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