Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.05.25COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 1977 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Kirkup A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 7:36 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES Minutes of the May 9, 1977 meeting were approved as mailed. C. Francard was recognized by the Chair. He discussed the proposed 1977-78 Planning budget request, particularly the cutback to $100 for Planning Commission conferences, meetings and training. Several Commissioners commented on the obligation to be currently informed in order to perform their function for .the City. It was felt $100 would not provide the needed continuing education. It was the C.P.'s suggestion that since there were funds in this account for FY 76-77 perhaps these might be encumbered for use in FY 77-78. C. Kindig believed a reasonable amount of money should be included in the FY 77-78.budget for Commission attendance at conferences and seminars. C. Francard pointed out the budget request had not gone to the Council for review. C. Cistulli suggested the reason for the cut may have been because all of FY 76-77 money had not been spent; and moved that Commission urge City Council to include a suitable amount of money in the budget to cover continuing education for the Planning Commission. Second C. Kindig; motion approved on unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING GARAGE AT 228 CLARENDON ROAD (APN 029-254-270), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. NEVIO E. TONTINI Asst. C. P. Yost advised Commission the applicants have an existing two bedroom house with one car garage; they wish to add a third bedroom, with bath, and a new second floor hobby room. City Code states no single family dwelling which has less than two garages or carports shall be enlarged unless the additional covered parking is provided, or if there is room on the driveway behind the front setback to park a second car. This property has only a single car garage which sits on the front Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 25, 1977 setback line. Rather than alter the existing house to provide the second parking space, the Tontinis have applied for a variance. Mr. Yost reviewed the four legal requirements for a variance and reported that the proposed addition fully conforms to all zoning regulations with the sole exception that a double car garage is not available. The applicants were present; Mr. Tontini advised he had no information to add to Mr. Yost's comments. Secy. Sine read into the record a letter dated May 17, 1977 from Diane K. Sibille, 219 Clarendon Road and a May 21, 1977 letter from Alexander and A. Audrey Bogdis, 601 Burlingame Avenue (at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and Clarendon Road), both in favor of the granting of this variance. He noted another letter from Georgette Vandenbroeck, proxy Carol Ann Burgard, protesting vigorously the proposed alteration. A petition in support of this variance dated May 24, 1977 had also been received, signed by eight neighbors. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments. There were none and the public hearing was declared closed. During Commission discussion the applicant told C. Kindig it was his intent to continue using tile roofing on the new addition. C. Mink found there were exceptional circum- stances, many residences in this neighborhood have three bedrooms and it would be extremely difficult and expensive for the Tontinis to build a second garage; that to have continued use and enjoyment of this property an extra bedroom was necessary; and that granting of the variance would not affect the General Plan of the City. Chm. Taylor added the finding that the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of neighboring property owners. C. Mink moved approval of this variance and acceptance of the findings of fact. Second C. Cistulli, and approved on unanimous roll call vote. 2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 21, BLOCK 12, BURLINGAME TERRACE (APN 029-053-020) AND LOT 3, WILLBOROUGH PLACE (APN 029-053- 390) AT 1121 PALM DRIVE AND 792 WILLBOROUGH ROAD, ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR JOHN WARD C. E. Kirkup referred to discussion of the parcel map at the study session May 9. The rear portion of 1121 Palm Drive, including the existing garage, would be added to 792 Willborough Road to enlarge this parcel with the Ward residence. In order for 1121 Palm Drive to be a legal lot a carport would be required. Mr. Kirkup advised the developer has obtained a building permit for the carport and has bonded for improvements. He recommended approval. The applicant was present and told Chm. Taylor no addition was contemplated on Parcel 2. The existing garage on Parcel l would become part of Parcel 2. C. Jacobs inquired about the lot coverage on Parcel 2. Mr. Ward did not know the exact percentage; C. Mink believed it would be less -than 40; C. Sine's calculations indicated the lot was approximately 1,300 SF and the garage coverage roughly 500 SF. Replying to C. Francard, the C.E. advised there would be no effect on existing drainage. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments. Richard Stevens of 750 E1 Cerrito Avenue, Hillsborough addressed Commission, stating he was in the process of inheriting 796 Willborough Road and requested further information about the proposal. He wished to be sure it would not destroy the old English atmosphere of the neighborhood. Chm. Taylor explained that only the lot line was to be changed in order to enlarge the Willborough parcel; it would not change the buildings or character of this neighborhood. In this case Mr. Stevens declared himself in favor of the proposal. James Dennis, 788 Willborough Road, told of his concern with the possible subsequent removal of the existing garage since it provided a wind block and removal could deteriorate the environment of his whole backyard. There were no further audience comments Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 25, 1977 and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs inquired about drainage problems and C.E. said, if there were improvements to the garage, Engineering would ensure drainage went to Willborough Road and not to Palm Drive. C. Jacobs moved approval of this tentative and final parcel map subject to bond to build a carport at the rear of 1121 Palm Drive. Second C. Kindig and approved on unanimous roll call vote. Chm. Taylor welcomed John Ward as a relatively new resident of Burlingame and noted Mr. .Ward is Supervisor from the Second District of San Mateo County. C. E. Kirkup advised the final parcel map would go to City Council June 6, 1977. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, TOWN OF BURLINGAME (APN 029-201-090) AT 1417 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED .0-1, BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR MARIO CASTRO AND JOSEPH KARP C. E. Kirkup reviewed this subdivision of an existing lot into two equal parcels. The lot currently holds the Fox Burlingame Theater. Upon the advice of the C.A., C.E. recommended the applicants post bond for demolition of the building, and recommended approval of the parcel map. Joseph Karp was present and told C. Jacobs two separate buildings were planned, one on each parcel. C. Kindig moved approval of this tentative parcel map subject to bonding for demolition of the existing building. Second C. Sine, and approved on unanimous roll call vote. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 30 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1515 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE (APN 029-111-280), ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR FLORIBUNDA DEVELOPERS C. E. Kirkup reported on this tentative and final map for 30 units in the existing building just constructed at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. He recommended approval of both the tentative and final subdivision maps. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments; there were none and the public hearing was declared closed. C. Jacobs moved approval of the tentative and final maps. Second C. Cistulli and unanimously approved on roll call vote. C. E. Kirkup advised the applicant the map would go to Council June 6, after which it could be signed. 5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE CASA DEL SOL, A 10 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1500 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 028-291-010), ZONED R-3, BY MR. AND MRS. MARTIN BRUTON WITH MR. SOL GITTELSOHN (ND -114P POSTED 5/11/77) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application, noting the property at 1500 Howard Avenue had been before Commission more than three times within the past year. On 9/27/76 P.C. approved a tentative parcel map to combine two adjacent lots at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Howard; on 10/13/76, by Resolution No. 4-76, Commission recommended rezoning of the R-1 portion of this property to R-3. On 10/17/76 the final parcel map was approved. The entire area is now within the R-3 District. This present application is to construct a 10 unit condominium and preliminary plans were distributed to Commission earlier. The principal entrance will be on Howard; the building will be set back 20 feet from E1 Camino, 15 feet from Howard, with a rear yard of 20 feet and a sideyard of more than 7 feet. The 3 -story building over a 19 car parking garage will be just under 35 feet in height. A 20th parking space is at grade on the west side of the building in the sideyard. A landscaping and lighting plan have been submitted as well as a copy of the Draft CC&Rs. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 25, 1977 Mr. Yost noted that at the May 9 study meeting questions were raised about the possible planting of new eucalyptus trees along E1 Camino Real and the possible problem of flooding of .the basement area due to the creek. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Bruton, were present. C. Francard determined the setback lines are from the property line, not the edge of the sidewalk. George Wills, Architect for the project, advised he had drawings with him that would clarify any questions. He mentioned the drawing showing the relationship of the creekbed to the retaining wall; it would be a combination wall to hold up the outside living area and also act as a barricade should the creek reach flood stage. He added that planting of new eucalyptus trees along E1 Camino Real was acceptable to the applicants. C. Sine determined that the concrete block retaining wall separating the garage from the creek bed would be reinforced and filled with concrete. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments. William Moore, 1524 Howard Avenue, was concerned about the possible additional traffic at this corner. He inquired if an environmental impact study had been taken regarding traffic. C. P. Swan told him a negative declaration.had been filed because the project met all zoning requirements. In addition there had been a previous EIR prepared which did address rezoning of this property for apartment use; increased traffic had been discussed and the conclusion reached that it would not have a significant impact. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. It was C. E. Kirkup's suggestion that the entrance drive be one foot above the top of the curb on E1 Camino Real. Without this precaution, in the event of a 100 year flood, the creek could overflow into E1 Camino Real, come around the corner to Howard and into the basement. Mr. Wills told C. Kindig the 20th parking space was located outside the building because it was the only place available in order to meet code requirements. It had been staff's recommendation not to put it on the El Camino side. The Commissioner was concerned that this space would be the first place guests would park and they would have to back out onto Howard; additionally, with the curb cut, it would be taking away at least one parking space on the street. Mrs. Bruton told him there is a curb cut there at present and this area has been used for years for parking; it was the applicants' feeling the outside space would be the last to be used. C. Mink moved approval of the condominium permit; second C. Kindig and approved on unanimous roll call vote. 6. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 10 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1500 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 028- 291-010), ZONED R-3, BY GEORGE S. NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES FOR MR. AND MRS. MARTIN BRUTON C. E. Kirkup reported the tentative map is in conformance with the condominium permit just approved, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Burlingame Code. He recommended approval. C. Mink moved approval of this tentative subdivision map; second C. Cistulli, and approved on unanimous roll call vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 25, 1977 7. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-40P, FOR PROPOSED 90 FOOT HIGH OFFICE BUILDING AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-430), ZONED C-4; PREPARED BY DEL DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CHARLES KING & ASSOCIATES (CONTINUED FROM MAY 9. 1977) C. P. Swan told Commission he would like to review past actions taken by Commission on the combined applications and particularly Draft EIR-40P. Chm. Taylor questioned if there had been a change in the proposal. Steve Wintner, Architect for the project, submitted revised material and stated there was no change in the scope of the proposal; it was an attempt to eliminate the deficiency in parking requirements requested at the last P.C. meeting. The C. P. then reviewed previous discussion on this EIR and the related applications. More detail on the ground floor uses had been requested, the ratio of compact car spaces and the proposed agreement to ensure the nonuse of floor area that is constructed. The Director of Public Works had reported the water system was adequate but that there might be need for financing sewer system improvements, and there were traffic concerns. At the May 9 continued hearing the developer had indicated he had contributed to traffic signals in the past. Commission had suggested removing some of the floor area or adding a parking structure on the surface of the lot; the table on page 8 was to be revised to show 'parking provided' and 'parking required.' Figures for a 10 or 12 story building with adequate parking had been requested; consideration of another use was also suggested. The point was made that an EIR does not need to solve all the problems. Regarding alternatives, the applicant had indicated that a hotel was not one of his objectives. Letters had been submitted by the applicant that indicated other types of public uses might occur in the basement area. Driveways in the area and points of possible traffic conflict along Bayshore Highway had been discussed. Mr. Swan noted there are now new lines of text that need to be studied and numbers which would have to be changed in the EIR. He discussed the proposal submitted at this meeting. His recommendation was that the first 50 parking spaces be of standard size but that the parking variance might be approved for up to 20% of the total number of spaces required in excess of 50. During Commission discussion Mr. Swan told C. Jacobs the new parking plan would still require a permit from BCDC. C. Francard had some concern about landscaping. The Chm. asked that discussion be confined to the adequacy of the EIR. He noted that the revised size of the project appeared to be 144,400 SF and therefore there would be a reduction in parking requirements. Mr. Swan told Chm. Taylor he did not believe the report was ready for Commission consideration at this time. Since the Chm. wished to consider a report recommended to Commission as meeting the adequacy requirements for an EIR, he suggested Item 47 be continued. There was Commission discussion as to timing and consensus a more adequate concept of this proposal was needed with regard to impacts and alterna- tives. The Chm. believed there were other alternatives which should be addressed. Del Davis commented on the legal requirement of adequacy and quoted state law: the description of reasonable alternatives "which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project." He requested from staff in writing the concerns of inadequacy. C. P. Swan recommended continuing Items 7, 8, 9 and 10. Steve Wintner requested specific comments from Commission. There appeared to be Commission consensus that the report did not clearly define the environmental impacts of the project. C. Mink requested more turnaround time in order to study revisions. The C. P. stated he could not recommend this EIR be sent on to City Council for certification at this time. With no objection, the Chm. continued Items 7, 8, 9 and 10 until June 27, 1977. Page 6 Burlingame,Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1977 The consultant agreed to contact staff and the architect indicated he would also be available.for any meetings. C. Mink suggested Commission policy be established for a turnaround time of four weeks on any revision of future EIRs. This would give time to the consultants as well as time for Commission to study the revisions. Chm. Taylor announced a recess at 9:19 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at 9:35 P.M. 11. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-411, FOR PROPOSED BROADWAY/SOUTHERN PACIFIC GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT; PREPARED BY DE LEU14, CATHER & COMPANY FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME C. E. Kirkup addressed Commission, noting this is a public hearing to review EIR-41E for the proposed Broadway grade separation. The purpose is to review impacts for each of the various alternative methods discussed in the report, including any mitigation measures available. Questions raised at the hearing will be researched and answered and a final report will be brought back to Commission for determination of adequacy. Once this final report has been heard, the state and regional agencies might add their comments. The EIR will then go to City Council for certification. The C.E. stressed that only after certification by Council will a decision be made as to the project itself. He wished the audience to understand the final report will not be brought back before Commission for at least a month. Additional information not included in the EIR was noted: (1) a petition from the Broadway Merchants Association suggesting every effort be made to move the station location, that the Broadway street grade itself should not be changed west of California Drive and the Association would favor depression of the railroad tracks; (2) a 5/13/77 letter from the Consultants outlining a method of stage construction so that Broadway would not be closed as indicated in the report; (3) a 5/18/77 memo from the C.P. listing technical and typographical errors, and making suggestions. C. E. Kirkup then introduced Robert M. Barton of De Leuw, Cather & Company. Mr. Barton briefly reviewed the history of State funding made available to all cities and counties in California to eliminate problems at railroad crossings. Since Burlingame ranks somewhere in the upper 15% of 100 prospects, there is every reason to believe funds would be approved in one or two years. Mr. Barton then introduced Paul Holley of De Leuw, Cather & Company who discussed EIR-41E. Project alternatives have been identified as (1) 'no build;' (2) relocation of the passenger platform; (3) an 18' track elevation between Mills and Palm which would reduce the present Broadway grade by 3 feet; (4) a 13' track elevation from Grove to Larkspur with an 8' depression of Broadway; (5) a track depression of about 23 feet from Mills to Palm which would raise Broadway 2-1/2 to 3 feet. Approximate costs would be $130,000 for the relocation of the passenger platform, $4,800,000 for the 18' elevation, $4,400,000 for the 13' elevation and $8,500,000 for the track depression. Construction time is estimated at 18 months for the 18' elevation, 18 months for the 13' elevation and 24 months for the track depression. Mr. Holley continued his review with the use of slides. The 'no build' option would compound congestion and delay at the crossing as vehicular traffic volumes and train movements increase. At peak hours there is approximately a 13 minute delay. In future that condition could become worse; more freight is projected and Metropolitan Transportation Commission would like more passenger trains. Relocating the present passenger stop could reduce the peak hour delay to approximately nine minutes with essentially no change in the noise or visual situation. The grade separation Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1977 alternatives would eliminate train/vehicle conflict, vehicle delay and safety problems at the crossing. There would be perhaps a 30% increase in the noise level. Visual and acoustical mitigation opportunities were noted as well as the historical significance of the Broadway Station. The 18' track elevation would require displace- ment of three uses in the area: the Standard Car Wash, Gare St. Lazare and The Caboose. Additionally, the 13' elevation would require taking the Dip Stick and about 10 feet off the frontage of the Standard Service Station located west of the crossing. The possibility of stage construction might avoid complete interruption of traffic to the Broadway commercial area. The..possibility of a second crossing parallel to Broadway had been evaluated with the conclusion that traffic capacity would not be greatly increased unless the interchange were reworked and one way cut with massive improvements. Chm. Taylor inquired if the consultants envisioned development of the grade separation as an opportunity to change some of the existing environmental factors. Mr. Holley commented that landscaping dollar -wise would be a very small share in this project. Mr. Barton cited the example of BART in the East Bay and its beautiful linear parks. He felt there were definite opportunities of this type for a small amount of money. Commenting on a possible change in public transportation, Mr. Barton said the embankment and the structure that spans Broadway could be widened should a public agency desire to add another track at some later date. C. E. Kirkup remarked the major environmental benefit of any of the alternatives might be less noise with a depressed track. C. Kindig commented with regard to the funds available from the State; with 80% from the State up to a maximum of $5,000,000, the City's share for a depressed track could amount to a fairly large sum. C. Mink inquired if any drawings had been made for a survey of surface circulation to cover the depressed track alternative, similar to Figures 7 and 9. Referring to Figure 9, Alternate C, the 13' elevation, he asked how far north California Drive would be widened. Mr. Holley replied the intersection plan for the 13' elevation would be approximately the same as for the 18' elevation. Mr. Barton commented that the cost estimates were developed for a grade separation project which would be wholly eligible for public facilities funds; unless street widening was actually essential for the grade separation, State financing would not be wholly provided. It was C. Mink's understanding the purpose of the project is twofold: (1) the State's desire to reduce hazards and remove congestion at the railroad crossing, and (2) the City's desire to improve circulation of the area also. In order to solve Burlingame's problem the subregion must be dealt with. C. Mink noted that in discussing present and projected traffic flow the EIR does not define where the additional cars are coming from. If caused by development along the bayfront, by controlling the bayfront the intersection could be controlled. C. E. Kirkup said that the increase in 1995 came from State projections of traffic from the freeway, based on population increases for Burlingame, Hillsborough, Burlingame Hills and Millbrae. Should the grade separation go ahead, additional traffic circulation improvements would have to be made throughout the whole area, and bayfront development would make this more necessary. C. Mink requested a statement be included in the EIR on the impact of this project on all the subregion bounded by Palm Avenue, the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Broadway, Mills Avenue and the intersection with Bayshore and Airport Boulevard. Chm. Taylor agreed with these comments, that there was a fairly large subregional problem in Burlingame and the City is dealing with more than the concern of the PUC. C. Jacobs pointed out the need for more access to Bayshore. C. Sine discussed the delay at the Broadway crossing; the consultant told him passenger hours were checked and at peak the delay is 13 minutes Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 25, 1977 out of every hour. The alternative of moving the station platform would reduce this time to 9 minutes out of every hour at peak. The peak hour delay is dominated by passenger movements. The consultant stated that the total delay was 121 minutes out of every 24 hours. C. Sine thought a study of freight movements only might be advisable. He noted that at present there are sixrailroad crossings if Peninsula Avenue is counted; and suggested strong consideration be given to making Broadway one way as well as some of the other streets. It was his belief this would increase traffic flow and circulation. C. Mink reiterated his suggestion that the report include a reference to the fact that a subregional traffic program should be developed; the EIR is complete with regard to the project but not with regard to the problem. C. Jacobs asked about long trains which are expected in future. The C.E. told Commission about a recent experience with a very long freight train which closed the Broadway intersection for 15 to 18 minutes. Southern Pacific is now running 6,000 foot trains between 9:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. and planning for 8,000 foot freight trains. He added that any study which would benefit the City would have to include what could happen at other intersections in Burlingame; a major traffic study for this section of the city would take considerable time and would need to be a separate study. C. Francard commented that if traffic is speeded up at this intersection, undoubtedly more people will use it. C. E. Kirkup remarked that the intersection would still be crowded if the project proceeds, but would eliminate delays. Audience comments were requested by Chm. Taylor. Don Ringler, a member of the Burlingame Historical Society, referred to page viii of the Summary, Historical Resources, ". . . no known archaeological resources." He told Commission the area is the site of an old Indian village and excavation there could be expected to unearth a number of archaeological findings. Chm. Taylor noted on page 83, Appendix D, which had been made a part of the EIR, a letter from Holman-Chavex, Consulting Archaeologists. This letter suggested the area was one of high potential for discover- ing archaeological remains, and this should be pursued during earth moving activities. Frank Pagliaro, 1337 Drake Avenue, questioned where the commuters would go and the effect on Burlingame Avenue if there were discontinuance of commuter traffic for approximately 18 months. He noted there was no comment in the EIR as to the effect of the closing of Broadway for two to three months and what effect it would have on local traffic. There was also comment on the 100 year flood. He suggested a statement be included as to the effect on the Broadway merchants and the economic impact on the City. He stressed the importance of including the effect on economic values of property in Burlingame. With regard to visual intrusion and the 50% increase in noise level, Mr. Pagliaro believed the revised report should speak to the effect on property values in the area. Elizabeth Indergand, 1977 Garden Drive was concerned about property values and human values near the railroad tracks since Burlingame does have pleasant residential areas immediately adjacent to the tracks. She commented that either of the elevations would subject structures in the area to severe ground shaking in addition to the high noise levels; consideration should be given to residents of the area as well as the people who drive through. Ralph W. Ready, president of the Broadway Merchants Association, told Commission he did not think the report was addressing all the alternatives. The Broadway merchants had concern that a grade separation as outlined would not solve the basic access to the freeway, and changing the Broadway grade might result in inability to handle access to California Drive, Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 25, 1977 Tom Kimbrell of 800 Alpine Avenue, a student who participated in Youth in Government Day this year, commented that he lived facing the railroad tracks on Carolan and this area has shaking walls and noise at present. Claudia Hanson, 1414 Paloma Avenue, agreed with Mr. Pagliaro's remarks. She .believed noise pollution and visual impact from elevated tracks would lower property values, and asked that the revised EIR indicate exactly what the residents might have to suffer with regard to noise. The mitigation measure of noise absorption by an earth berm 4 feet high above the top of the rail was noted and it was suggested the EIR revision might include a diagram showing exactly what this would be like. Harry Graham, 1555 Alturas Drive, suggested (1) moving the Broadway and Burlingame stations to a midway point; (2) condemnation of the two restaurants to improve and enlarge the Broadway/California Drive intersection; (3) addressing the possibility of signals at the intersections of Carolan and Rollins Road; (4) cutting another crossing, possibly from Rollins Road to Grove Avenue, to take care of traffic from that industrial area. William Nagle, 1317 Balboa Avenue, concurred with Mr.. Pagliaro's comments. He believed the EIR should include some mention of how the construction time factor might be held up, particularly with regard to underground utilities. It was his suggestion the matter of long trains blocking the intersection be looked into, and that a study of the impact on the outer regions,.particularly E1 Camino Real, be made. He noted auto accidents were between 1.4 and 1.6 per month at the intersection and asked about other intersedtions; this figure did not seem exceptionally high to him. Chm. Taylor requested further audience comments; there were none and he declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink thought the report was technically correct and perhaps it was difficult to communicate the impact because of the technical language. He was told by the consultant, with reference to page viii regarding Seismicity, the statement 'severe ground shaking' referred to an earthquake; it did not refer to normal train traffic. C. Kindig commented that Burlingame should probably consider depressing the tracks all through the City. The consultant advised C. Sine that his request to include the 40 Car Line had been complied with. The Commissioner noted this would be difficult to clear and would have to be cleared before any construction could begin. Speaking to the time factor, it was his belief if bids for the project were let immediately, it would take three years until completion. Mr. Holley advised that BART had been included in the section addressing plans for rapid transit along the Peninsula. C. Sine asked if it were possible to include a cost overrun figure, some norm of a cost overrun in the industry. C. E. Kirkup told Commission and the audience the consultants would address the items discussed this evening; there would be an opportunity until June 3 to submit written comments to be incorporated in the EIR. C. P. Swan -discussed this very congested intersection and stated his belief the EIR should address rail and bus transit, including SamTrans. He noted there was no indication in the EIR of any train operation change and suggested the consultants contact SamTrans and include both surface transportation on the streets and the option regarding trains on Southern Pacific tracks. There was discussion regarding procedure for further processing of this EIR and whether Commission would have another public hearing on it. Chm. Taylor and C. Mink wished to preserve the rights of the community to present additional comments, if merited. The Chairman announced this item would be continued and a program for procedure worked out. C. E. Kirkup told Commission he would prefer not to alter the revised report at the time of the next Commission meeting on the EIR, and advised that Council would be holding a public hearing before final certification. Mr. Kirkup believed the earliest date the EIR could come back to Commission would be June 27, or perhaps in July. A recess was announced by Chm. Taylor at 11:15 P.M.; meeting reconvened at 11:30 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 25, 1977 12. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B and 3D, BLOCK 3, TOWN OF BURLINGAME (APN 029-223-010/020/100/110/120) AT 33 PARK ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR T. FARLEY AND M. SINGER This resubdivision of land would establish three distinct parcels to permit three separate residential buildings for the Park Woods condominium project. C. E. Kirkup recommended approval. C..Mink moved approval of this final parcel map; second C. Cistulli/C. Sine; and unanimously approved on roll call vote. C. E. advised C. Kindig the townhouse units would be back before Commission in future for subdivision_ under the Condominium Ordinance. 13. CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 25, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF APPEAL OF BUILDING CODE FIRE ESCAPE 'STAIRWAY' INTERPRETATION FOR PARK WOODS CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 33 PARK ROAD BY T. FARLEY AND M. SINGER C. A. Coleman discussed this item, noting discussion between staff and the developers about 10 days ago. This concerned the difference between a fire escape and a regular stairway. There was a difference of opinion between the Building Dept. and.the developers regarding exactly what P.C. had approved at theApril25 meeting. It was Mr. Coleman's suggestion that the applicants come back to Commission for clarification. Hugh Connolly, attorney representing the developers, addressed Commission. He referred to the diagram the applicants had provided with their request for clarification. The Chief Building Inspector had insisted that the stairs between the second and third floors should meet code standards for conventional stairs; the applicants thought they were authorized to install fire stairs between these two floors. He suggested the fire stairs were important to the developers for two reasons: (1) conventional stairs would run directly in front of the doorway to the balcony, whereas fire stairs would not intrude on this door; and (2) there would be a setback problem if the wider regular stairs were installed. The developers preferred the fire stairs in order to keep the rear door to the balcony free and to keep within allowable setback limits. Mr. Connolly argued it seemed a reasonable request and totally consistent with the action taken by Commission at their April 25 meeting. He noted this development had been designated as an ."H" occupancy by the C.B.I. Mr. Connolly's argument was that if the building was viewed as one building, then without any consideration of fire stairs a competent lawyer might argue that the structure already has fire exits, each of which is continuous and unobstructed in itself. Technically the applicants might not require any further stairs. However, for optimum safety, the applicant had designed what he considered a reasonable approach which harmonizes with the aesthetics. Mr. Connolly pointed out the difficulty of trying to comply with codes that apply to a different type of structure. Sec. 106 of the Uniform Building Code permits discretion and approval by the Building Official of the use of an equivalent method; Mr. Connolly argued this is an equivalent method. He requested P.C.'s approval of the equivalent measure, noting Commission has the authority to overrule the Building Department. C.B.I. Calwell protested and related communications with the International Conference of Building Officials in Whittier, California. He said the I.C.B.O. had told him the only way he could allow this type of exit would be if City Council amended the City's code; the Board of Appeals does not have this right. The I.C.B.O. advised the Building and Fire Departments to go on record opposing this method. Mr. Calwell believed if someone were hurt the Court could say this is not a legal stairway and the City of Burlingame and C.B.I. would be liable. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1977 C. Kindig asked about Foster City regulations; the C.B.I. told him Foster City townhouses have parking underneath but no openings whatsoever from the basement to the living quarters, thus giving fire protection. This project has a vertical shaft down the center and he believed fire could spread easily. He asked that the record show the Building Dept. is opposed to anything but a legal stairway from the second to the third floor to provide a secondary means of egress. F. C. Fricke stated he supported the C.B.I.'s decision, noting Chapter 13 of the U.B.C., Group "H" occupancy, Exit facilities: "stairs, exits and smokeproof enclosures shall be as specified in Chapter 33." He added that Chapter 33 only refers to fire escapes with reference to existing buildings. Hugh Connolly called attention to the "H" occupancy require- ment: a minimum of two exits other than elevators when number of occupants is over 10. In his interpretation the structure under consideration would have five exits. He then pointed out Section 106 of the U.B.C. which states the Building Official may approve any alternative method of construction provided he finds it is satisfactory and the materials and size are at least the equivalent in fire resistance, durability and safety. C. A. Coleman told Commission.their decision .this evening was to determine which of the two stairway designs was intended by Commission decision at the April 25 meeting. Commission had voted to allow a counterbalanced stairway from the second floor to the ground; the only matter for clarification was what they had intended to approve from the second to the third floor.. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the April 25 motion, what Commission had actually approved and Chapters 13 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code. C. Mink thought Mr. Connolly had aptly pointed out that if Commission considered the third floor to have an occupancy load of greater than 10, Commission was considering a third floor with five exits. Chm. Taylor referred to findings in the minutes of April 25; it was noted by the C.A. those findings applied to a defeated motion. Mr. Coleman again requested Commission vote this evening for clarification. C. Jacobs moved that there be no exception from Building Code requirements for the stairway from the second to the third floor, but from the second floor to the ground telescoping fire stairs are acceptable. Second C. Kindig. Chm. Taylor said an 'aye' vote would be a vote to sustain the interpretation as stated in C. Jacobs' motion. Motion approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK, TAYLOR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Ted Farley, one of the developers, had questions regarding their procedure in view of this decision, encroachment into the setback and finalization of the condominium subdivision map. Chm. Taylor advised it was not a matter Commission was prepared to discuss this evening. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 25, 1977 14. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BAYSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (DATED MAY 23, 1977): RESOLUTION NO. 6-77 SUBMITTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN C. A. Coleman had hoped this matter could be discussed and approved by Commission this evening. However, he would like to respond to a memo on the subject from the City Planner and requested the item be put on the next Commission agenda. Chm. Taylor continued the item for action on June 13, 1977. 15. 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 This related item was also continued to June 13, 1977. COMMUNICATIONS AND CITY PLANNER REPORT C. P. Swan discussed impending development east of Bayshore Freeway and information given to City Council at their May 11 study meeting. A report on this activity had been provided to Council. It had been the opinion of C.C. that large projects or those having significant effect should have environmental impact reports. Planning Dept. is to solicit EIR proposals for four major projects. The C.P. reported he had sent a suggestion to Council that all buildings that are more than 35 feet in height be reviewed and consideration be given to requiring a permit as a conditional use for any building with more than 30,000 square feet of gross floor area. This would be a means of getting a guideline discussed to determine which are or are not major projects. Mr. Swan added that Council had also requested copies of all negative declarations and notices of exemption be provided to them. With regard to the EIRs requested, Mr. Swan believed it timely that one traffic study be made for the whole area. A proposal by JHK & Associates for such a study has gone to Council. Chm. Taylor commented on the work load and maximum utilization of the talent in the Planning Dept. He told Commission that at the Council meeting of May 16, 1977 he had requested guidelines for P.C. review of anticipated EIRs and Council's objectives in the development of the bayside area. He asked Council for their priorities and what kind of development they wished to encourage. Council told him a joint meeting with Commission was planned and a date in June would be agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:40 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary