the possible hazard to pedestrians of a 6 foot fence right up to the driveway
of an apartment house. C. Kindig pointed out the possibility of many more applications
of this type should Commission start making exceptions. Mr. Vallivero told Commission
the front yard was the only part of the property that could be used as a yard; for
any privacy at all he would need a six foot high fence; the fence would be constructed
of used brick and redwood.
C. Kindig moved denial of this fence exception. Second C. Jacobs and denied on
unanimous roll call vote. Chm. Taylor advised the applicant he had the right of appeal
to City Council.
5. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A 64 SF NON -ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN TO FACE CALIFORNIA DRIVE
FROM A BUILDING AT 1241 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1, BY NICHOLAS CRISAFI FOR STAR
SELF STORAGE
Asst. C. P. Yost discussed this application to install a third sign on this property.
In March, 1977 a 3' x 40' wall sign was approved by the City for installation on the
Whitethorn l -Jay side of the remodelled warehouse. A sign permit had also been issued
for a second sign in April, 1977 which was a small 3' x 5' ground sign at the driveway
entrance on Rollins Road. In early May a third sign (Sign.0 of the application) was
observed on the rear of the warehouse clearly visible to Southern Pacific commuters
and motorists on California Drive; no Building Permit had been obtained by Mr. Crisafi
before this sign had been installed. A letter had therefore been sent requesting
removal of this sign and/or an application for a sign exception. Mr. Yost noted that
in the new Sign Code wall signs are limited to those sides of a building which face
a public street, and that the rear of this building does not meet this criteria.
Also, this lot qualifies for a maximum of 200 SF of signage; Sign C would raise the
total advertising for this business to 214 SF. The proposed sign would be 4' high x
16' wide composed of two pieces of plywood with black lettering on a white background.
Mr. Yost advised Commission's determination should be made in accordance with Sec. 22.
06.110 Exceptions of Title 22.
Mr. Crisafi addressed Commission, commenting on this unusual property; the frontage
is reserved for ingress and egress, there are no buildings that face Rollins Road,
the rear of the building faces the railroad tracks and California Drive. He believed
it was not an offensive sign and would give him the public exposure he needed to start
his new business. The sign copy was determined to read: "Now Leasing - Self Storage."
No further signage would be requested for this property. C. Jacobs complimented
Mr. Crisafi on improvements to the building. C. Kindig was concerned about the
precedent this might set for other buildings in that area. C. Sine noted a parallel
with an automobile company sign fronting the railroad track which had been abated
recently. Mr. Crisafi told C. Sine he had erected the sign in the first place because
he was told by a sign company this was a temporary sign and did not need a permit.
There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the public
hearing closed. Replying to C. Mink, the applicant indicated he would be agreeable to
a time limit on approval of this sign. C. Mink moved approval of the Sign Exception
for a period of six months only from the date of issuance. Second C. Kindig and
unanimously approved on roll call vote.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY
Page 7
June 13, 1977
7. 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
Asst. C. P. Yost told Commission this application is to add either 210 or 330 rooms
to the existing Sheraton Inn and briefly described the site plan showing the proposed
location of these rooms. Much of the supporting material which would permit Commission
to review this variance would be included in the EIR for the Redevelopment Project
which H.K.S., Inc. is preparing, but which is not yet available for review. It was
Mr. Yost's belief the EIR would have to specifically address this alternative.
C. A. Coleman advised he would be holding a meeting the next day to discuss this matter
and told Chm.-Taylor that Commission'could not grant this variance without first
considering the EIR and making recommendations to Council.
Commission, staff and the applicant then discussed the possibility of this item and
the EIR being put on the June 27 agenda. Barry Silverton advised he wished to cover
all eventualities; he intended to request a variance for additional rooms at the
present Sheraton Inn irregardless of whether the Convention Center were developed or
not. He noted there were other studies about the Sheraton in possession of the City
and several sections of the Feasibility Report address parking at the Sheraton. There
was general consensus there would not be time for proper study of the EIR before the
June 27 meeting and that this would be needed for any decision regarding the parking
variance.
C. Mink discussed the variance application. He requested more detailed and definitive
statements in the written application and pointed out the applicant appeared to be
referring to 'expanded' use, not 'continued' use. The Commissioner suggested
Mr. Silverton reconsider his statements in light of Chapter 25.54 of Title 25 Zoning.
After further discussion this item was continued until receipt of the Environmental
Impact Report.
8. VARIANCE FROM CODE SECTION 25.28.060 TO CREATE A NEW LOT OF 15,660 SF ON A PRIVATE
ROAD AT #2 LA MESA COURT (APN 027-022-370), ZONED R-1, BY FLORIN RHOADS
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this item, noting the related parcel map previously processed
by Commission and Council had never been recorded with the County; this map has now
expired. The Lands of Kilbourne are one legal lot of 36,600+ SF. The front portion
is owned by Thomas Leutzinger and the back portion (Parcel B) by Mr. Rhoads. Parcel B
does not have access to a public street but does have 50 foot frontage on a private
road, La Mesa Court. The variance application is technically complete and could be
set for hearing if the C.E.'s requirements for the parcel map have been satisfied.
Commission was told they would be given another map before the hearing which would give
the location of the proposed house on Parcel B. Chm. Taylor set this matter for public
hearing June 27, 1977.
9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO RESUBDIVIDE THE LANDS OF KILBOURNE (APN 027-022-370/380) AND
LOT 8, VIEWLAND ESTATES (APN 027-022-460), ZONED R-1, BY PETER ROYCE FOR FLORIN RHOADS
AND THOMAS LEUTZINGER
This property is within the Special Studies Zone defined by the Alquist-Priolo Act.
C.E.'s memo of June 10, 1977 noted that a Soils & Geologic Report had been received which
appeared to be adequate. This has been forwarded to the County Geologist for concurrence.
This parcel map was set for hearing June 27, 1977.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
June 13, 1977
10. VARIANCE FROM CODE SECTION_25.28.060 TO CREATE SIX LOTS, FIVE OF WHICH WOULD BE
WITHOUT ACCESS ON A PUBLIC STREET; PROPERTY ON MILLS CANYON COURT (APN 025-370-
010/020); LOTS 1 AND 2, ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. HARRY SMOOKLER
Mr. Yost explained this variance. Lots 1 and 2, the subject of the application, were
never sold or developed after their subdivision in 1968. It is proposed to resubdivide
these two lots into six, five of which would have no frontage on a public street.
Minimum lot area in this part of Burlingame is 7,000 SF; all of the proposed new lots
would be above this figure and thus no variance from lot size would be required.
C. Kindig was told there are no houses on Lots 1 and 2 at the present time.
Neil Vannucci presented drawings of the proposed building sites and. explained the gross
lot area figures as opposed to the net area figures which are less the private road.
C. Cistulli requested comments from the Fire Department with regard to the cul de sac;
this extension would result in a 700 foot long private road. C.E. Kirkup noted his
June 10, 1977 memo with severalconcerns, including the extension of the cul de sac,
sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage lines. A geologic report would also be
required prior to the final map. Commission consensus appeared to be to set this item
for hearing provided staff received the necessary information. C. Mink requested from
the Engineering Dept. a checklist for consideration of maps, something similar to the
requirements for a variance.
11. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO RESUBDIVIDE LOTS 1 AND 2, MILLS ESTATE NO. 27
(R.S.M. VOL. 68/23), BY H. G. HICKEY FOR MR. AND MRS. HARRY SMOOKLER
This related item was set for hearing June 27 pending receipt of information requested
by the C.E.
12. VARIANCE FROM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT T140 ADDITIONS TO
AN EXISTING HOUSE AT 211 CHAPIN LANE (APN 028-313-100), ZONED R-1, BY MICHAEL
NILMEYER (ARCHITECT) WITH MR. AND MRS. CARL KUHN (OWNERS)
Asst. C. P. Yost discussed this proposal to make two additions to an existing home.
The garage would be extended to within less than 6" of the front property line;
the suggested advantage of this would be to change a single car garage into a two car
garage. It is also proposed to add 4 feet to the master bedroom. Mr. Yost advised
that the property is presently surrounded by a rose covered brick wall 5'8" high to
provide privacy. The application is technically complete and the Asst. C. P. recommended
it be set for hearing. He added that the owner and the architect would be present at
the public hearing. Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing June 27, 1977.
13. VARIANCE FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT A WORKSHOP ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING HOUSE AT 1250 JACKLING DRIVE (APN 027-332-040), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND
MRS. JOHN COCKCROFT
Commission had received letter and proposed plans from the applicant. He wished
add a 10' x 22' workshop to the front wall of an existing two car garage. This
bring the structure to within 7' of the front property line; code minimum is 15'.
Mr. Cockcroft was present and after Commission discussion Chm. Taylor set this item
for hearing June 27, 1977.
to
would
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
June 13, 1977
14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A TRAVEL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 29 EDWARDS COURT
(APN 026-102-100), BY WADE PERRITT OF CONTINENTAL MORTUARY AIR SERVICES FOR AIR
CARE TRAVEL SERVICE
Asst. C. P. Yost referred to his staff report and to April 21, 1977 letter from
Mr. Perritt, copy of which Commission had received. CMAS has a current business license
to receive caskets (with bodies) delivered by funeral directors to 29 Edwards Court.
These are unloaded, covered, packed, reloaded and then taken to the airport. The
applicant would now like to be able to provide tickets for the bereaved family.when
traveling with the body. Mr. Perritt told Chm. Taylor there were no FAA regulations
that an escort service was necessary, but that two first class tickets must be
purchased. Mr. Yost noted the location is not advantageous for walk-in business, but
the applicant would like to offer travel services to businesses in the area. Staff
had determined this was a conditional use which would require a special permit from
Commission; the application is technically complete. Chm. Taylor set this item for
hearing June 27, 1977. C. Mink requested from the applicant prior to the hearing a
further explanation in writing of the secondary use.
15. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCK RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 808 BURLWAY ROAD
(APN 026-111-120) AND TRUCK STORAGE AT 855 MAHLER ROAD (APN 026-322-190) BY
DARYL NICK FOR AZTEC RENT-A-CAR/RYDER TRUCK RENTALS
Asst. C. P. Yost explained that a month ago on a business license inspection he had
found there were rented trucks on these premises. A special permit granted to Aztec
in January, 1975 was for car rentals only; this is clearly an extension of the use
that was approved and the applicants have chosen to apply for a permit to lease trucks
and make that a part of the business. The previous permit had been for 25 cars and 2
staff people; presently it is a larger operation with 4 permanent employees, 2 temporary
employees, a 60 car fleet and 2 trucks, and with additional Ryder fleet trucks available
on a rental basis. The parking is not striped at either location. Mr. Yost reported
that from his inspection there did not appear to be a problem as to parking on either
of the two lots. The company which received the previous special permit is no longer
operating this business, and has sold the Aztec franchise to the present applicants.
The lease details were not yet available but Mr. Yost believed they could be obtained
prior to the hearing. Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing June 27, 1977.
16. 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
This application was reviewed by Asst. C. P. Yost. The original house was built to
the back and side property lines; at some point in the '30s or '40s a double car
garage at the front of the lot was converted to a dwelling unit. In 1975 a City
inspection found the dwelling use had been terminated and there were two ladies
renting it for use as a painting studio. The property owner was required to remove
the stove and refrigerator at that time, but since then has sold the property.
The current owner has plans to improve the back portion of the garage by rewiring and
repaneling a storeroom for use as a playroom for his 10 year old daughter, while
retaining the art studio use in the front part. C. A. Coleman told Commission that
the art studio is a nonconforming use.
C. Sine stated his concerns: when the artists' studio was set up a skylight had been cut
in the roof without benefit of a building permit. All electrical and plumbing comes
from the house and there is a TV antenna. He believed the art studio was a commercial
project as paintings of the two ladies have been sold commercially at art galleries.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
June 13, 1977
All other projects will come to Commission and Council for a special permit and review.
This ordinance runs for three months. In Section 2 of Ordinance 1107 Commission is
directed to pursue a study of the existing zoning and land uses within the described
area including consideration of the adoption of a specific plan. A copy of this
ordinance and of Article 8 of the Government Code, Authority and Scope of Specific
Plans, had been provided to Commission. Mr. Yost referred to the joint breakfast
meeting recently held by Council and Commission and the concerns expressed regarding
projects in the subject area. This emergency ordinance had been the direct result of
these discussions. The time schedule for the studies requested was noted. C.E. had
prepared a letter to consultants with invitation for proposal for a traffic study.
Planning staff will compile backup material with regard to land uses and it is
anticipated a consultant will be engaged to assist the City in a study of alternative
land uses and fiscal impacts. It was noted no criteria were specified for Commission
guidance in considering any special permits received during this time.
20. PROGRESS REPORTS ON CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
Asst. C. P. Yost discussed the on-going EIRs.
EIR-40P for the Charles King project at 1350 Bayshore Highway - Drawings and draft
of an amended EIR have been received. The office building is now to be 127 feet high,
with 144,000 SF of floor area. Alternatives are addressed in the EIR. It was hoped
to have an amended copy to Commission at least a week before the July 11 meeting.
EIR-41E for the Broadway Grade Separation Project - It is anticipated this will be
scheduled for July 11.
EIR-42P, Legaspi Towers office building, 500 Airport Boulevard - The property owner
has been given informational material to use in writing his informational report.
EIR-43E, the Convention Center Project - EIR in process by H.K.S., Inc., San Francisco.
EIR-44P, Burlingame Bay Club Condominiums - This will involve reclassification and a
condominium permit for 250 condominium units. Requests for proposal were sent out;
four were received and staff will be reviewing these with the developer.
EIR-45P, One Waterfront office building at 700 Airport Boulevard - Two proposals
have been received and staff will be reviewing them.
EIR-46P, Westates Park, a park and fly operation with a 24,000 SF office building -
Three proposals have been received and staff will review.
EIR-47P, Oscar Person property between California Drive and San Mateo Avenue -
An EIR has been received and staff will be requesting it be redrafted before study
by the Commission.
21. APPLICATION FROM OSCAR PERSON FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION OF TWO PARCELS ON
SAN MATEO AVENUE FROM R-3 TO C-2
Staff has the application but will hold it until EIR-47P is ready.
C. E. Kirkup referred to Item 19 of the agenda and emphasized that the traffic study
could not be finalized until a land use study is completed. Mr. Yost noted that
there are eight EIRs in process and none address the cumulative effects.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 10
June 13, 1977
C. Sine was also concerned about the possible fire hazard with paints and materials
stored in the studio; he requested a report from the Fire Dept. The item was set for
hearing June 27, 1977.
17. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 AND A PORTION OF
LOT 1, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY; PROPERTY AT 1206/1210 BELLEVUE AVENUE
(APN 029-133-210/220), ZONED R-4, BY LOU ARATA FOR GLYNN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
C. E. Kirkup advised this parcel map.combines existing lot lines to form one parcel.
Construction had started on one property when the adjacent property became available;
it was stopped in order to combine the two properties and have a larger project. All
improvements are in, the map is correct, and he would recommend it be set for hearing
for both tentative and final maps. Chm. Taylor set these maps for hearing June 27, 1977.
18. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A MERGER OF A PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 23 AND 24 OF
BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5 (APN 028-131-020/030); PROPERTY AT 911/915 EL
CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-1 AND R-3, BY MARTIN M. RON ASSOCIATES FOR ZEV BEN-SIMON
AND NOAM & HELEN RAND
C. E. Kirkup commented on this parcel map which would combine two existing parcels into
one. The existing site encompasses two zoning districts, R-3 facing E1 Camino with
R-1 single family along the rear. The existing sanitary sewer easement will have to
be abandoned; an existing sewer line needs to be relocated and new sewer easement
granted. The Park Director has indicated trees on the site which should be saved
and the C.E. would want to see development plans before requiring conditions on the
map in this regard. The existing water main on E1 Camino is only 1-1/2" and with major
development it might be too small. Drainage is acceptable, and the site is outside
the flood hazard zone.
Asst. C. P. Yost discussed the zoning question. The 1941 Zoning Ordinance clearly
identified lots facing E1 Camino Real to be R-3; other lots to the west were R-1. The
1950 map followed these same lines; if this map were approved the rear third of the
new lot would be in the R-1 District and the front two-thirds in R-3. In November, 1976
Ordinance No. 1092 amended the Municipal Code with the result that any apartment
proposed by the applicant would have to be on the two-thirds portion of the lot in
the R-3 District. This would restrict the amount of square footage the applicant
could construct.
Commissioners suggested the applicant consider a rezoning of the R-1 portion to R-3.
C.E. advised the tentative map could be placed on the agenda and Engineering would
require a series of conditions on that map: water situation, sewage and that one or
both of the buildings on the existing lots must be torn down prior to filing of the
final map. Chm. Taylor set this tentative map for public hearing June 27, 1977, the
applicant to discuss with staff how he wishes to proceed after discussion this evening.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
19. URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE REQUIRING SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PROJECTS NORTH AND EAST
OF BAYSHORE FREEWAY AND WITHIN THE ROLLINS ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed Ordinance No. 1107 which states that special permits are
now required in the C-4 and M-1 Districts for "projects north and east of Bayshore
Freeway and within the Rollins Road industrial area." Exempt projects are the Bayside
Redevelopment Project of the Redevelopment Agency and any projects or buildings for
which a building permit has been issued or a plan check fee paid as of June 3, 1977.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 12
June 13, 1977
David Keyston advised there were new plans for the One Waterfront project with a
U-shaped building, about 35% landscaping, but with 20,000 SF more than the previous
project. C. Jacobs thought this still a lot of bulk and suggested the possibility
of a higher building.
Chm. Taylor recognized Paul L. Markoff of 724 Lexington Avenue who had been in the
audience all evening to request his variance application be heard at the June 27
meeting. He wished to add a family room, fourth bedroom and sitting room on the second
floor of his tri -level home. Enlargement of his present garage to meet code requirements
would be economically impractical; the driveway has been enlarged to accommodate two
cars side by side. Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing June 27, 1977.
C. Francard questioned the status of the Dore property. C. E. Kirkup advised
correspondence had been received from the Bank of America Trust Department explaining
the delay and stating that construction of improvements would begin next month.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary