Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.02.15CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame, was called to order Wednesday, February 15, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Frank Cistulli Jules L. Francard Ruth E. Jacobs Everett K. Kindig Charles W. Mink Thomas W. Sine, Secretary (arriving at approximately 8:40) Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer Quorum present; Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman presiding. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held January 23, 1978 were approved as mailed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. MINUTES for the Master Sign Permit, Item 2 on page 4, were modified to read it has been.proposed that the sign be replaced with a new sign consisting of four letters which would add a sign area of 25 square feet to existing signs for a master sign permit totalling 66 square feet." With this clarification the minutes were approved on February 27, 1978. J Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes MEETING -ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 2 February 15, 1978 1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DEIR-45P, FOR THE ONE WATERFRONT OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 700 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, PREPARED BY MADRONE ASSOCIATES FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME City Planner Swan briefly reviewed new information and letters concerning the EIR and project impacts. He made reference to various letters from the developer and a letter from Madrone Associates dated February 7, 1978 which highlights most of the comments raised at the January 23 meeting. He noted that some of the adverse impacts are ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, vehicular traffic (both off-site and turning movements adjacent to it), water flow for fire protection, a long linear building blocking views of the Bay, a need for public access to the lagoon, and the system to remove storm water runoff. He made specific reference to page 18 of the General Plan's Waterfront Element which suggests creating more variety and improving the visual quality of the shoreline and page 19 of that Element which includes the design criteria: avoid long expanses of buildings parallel to the shoreline. In conclusion he noted that generally the Draft EIR identifies impacts for a given floor area. There are several possible alternatives for an office building which would have the same general impacts. He noted that more detailed information has been received concerning improvement of the properties around the project (north and east State lands). Mr. Swan then introduced John Roberto of Madrone Associates who was prepared to make a presentation to the Commission. It was noted that page 62 of the Impacts"Summary, Item G.1. "Views and vistas ." should be -1, not +1. One of the major concerns discussed by Chairman Taylor and -Commissioner Mink was that of cumulative traffic problems. Their concern was approving a number of EIRs and projects and the cumulative traffic impacts of those projects. Mr. Swan stated the report identifies the contribution of traffic impact from this project, noting that CalTrans points out there are five EIRs in the area and the cumulative impact would be great. He further stated that the report addresses the impacts caused by this single project, and noted there is a current plan to prepare a Bayfront Plan and Bayfront Traffic Plan by the City which would consider the area as a whole, knitting the projects into one. He felt it might be good to make reference to the Blayney Report in this EIR. Commissioner Mink felt it would be important to state in this EIR and other EIRs for the area that because there is a significant amount of unimproved land area the cumulative effects cannot be determined. He said that when the area is fully developed the traffic is going to be great; and he was concerned about dealing with impacts of projects as they come up. Chairman Taylor noted that each EIR must discuss its own project impact, but also must tie in and deal with the total effect and the Planning Commission must deal with this along the way. Responding to Commissioner Jacobs' inquiries, Mr. Swan stated that staff is not able to determine when detailed construction plans will be submitted for any EIR, but felt the construction on this particular project would follow immediately. It was noted a special permit to exceed 50 foot height would be required (unless applicant selects Alternative A). Maurice Kerner of Carl Holvick Co. stated they plan to construct Alternative A and the basic proposal did not call for compact cars which was an alternative suggested by staff for the Commission's review. A parking variance would not be requested; standard spaces would be planned. John Roberto, representing the consulting firm, Madrone Associates, agreed that the cumulative traffic impacts are a major consideration, noting that the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and later Guidelines set up an analysis on a case by case basis rather than an area basis. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 15, 1978 Commissioner Mink felt the land is zoned and a "worst case," a "good case" and a "best case" for the development could be discussed in the report. Mr. Roberto stated that his firm was not requested to do a projection on the zoning, but was asked to consider the existing and immediately proposed developments along with this one; this was the criteria under which the report was prepared. He noted that pages 61-64 and 65 summarize what was felt to be the major adverse impacts as well as the good impacts. He noted a visual analysis is included. He stated the impacts for the alternative plans are basically the same as the proposed use and total floor area would be the same; design details were not dealt with as detailed specifications were not provided. He noted the final report would be more specific. In discussing the concerns of Commission and other agencies, Mr. Roberto noted the impact of traffic is a regional problem and the impact from this single project is just a portion of the entire situation. He felt PG&E's letter brought up information that is important for reference in the report. He stated the letters recently received from other agencies would be dealt with in the Final EIR. A brief discussion about the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission letter dealing with exemption from BCDC jurisdiction and the Army Corps of Engineers' letter took place. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, stated that the fill necessary for this project is covered by a permit. There had been some problems as the Corps had changed criteria but a.total of four permits were obtained. Mr. Keyston noted he had a letter from Alan R. Pendleton, Staff Counsel of BCDC, stating that BCDC does not take exception to this project. Mr. Roberto stated a copy of this letter should be included in the report. Maurice Kerner explained that the drawing on pages 5 and 6 was only to show where the building would be but was not a drawing of the proposed building. Mr. Roberto confirmed there are two lagoons in the area, an outer lagoon and an inner City lagoon. There was a brief discussion about the drainage plan. City Engineer Kirkup noted that parking lot run-off would be pumped into City storm drains and would flow into the City lagoon, adding that storm drain water is not treated. Mr. Roberto said this is addressed in the report as an impact. Continuing his discussion, Mr. Roberto stated this project is an office building with executive -type offices as the primary lessees and employment therein would be a daytime operation. Commissioner Francard questioned the southbound traffic and if proper lighting would be included. Chairman Taylor stated no specific application has been made and the EIR deals with the general impacts, but this would be a consideration at the time permits are dealt with. The Chairman noted landscaping requirements of the Code would have to be satisfied in the detailed plans to obtain a building permit. David Keyston spoke to some of the Commission's concerns, stating the cumulative traffic impact was discussed in the Traffic Study for the proposed Anza Master Plan which was incorporated by reference into this specific report. He noted that the project would have a floor area to land area ratio of 0.62 compared to 1.25 in the Master Plan; the traffic impact of this project is about half of what was previously considered. Chairman Taylor commented this would be all right if the uses are the same as that considered by the Traffic Study. Regarding the amount of construction on bay mud and earthquake problems, Mr. Keyston pointed out there would be only 3 feet of underlying bay mud as opposed to some projects with 30 to 40 feet of bay mud. He stated the site is covered by permits for fill necessary for the development as commercial property. Mr. Keyston confirmed the lots in the area are 100 or 120 feet wide and that this project includes a total of four lots. He noted the 433 and 533 Airport Boulevard projects are also on four lots. This building is only 60 percent the size, width and bulk of the original project which was submitted to staff; it has less height than the 433 and 533 Airport Blvd. projects and is about 2/3 the size of Legaspi Towers. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4February 15, 1978 There being no further discussion, Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. Herbert Maricle of the State Lands Commission requested clarification of the storm drainage plan to the lagoon or where it was to be transported. Mr. Keyston explained there are two temporary pumps behind the subject property that carry drainage from this property into the outer lagoon and these pumps are temporary and will not be used for this project. This project will have its own pumping system; water will go to the City's storm drain system, and across Airport Boulevard through an easement and into the City's inner lagoon. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was closed. Commission requested staff to prepare a resolution, specifically including three columns (with findings). Mr. Roberto was not sure the responses to all the concerns could be prepared by February 27, noting two weeks would be required. It was pointed out there is a shorter time period between this meeting and the next one, and it was decided the resolution on the amended EIR would be prepared for Commission consideration at the earliest possible time, i.e., February 27 if possible or March 13. 2. MASTER SIGN PERMIT FOR 73 SF OF EXISTING SIGNS ON PROPERTY AT 100 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 029-221-120), ZONED R-3, BY J. QUETNICK OF SANBUTCH PROPERTIES (OWNER) WITH REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES LTD., J. M. TAYLOR & CO. AND DR. WEHINGER (TENANTS) (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 9, 1978) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application; it was noted the wall sign had been removed. He stated it has been proposed that the sign be replaced with a new sign consisting of four letters totalling 66 square feet. Mr. Yost confirmed that a roof sign would not be permitted and it would not be illuminated in any way, and stated each letter would be 2-1/2 feet with a maximum length of 10 feet for the four letters. He further confirmed that procedure for a master sign permit requires the property owner to make the application and stated staff would have no objection to this amended proposal; it was requested the permit, if approved, be issued only to this applicant. John Kockos of Real Estate Associates Ltd. stated the four letters would be mounted against the building which would eliminate the plywood backing. He noted this would actually cut the sign's size by a greater percentage because the face of the building would be utilized as the backing. He felt the impact of the sign is being cut 75%. He further stated that straps or some device would be utilized to hang the letters from the roof, but they would not protrude up over the roof. He added the mounting of the sign would be in concurrence with the wishes of the Building Official. There being no further discussion, Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved that a 66 square foot sign, as per drawings presented, be approved and permission issued to J. Quetnick, Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Chairman Taylor noted this is being issued only to the property owner, Mr. Quetnick, and any changes or increases would have to be submitted by Mr. Quetnick for Planning Commission approval. Upon roll call the motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Kindig abstaining because he did not attend the December meeting and Commissioner Sine absent. Before continuing with agenda items listed under Advance Planning and Communications the Commission considered several study items as the applicants were present. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 15, 1978 The following items were reported complete and were set for hearing on February 27, 1978. (Commissioner Sine arrived during discussion of these items at approximately 8:40 P.M.) 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 701-801 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) (APN 026-343-010/020/030/130 TO 220/310), ON 16.6 AC MOL, ZONED C-4, BY PHILIP D. BROX, PRESIDENT, ANZA PARKING CORP. (APPLICANT) WITH DAVID H. KEYSTON, TRUSTEE, ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA (PROPERTY OWNERS) City Planner Swan briefly.reviewed this item and stated two EIRs had been made covering this area; staff would write a negative declaration for this application. He stated that staff would have to know the accurate number of spaces, landscaping plans, how long the use is planned for and future use of the property, as well as the dimensions of the property. David Keyston was present and responded to several of staff's concerns; he stated that the facility would be permanent. Commission briefly discussed this and requested a statement be provided as to this proposed parking facility in relation to the existing one and the time period that each would be in service. The possibility of a portion of the area being a permanent parking facility and the other portion a time -restricted parking facility was discussed. City Attorney Coleman confirmed that such permits can be issued to the owner or tenant. He stated if a permit is issued to an owner, the permit goes with the land, but it could be conditioned in such a way that it would not be transferable with the ownership. 15. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040, A 30 FOOT SETBACK DISTANCE, TO PERMIT THE ADDITION OF A TWO CAR GARAGE TO THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 1125 OXFORD ROAD_ (APN 025-252-210.), ZONED R-1, BY HILARY J. FORD Staff was instructed to inform the applicant of the findings required for variance approval. 21. SPECIAL PERMIT TO DO FURNITURE STRIPPING AND REPAIRS AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1313 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-131-010), BY THOMAS YATES OF THE GENTLE STRIPPER WITH BUEL PROFFITT OF MC KIBBEN BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY (PROPERTY OWNER) There was a brief recess and the meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M. ADVANCE PLANNING 3. BURLINGAME BAYFRONT PLAN STUDIES City Planner Swan reviewed the staff report dated February 15, 1978, "Burlingame Bayfront Plan Studies," noting that City Council has set March 18 for a presentation by Blayney with a breakfast at the Hyatt. He noted that a decision on this could be reached as early as March 20. City Engineer Kirkup explained there would be four alternatives with traffic impact for each one; after review the Commission might choose part "a" of Alternate 1, part "b" of Alternate 2. Commission discussed this with staff and Mr. Keyston. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 15, 1978 4. WORK PRIORITIES THROUGH JUNE, 1978 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES 6. REGULATIONS FOR CONDOMINIUMS: LOCATION, QUANTITY, ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES Commission reviewed City Planner Swan's "Progress Report on Planning Commission Priorities" dated February 15, 1978 with staff. It was agreed that staff would get more information from other cities (besides Palo Alto) as to Planning Commission rules and procedures. Chairman Taylor was concerned about legal obligations of updating and revising the General Plan. It was confirmed that there is no deadline on the Recreation Element. Commissioner Mink felt the Land Use Element should be updated before considering the other elements. It was agreed Land Use and Housing Elements should assume a higher priority than Circulation. It was also felt the General Plan should be dealt with before Planning Commission rules and procedures. It was agreed that staff could obtain information from other cities on Planning Commission rules and procedures. Commissioner Mink stated that policy statements and procedures should be identified and followed. He felt that moving Updating, Revising and Amending the General Plan Elements up to Item #2, with Housing first, that the listing would convey Commission priorities. He summarized by listing the following General Plan priorities: (1) Housing, (2) Land Use, (3) Circulation. 7. OTHER - no discussion. COMMUNICATIONS 8. PROPOSED SALE OF COOLIDGE SCHOOL PROPERTY,_1400 PALOMA AVENUE This item was discussed and reference made to City Planner Swan's memorandum to the City Council dated September 30, 1977 regarding the future use of Coolidge School Site, a memo dated February 8, 1978 to the Planning Commission from the City Attorney regarding the sale of Coolidge School with the attached letter from the Burlingame School District to the City of Burlingame dated February 2, 11978 regarding the District's intent to sell the school and giving the Commission forty days to determine if the proposed sale conforms to the General Plan. City Attorney Coleman stated the existing Zoning Ordinance creates a policy for R-1 in the area and that any change in this would require Zoning Ordinance amendment. Commissioner Sine felt it would only be fair to come up with something definitive if the site is sold to a private developer. He stated there is a tremendous traffic problem because of the narrow streets. He felt townhouse development might take care of the parking problem. City Attorney Coleman said there is a time element here and failure to respond by the next meeting would mean the Commission is "satisfied with the current R-1 zoning. Chairman Taylor felt a statement could be made indicating that although the present zoning conforms with the present General Plan this might be changed. Commission felt this was too vague. Commissioner Mink stated this is a residential area with a street circulation pattern to handle light traffic; therefore, what is needed is a residential land use with low traffic generation. Such a statement, he felt, would not close the door on other low -traffic residential uses, could be substantiated in the Housing Element and supported by policy statements of both Commission and Council. Commission instructed staff to draft a letter for Commission's consideration at their February 27 meeting, this letter to contain Commissioner Mink's comments. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 15, 1978 C. Cistulli felt the site would be a good location for a police department; the Commission was not in concurrence. Commissioner Sine was concerned about schools being declared surplus, especially Coolidge School which is earthquake safe, stating that if the need for schools rises in the future, another school would have to be constructed which could involve the purchase and demolition of an entire block. 9. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE.SAN-FRANCISCO BAY REGION: ABAG, DECEMBER 1977 City Planner Swan reviewed his "Comments to the Planning Commission" on the 208 Plan, dated February 15, 1978. 10. Buyer protection for residential buildings: study requested by Planning Commission was not considered. 11. FRAHS PERFORMANCE BOATS, 1331 ROLLINS ROAD: SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED 1/26/76; EXPIRED 2/2/78 City Planner Swan informed the Commission the present owner of the business is seeking a larger leasehold at a different address. 12. LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1978 FROM CHARLES G. MAYO OF AMIERICAR RENTAL SYSTEMS, 890 MAHLER ROAD AND 1530 GILBRETH ROAD, REQUESTING DEFERRAL FOR ONE YEAR OF A CONDITION OF HIS SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED 9/28/77 Chairman Taylor read a letter from Mr. Mayo dated February 7, 1978. This request was briefly discussed and Commissioner Jacobs moved that the condition regarding water recycling be deferred for one year from the date of the special permit in accordance with the letter from Mr. Mayo, noting there would not be any washing or servicing of automobiles on the property. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 7-0. MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY Items 13, 15 and 21 were set for hearing on February 27 earlier in the meeting. 14. RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE LOT FROM R-1 TO R-3, BEING A PORTION OF 1500 BURLINGAME AVENUE (LOT 3, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2) (PORTION OF APN 028-283-010), BY JOSEPH KARP (PROPERTY OWNER) This item was briefly discussed. It was noted if the reclassification is approved there would be two separate R-3 lots; however, to insure that this be one lot it could be required that a parcel map be prepared to remove the lot line. Commission indicated they would like a parcel map making one R-3 lot. The applicant was present and agreed with this. It was decided the rezone and parcel map should be considered at the same hearing and, therefore, when the parcel map is ready the rezone will also be set for hearing. The.following study items were reported complete, ready for consideration and were set for hearing February 27, 1978. 16. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.010, FOR 47% LOT COVERAGE OF AN INTERIOR LOT IN AN R-1 DISTRICT AT 27 CLARENDON ROAD (APN 029-293-080), TO PERMIT REMODELING OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AND THE ADDITION OF A TWO CAR GARAGE, BY KHADIJEH G. HECKLER/MC GAVIN This item was briefly discussed. It was noted there would be no removal of trees. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 15, 1978 17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A PRE-SCHOOL DAY CARE CENTER AT 110 LORTON AVENUE (APN 029-231-170), ZONED R=4, BY DOUGLAS M. FAIRRINGTON, PASTOR, THREE CITIES ASSEMBLY OF GOD This item was briefly discussed and it was noted the entire block is R-4. Assistant City Planner Yost reported the applicant has been informed of staff's concerns. 18. SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL INDUSTRIAL AND AUTOMOTIVE TOOLS AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 890 COWAN ROAD (APN 024-390-220), BY LARRY WINSTEN OF CHARTER FAST FREIGHT (APPLICANT) WITH BRUCE HOSFORD OF CROW/SPIEKER/HOSFORD (PROPERTY OWNERS) Assistant City Planner Yost confirmed the applicant has been informed as to the Commission's and staff's concerns about the proposed retail use. 19.. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A FACTORY SERVICE CENTER AND REPAIR CUSTOMER DELIVERED STEREO EQUIPMENT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 890 COWAN ROAD (APN 024-390- 220), BY JAMES MC EWAN OF PIONEER ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA (APPLICANT) WITH BRUCE HOSFORD OF CROW/SPIEKER/HOSFORD (PROPERTY OWNERS) Commission indicated parking would be the main concern and requested the property owner specify which spaces would be available to the applicant. It was noted this is a service outlet, not a retail one. 20. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 833 MAHLER ROAD (APN 026-322-160) BY YONG K. CHO (APPLICANT) WITH EARL SWANSON (PROPERTY OWNER) It was noted there have been no complaints with the present operation, but since the original permit was not transferable it would be treated as a new application. 22. VARIANCES FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.070 AND CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF 3 COVERED PARKING SPACES TO ADDITIONAL APARTMENT SPACE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES; PROPERTY AT 1457/59 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY NICK GENER (APPLICANT) WITH MRS. T. GENER (PROPERTY OWNER) This item was briefly discussed and Assistant City Planner Yost stated the applicant has been informed of the requirements for variance approval. He recommended Commission visit the site. It was noted parking is the main concern and it appears the only way to park an adequate number of vehicles on the property is for some of the cars to be parked in the front setback. More specific plans as to parking and setbacks were requested for the hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Gener were present and agreed to further discuss the requirements for variances with staff in preparation for the hearing. 23. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR OAK GROVE MANOR, A SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE AT 1225 OAK GROVE AVENUE (APN 029-131-100), ZONED R-3, BY REDMOND WALSH FOR J. G. LOMBARDI OTHER There was a brief discussion about the condition of the Burlingame Avenue S. P. Depot. Commission felt this should be cleaned of debris. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 15, 1978 Commission briefly discussed the Escobosa fence and City Engineer Kirkup reported the Escobosas had come in for the permit for construction of the fence. Commissioner Cistulli noted a beautiful weeping willow tree had been chopped down. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary