HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.04.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Vice Chairman Mink on Monday, April 12, 1982 at 7:34 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Harvey, Leahy, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
Chm. Mink welcomed new Planning Commissioner Nanette Giomi.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
The Chair asked for nominations for 1982-83 officers. C. Cistulli nominated C. Mink
as Chairman, second C. Harvey; C. Mink elected unanimously. C. Cistulli nominated
C. Harvey as Vice Chairman, second C. Graham; C. Harvey elected unanimously. C. Cistulli
nominated C. Graham as Secretary, second C. Harvey; C. Graham elected unanimously.
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 22, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and
adopted.
AGENDA - The Chair announced Item #10 would be moved to follow Item #5 under Items for
Action, with the possibility of moving Item #6 to the end of the action items
should one of the principals be late in arriving.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY GARAGE AT 1541 CAROL AVENUE
CP:Monroe reviewed this application to allow a garage which exceeds five of the code
reiuirements for accessory structures. Reference staff report dated 4/1/82; Project
Application & CEQA Assessment accepted as complete 3/15/82; 3/3/82 memo from the Fire
Marshal; 3/9/82 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; 3/3/82 memo from the City
Engineer; March 3 and 30, 1982 letters from Dennis Barnard, the applicant; photographs
indicating the relationship of the proposed garage to the neighbor's house and to the
addition to his own home; March 22, 1982 Planning Commission minutes; aerial photograph
of the site and plans date stamped March 15, 1982. CP discussed applicant's request
and code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification, responses to Commission's
requests at the study meeting. If approved, one condition was suggested as listed in
the staff report.
Dennis Barnard, the applicant, was present and stressed his need for more storage space.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Barton Elliott, 1536 Carol Avenue (diagonally
across the street) spoke in favor: noted the limited lot size on the applicant's side
of the street because of Barroilhet and Carol Avenues. He would favor this enlargement
of the storage area and pointed out that any oversized rumpus room approved by the
city in this area in the past would seem to have more potential for a mother-in-law
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1982
apartment than this proposal. .There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Discussion: status of the building permit for the addition proposed to the applicant's
house and the contractor's desire to do all the work at one time; a desire to be sure
the second story addition to the house would also go forward if this special permit
were approved; CP clarified dimensions, square footage and lot coverage of the proposal.
The condition of the CBI regarding a fire wall was noted. C. Harvey found no problem
with the size of the garage but expressed some concern about doubling floor space
of a garage and having it classified as total area; he also noted difficulty in
establishing height of the storage area based on the height of an applicant. On this
basis and inasmuch as the applicant had suggested there is an area he could use which
restricts itself to 240 SF, he suggested some limitations for approval.
C. Harvey then moved to approve this special permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the total area of the garage be limited to 640 SF of which 240 SF shall be
storage; (2) that the total height of the building be limited to 17'; (3) that the
maximum height of the plate line be 10'; (4) that no windows be allowed, ventilation
to be restricted to louvered vents; and (5) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Inspector's memo of March 9, 1982 and the City Engineer's memo of March 3, 1982 be
met. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
2. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DUPLEX AT 958 LAGUNA AVENUE
CP Monroe reviewed this request for a variance to the required side yard setback;
project includes raising the existing structure, building a new unit under it and
an attached new laundry room and covered carport. Reference staff report dated 4/1/82;
Project Application & CEQA Assessment; aerial photograph; February 17, 1982 memo from
the Fire Marshal; February 18 and March 18, 1982 memos from the Chief Building
Inspector; March 18, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; January 6, 1982 letter from
Kosta M. Bulatovich, the applicant; plans date stamped February 8, 1982 and side
elevation date stamped March 15, 1982. CP discussed details of the proposal, code
requirements, staff review and applicant's justification for his request. If approved,
two conditions were suggested as listed in the staff report.
Kosta Bulatovich, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing.
There were no comments in favor. Mrs. Martha B. Schneider, 1221 Sanchez Avenue
(adjacent neighbor on the north side) noted these are small lots and expressed concern
about privacy because of the proposed stairway extending to the second floor, 3'-4"
from her property line. She also expressed concern about safety because of the
prolonged construction process on this site. There were no further comments and
the public hearing was closed.
Discussion: the location of the stairway is dependent upon the character of the remodeling,
raising the existing structure and following the configuration of this second floor; it
was noted the side stairway would indeed overlook Mrs. Schneider's backyard; height
of the structure; fire access; turning radius problems and parking space requirements;
aesthetics of the proposal; concern about privacy of the neighbors; possibility of
moving the structure to the rear of the lot. There was a consensus that the project
could be redesigned to meet the needs of the applicant and the neighbors. Applicant
noted that moving the carport structure to the rear would necessitate cutting the
existing trees.
C. Giomi moved that this variance be denied without prejudice. Second C. Cistulli;
motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
April 12, 1982
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTO TOWING AND AUTO REPAIRS AT 1250 ROLLINS ROAD
4. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT FENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE
AT 1260 ROLLINS ROAD
CP Monroe reviewed this application to allow an auto repair and towing service in an
existing building in the M-1 District, and to allow erection of a 10 foot fence along
a portion of an adjacent storage area. Reference staff report dated 3/31/82; Project
Application & CEQA Assessment received March 1, 1982; March 1 and 9, 1982 letters
from Marc Rochette, the applicant; aerial photograph of the site; March 23, 1982
memo from the City Engineer; March 9, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector;
March 5, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshall; Assessor's Parcel Book map indicating
the adjacent PG&E easement; and plans date stamped March 3, 1982. CP discussed
details of these applications; code requirements, staff review, applicant's letters
of explanation, responses to Commissioners' requests at the study session. If the
special permit is approved, four conditions were suggested by staff; one condition
of approval was suggested should Commission grant the fence exception.
Marc Rochette, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There
were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: if documentation is
not received from PG&E for access to their easement, applicant agreed to provide
access to the storage area through his property; applicant agreed to a condition of
approval that vehicles towed at night would not be parked on the street; location of
fire lane and policing of the area; disrepair of the present chain link fence; ease
of maintenance of this type of fence; applicant's good business reputation and
cooperation with the city.
C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions:
(1) documentation of PG&E's permission and lease agreement to use their property for
vehicle storage and right to use their easement for access, or provide access to the
storage area from the adjacent property to the south; (2) compliance with conditions
of the City Engineer's memo of March 23, 1982, Chief Building Inspector's memo of
March 9, 1982 and Fire Marshal's memo of March 5, 1982; (3) that the business be
operated as described by the applicant in his letters of March 1 and 9, 1982; (4)
that vehicles towed at night be stored within the structure and not parked or repaired
on the street in front of the place of business; and (5) that this permit be reviewed
in one year. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote.
In consideration of the fence exception Chm. Mink found exceptional circumstances in
that Mr. Nerli, an adjacent property owner, has a building which overlooks the
proposed storage yard, and because of this fact the applicant needs some screening;
that the plans show the fence does not impact in any way the traffic movements in
the area; that neighboring properties would not be damaged and, in fact, there would
be an enhancement of Mr. Nerli's property; that there is a hardship upon the applicant
since he must make this request in order to achieve a higher fence. Chm. Mink noted
his further understanding that the fence will be a chain link fence with redwood slats.
C. Graham moved for approval of this fence exception with the following conditions:
(1) that the fence be built as proposed in the applicant's letter of March 1, 1982;
and (2) that maintenance of the fence be reviewed in one year. Second C. Cistulli;
motion unanimously approved on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1982
5. AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED CARDEN PRIVATE SCHOOL, 2109 BROADWAY
(ROOSEVELT SCHOOL SITE)
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow an increase in enrollment. Reference staff
report dated 3/31/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 3/8/82; March 4
and 22, 1982 letters from Beryl H. Olmstead, Director, Carden School with attachments -
Arrival and Departure Schedule, Modes of Travel of Carden School Students; site
drawing; March 29, 1982 letter from Glenn A. Stewart, Burlingame School District;
3/29/82 memo from the Fire Marshal; aerial photograph of the site; 5/27/81 staff report
(with attachments); June 3, 1981 letter of action and Planning Commission minutes
of May 27, 1981 approving this use at Roosevelt School. CP discussed this request to
increase enrollment from 100 to 160 students, possible impacts on traffic and parking
(it was noted many students arrive by public transportation, on foot and by bicycle);
staff review and support of the School District. Staff recommended approval with two
conditions as listed in the staff report.
Mrs. Beryl Olmstead, Director of Carden School, was present. Chm. Mink opened the
public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. It was
determined eight classrooms would be used with 20 students per classroom; staff had
received no complaints from the neighbors. Two Commissioners reported they had observed
no traffic congestion at the site.
C. Giomi moved to grant this request with the condition that the permit be reviewed
at the end of the 1983-84 school year or before should any complaints be received,
and with Condition #2 of the staff report. Second C. Cistulli. Commenting on the
motion, C. Harvey suggested the review period be at the end of the contract period
between the parents and Carden School. C. Giomi withdrew her motion; C. Cistulli
withdrew his second. C. Harvey then moved for amendment of the Carden School special
permit to increase enrollment to 160 students with the following conditions: (1) that
this permit be reviewed at the end of the contract year; and (2) that all previous
conditions except #4 and the enrollment limitation of 100 be continued. Seconded
by C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting (concern
that the use exceeds the neighborhood guidelines and that there is potential for
traffic problems).
10. REVIEW OF 3/3/81 USE PERMIT FOR THE READING GAME, 1200 HOWARD AVENUE
Reference March 29, 1982 memo from the Zoning Aide and Project Application & CEQA
Assessment received 12/22/80. Zoning Aide's memo reported all conditions of approval
have been met by this clinical reading service. Staff recommended no further review
be required unless an amendment is requested or a complaint is received by the city.
C. Graham moved to concur with staff's recommendation that no further review be
required of this applicant unless an amendment of the permit is requested or the
city receives a complaint about the operation of the business. Second C. Harvey;
motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT AND THREE VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A 28 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT
211 MYRTLE ROAD
7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE ABOVE
CP Monroe reviewed this request: (1) to exceed the 35'-0" height limit; (2) to
construct an accessory structure to the side property line (5'-0" minimum required);
(3) to allow four parking spaces in the front setback area (none are permitted);
(4) to allow the underground garage to extend 18" above grade in the front setback;
and (5) a condominium permit for the proposed 28 unit complex.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1982
Reference staff report dated 4/2/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received
12/16/81; aerial photograph of the site; January 5, 1982 memo from the City Engineer;
March 30, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; December 22 and 28, 1981 memos
from the Fire Marshal; December 31, 1981 memo from the Park Director; March 22, 1982
Planning Commission study meeting minutes; March 17 and 30, 1982 letters from Robert
Sauvageau, Panko/Sinclair Associates; March 29, 1982 letter from Peter Callander,
landscape architect; and plans date stamped December 23, 1981. CP discussed code
requirements; staff review; applicant's letters summarizing the project, justifying
the variance requests and responding to Commission's study meeting questions; and
Planning staff's review of available on -street parking. After action on Item #6,
if Commission grants the condominium permit, four conditions were suggested by staff.
Robert Sauvageau, project architect, gave a slide presentation to support the variance
requests, illustrating existing zoning, existing uses, configuration of the site,
and the proposed design of the project. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Ray
Kliewer, owner of property in the 900 block of Howard Avenue, supported rehabilitation
of this area but questioned if putting residential in a commercial area was the highest
and best use for the property. He was adivsed by the Chair that his remarks might
better be addressed to the City Council at its hearing on the general plan amendment
for this area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Discussion: concern about adequate sewer system and drainage facilities; concern
about establishing a precedent in the area by allowing this applicant to exceed the
height limit; procedure if the special permit to exceed the height limit were denied;
economic feasibility of requiring an applicant for a residential structure to stay
within the 35' height limit; some Commissioners felt it best to judge each project on
its own merit.
C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit to exceed the 35'-0" height limit.
Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Harvey
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
Discussion of the variances followed. CA advised it would be permissible to use one
set of findings to meet the legal requirements of the code. C. Harvey found that
this was an extremely unusual building site, that it was properly zoned for a
multi -family structure, that it would be necessary for the project to be constructed
as presented since it fronts on two streets; that it would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare and would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan
of the city. He further found exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in the
existing grade of the lot because it is higher at one end than the other, which is
a condition over which the applicant had no control.
C. Harvey then moved to approved the variances requested: (a) to construct an accessory
structure to the side property line; (b) to allow four parking spaces in a front
setback area; and (c) to allow the underground garage to extend 18" above grade,
12'-0" into the front setback area. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1 roll
call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Graham then moved for approval of the condominium permit to construct a 28 unit
condominium (Item #7), with the following conditions: (1) compliance with the
conditions of the City Engineer's memo of January 5, 1982, the Chief Building
Inspector's memo of March 30, 1982 and the Fire Marshal's memos of December 22 and
28, 1981; (2) adoption of the mixed residential/commercial land use designation and
assignment of this designation to the project site by the City Council in adoption
of the General Plan Amendment; (3) that the Park Department approve final landscaping
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1982
and irrigation plans before a Building Permit is issued; and (4) that the final plans
be substantially in agreement with the plans date stamped December 23, 1981. Second
C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Harvey dilssenting.
Appeal procedures were advised. It was noted that this approval will not be final
until City Council has adopted the referenced General Plan Amendment.
8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISON MAP FOR
28 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 211 MYRTLE ROAD
Reference CE's memo dated April 6, 1982. CE Erbacher recommended approval subject to
one condition as listed in his memo. C. Cistulli moved for approval and recommendation
to City Council of the tentative and final parcel map and tentative subdivison map.
Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting.
A short recess was called at this point in the meeting. Meeting reconvened to hear
the last action item of the evening.
9. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A 1321 ROOM HOTEL AT
1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FOR MARRIOTT CORPORATION
CP Monroe reviewed this application to construct a hotel in the C-4 District: (1) special
permit to exceed the 35'-0" height limit; (2) special permit to exceed the maximum 1.0
Floor Area Ratio; (3) special permit to exceed the 25% maximum lot coverage; (4) parking
variance to 'allow less than the required number of spaces; and (5) parking variance to
allow 45% of the off-street parking to be of compact size. Reference staff report
dated 4/7/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received January 14, 1982;
Orientation Map - San Francisco International Airport and Burlingame Bayfront; site
survey map showing the relationship of the site to the line of highest tidal action;
aerial photograph indicating relationship of the site to existing land uses; Exhibit A,
a summary of mitigations and findings; January 13, 1982 letter from Edward R. Hope,
Director, Hotel Development, Marriott Corporation; photographs of a model of the
proposed structures; March 19, 1982 letter from Edward R. Hope; Jefferson Associates'
March 15, 1982 technical memorandum dealing with the issue of hotel traffic impacts
on the Millbrae Avenue/Bayshore Highway intersection; letters in opposition to the
project from the following: William C. McGowan, Jr., 1401 Vancouver Avenue; Robert E.
Barnes, 1128 Chula Vista Avenue; John McMorrow, 736 Lexington Way; Barbara Rothenberg,
1015 Muir Way, Belmont; Eugene A. and Elizabeth A. Hannan, 1400 Edgehill Drive; staff
comments: Chief Building Inspector (April 5, 1982 memo), Fire Marshal (April 1, 1982
memo), Engineering (March 16,1982 memo), City Engineer (April 5, 1982 memo); comparison
of the proposed project with the city's Design Guidelines; Plan Check memo from the
Zoning Aide dated 4/5/82; Planning Commission Minutes of the March 22, 1982 study
meeting; Director of Public Works' March 3, 1982 memo discussing history and timing
of the sewage treatment facility improvements (with attachments); Airports Commission
resolution adopted April 6, 1982; March 26, 1982 letter to Ed Hope, Marriott
Corporation from the Federal Aviation Administration; and plans date stamped March 10,
1982.
CP discussed the applicant's requests and code requirements; details of the proposed
project; packet material addressing impacts and mitigations; it was noted the Final
EIR had been certified by City Council April 5, 1982; public comments; staff review;
responses to study session concerns. CP also noted corrections to the staff report:
the actual count of parking spaces is 1319 and the compact car parking ratio requested
would then be 38% in Phase I, 44% in Phase II and 42% in Phase III. The tables on
pages 2 and 4 of the report should be modified to delete the line giving "actual/staff
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
April 12, 1982
count from plans". If the special permits and variances are approved, staff suggested
fifteen conditions as listed in the staff report and (16) compliance with the plans
date stamped March 31, 1982.
CP advised Commission would be acting on all three phases of the project this evening.
In further discussion CP indicated that the maximum height on the fill would be 8' MSL
and that the applicant had traffic allocation for only Phase I of the project.
Edward R. Hope, Director, Hotel Development, Marriott Corporation referred to his
March 19, 1982 letter which summarized Marriott's position as a developer. He introduced
Richard Senechal, Marriott's Project Architect. Mr. Senechal discussed this convention
oriented project and proposed designs of Phases I, II and III. He confirmed the
14,000 SF ballroom was designed to seat for dinner approximately 2,000 people. Mr. Hope
then discussed the economics of the project, presenting sheets on estimated revenue
to the city ($2,4 million +) and estimated cost to the developer of required mitigation
measures (approximately $380,000). He discussed Marriott's dealings with various
agencies over the past three years, benefits that would accrue to the City of Burlingame
from this project including 1,200 jobs, and noted the Federal Aviation Administration's
determination of "no hazard". He introduced the following members of his team: John
Bjorner, property owner; Andrew Laguana, architect, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum;
Michael Hitchcock and James Jefferson of Jefferson Associates; Ralph Nofield, civil
engineer; August Compton, aviation expert.
Chm. Mink read a letter distributed with the packet from Jerry D. Luce, FAA, Los
Angeles, noting the determination of "no hazard" and that the noise impact on the
hotel users could be a potential problem which Marriott should be aware of. Then he
opened the public hearing and requested comments in favor of the project.
The following spoke in support: Robert Gilmore, Business Manager, Building and
Construction Trades Council, County of San Mateo; Henry Bostwick, Executive Vice
President and General Manager, San Mateo County Development Association; Ronald
Rosberg, owner of property at 1669 Bayshore Highway; David Keyston, Trustee, Anza
Shareholders' Liquidating Trust; Wayne Thomas, Business Manager, San Mateo County
Electricians; Tom Hunter, Plumbers Union; and August Compton, engineering and aviation
consultant, Burlway Road, Burlingame.
Comments in support were: the project will provide employment for many construction
workers in the area in a depressed industry; it would be environmentally sound, high
quality development; high rise structures on the site would provide more open space
and view corridors and are more aesthetically pleasing and seismically safe; the hotel
would provide services for businesses in the area; Marriott will be providing an up-
grading of public facilities, particularly storm drainage in this low lying area;
few, if any, air flights go over the project site presently; if the traffic report by
Jefferson Associates is valid, there should be no traffic capacity objection; the
project will not jeopardize any other hotel or restaurant business in Burlingame;
the city has encouraged hotel projects in this area and Marriott will provide increased
revenue to the city; this type of use and the revenue generated to the city will help
in increasing and maintaining the level of public services such as police, fire and
park services; variances are necessary because of the long, narrow (250' wide) site
of which the useable area is further reduced by requiring city and BCDC setbacks and
public access requirements; experience in the Anza area supports a greater proportion
of compact parking spaces; the city needs to strive for balanced development, both
economic and residential; noise impacts will be reduced by modern construction
techniques; Marriott is renowned for its entry level employee training programs which
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1982
will help to compensate for the loss of government assisted employment programs in
San Mateo County; the proposed compromise would kill the project. There were no
further comments in favor.
Those speaking in opposition were Capt. Chris Wharton, Pan American World Airways;
James Quinn, a Burlingame resident; Wood Lockhart, Chairman of Airport Standards
Committee, Airline Pilots Association; Lou Turpen, Director of Airports (SFIA);
Maurice Garbell, aeronautical engineer, San Francisco; Delores Huajardo, Columbus
Avenue, Burlingame; Alan Horn, a Burlingame resident; Marti Knight, 23 Dwight Road;
Eugene Hannan, 1400 Edgehill Drive; William McGowan, Jr., 1401 Vancouver Avenue;
Reginald Burke; Dorothy Cusick, former Burlingame City Councilperson and a Burlingame
resident. Mrs. Cusick presented a letter in opposition, dated April 12, 1982, signed
by 22 Burlingame residents and a SAN MATEO TIMES article, "Despite Protests, Burlingame
OKs Hotel EIR", published in the April 7, 1982 issue. She expressed total opposition
of these citizens because of aircraft hazard and noise impacts to the city and offered
a compromise, fully discussed in the April 12 letter, based on relocating the Marriott
Hotel to another site at the southeast end of the city.
Concerns of others in opposition: increased aviation safety hazard, particularly on
flights taking off to the south from Runway 19; obstruction of flight paths, partfcul.arly
the turning flight path required for departures from these runways, 19 R/L, (this was
discussed in detail by several of the speakers connected with the airport and aero-
nautical technicians); increased noise impact on residents of the city from airplanes
departing on Runway 19 R/L; size of the project is inappropriate, will increase
policing problems; it was reported a resolution in opposition based on noise and air
traffic safety had been passed by the San Francisco Airports Commission on April 6,
1982; the Commission was requested to delay their action until after the airport
staff could meet with concerned parties; concern with regard to earthquake safety;
"the wrong building in the wrong place"; concern that the FAA regulations do not go
far enough in evaluating possible hazards because they deal only with straight take -off
patterns and do not address a minimum vertical clearance between aircraft and buildings
below.
Following opposition comments, George Corey, attorney, Millbrae, representing John
Bjorner, the property owner suggested the concerns expressed had been overstated and
that the Airport and City and County of San Francisco should attempt to alleviate the
problem of dangerous flights. He also noted the financial benefit to the City of
Burlingame and the general benefit to the area which this hotel would provide.
Chm. Mink closed the public hearing and declared another short recess. The meeting
reconvened and Mr. Hope responded to some of the comments in opposition. He discussed
Marriott's contacts with the FAA and that in 1974 the FAA had said 150' was allowable
on this site; advised he had been told that back blast, not take -off noise, was the
main cause of the present noise suits against the airport; noted that this Marriott
Hotel will not be the largest hotel in Northern California and that the Marriott
Corporation had 16 or 17 other hotels very close to airports. He further stated the
suggested compromise to move the site was not a viable proposition at this point in
time. With regard to earthquake safety, he advised a great deal of work had already
been done on the site and soils studies to determine type of foundation to be used
to meet seismic requirements.
Commission discussion: the number of existing Marriott hotels constructed near an
airport; Marriott's decision to go forward with the modified height alternative;
concern about the proposed height and some concern about increased noise impact; one
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
April 12, 1982
Commissioner stated his belief it was the right location for a hotel. Commissioners'
observations of flights at the site were noted, the consensus being few, if any,
flights went over the site even on the stormy Easter weekend. It was pointed out
that Marriott had made every effort to comply with airport related regulations.
C. Giomi moved to table this application. The motion died for lack of a second.
The Chm. then discussed the intent of the Bayfront Guidelines, i.e., the guidelines
were intended to.be trade-offs such as more height for more open space. He felt in
this case the applicant had exceeded three major review lines without the compensating
increases elsewhere in the project and therefore violated the guideline concept the
city had been trying to promote.
C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit to exceeed 35' in hbight with the
following conditions: (1) compliance with the conditions of the City Engineer's memo
of April 5, 1982 and the Zoning Aide's memo of April 5, 1982; (2) contribute 12.2
percent to the modifications to the signalization of the Millbrae/Bayshore Highway
intersection necessary when traffic generated from the project causes a worsening in
the level of service at the intersection of one level; (3) maintenance of catch
basins and grease trap serving the project; (4) development of final landscape plan
which meets BCDC public access concerns and approval by the Burlingame Park Director;
planting and ongoing requirement to maintain whatever landscaping is approved; (5)
contribution, as required by the City and depending upon receipt of Federal grants,
to the improvement of the City's Sewage Treatment plant, secondary treatment solids
improvement; (6) pay cost of independent review of the Jefferson Associates' Traffic
Assignment study for the project; (7) approval of Phase III of the project is subject
to an origin -destination study of actual traffic generation and distribution from
Phases I and II of the project; (8) provide signalization at the Malcolm Road inter-
section if traffic studies required by the City for Phases II and III show it to be
necessary; (9) provision of the following during construction of all phases of the
hotel: adequate off-street all weather parking for construction workers and physical
protection to the marsh habitat along E1 Portal Creek; (10) during construction of
all phases require erosion control to include limiting construction as determined
necessary by the City during the wet season, hydro seeding at the onset of the wet
season, developing a specific plan for sedimentation control approved as necessary
by the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board and the City of Burlingame; (11) as
part of the Title 24 survey, the feasibility of solar energy and other conservation
devices should be considered; (12) submit excavation procedures to protect public
and private property and final grading and drainage plans acceptable to the City;
(13) all excavated material, acceptable to the City, shall be treated and placed in
the City's sanitary land fill as directed by the City; (14) receipt of permits from
all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC and the San Francisco Regional Water
Quality Control Board; (15) compliance with Mr. Edward Hope's letter of March 19, 1982;
and (16) compliance with the plans date stamped March 31, 1982. Second C. Cistulli;
motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Harvey and Mink dissenting.
C. Harvey moved for approval of the special permit to exceed maximum 1.0 Floor Area
Ratio permitted, with staff conditions 1-16. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a
5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Mink dissenting.
C. Cistulli moved for approval of the special permit to exceed the 25% maximum lot
coverage permitted, with staff conditions 1-16. Second C. Harvey; motion approved on
a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. (C. Mink explained his 'yes' vote, that
to exceed the maximum lot coverage was a fair trade-off considering the entire
project.)
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1982
CP Monroe reviewed the number of parking spaces provided and percent of compact spaces
requested. C. Harvey noted the 2,000 person ballroom could be used for functions
totally separate from those persons staying in the hotel, and the potential traffic
impact this could cause. He would prefer more adequate parking be provided. C. Giomi
agreed with him and expressed concern about the ratio of compact cars. Other
Commissioners felt the percentage of conventioneers driving cars would be minimal.
Chm. Mink pointed out that should Marriott find it needed more space, it would
Undoubtedly come back to the city with revised parking plans; the lack of parking
would impact the hotel, not the city.
C. Graham made findings to support the two variances: that there are exceptional
circumstances in the configuration of the property, that to provide more parking
some of the landscaping and/or part of the project would have to be eliminated; that
for the same reason the variances were necessary for the preservation of a property
right of the owner; that the granting of the variances would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to nearby property owners; and
that the variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the
city since the proposed use was a permitted use.
C. Graham then moved for approval of the parking variance of 8 spaces. Second
C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Harvey dissenting.
C. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance to allow 38% of the parking spaces
in Phase I, 44% of the parking spaces in Phase II and 42% of the parking spaces in
Phase III to be designed for compact cars. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on
a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Harvey and Leahy dissenting.
Appeal procedures were advised.
STUDY ITEMS
11. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1500 SHERMAN AVENUE
12. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Items set for hearing April 26, 1982.
13. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1110 BAYSWATER AVENUE
Request: because this is a corner lot, would like information regarding all frontages,
setbacks and on -street parking. Set for hearing April 26, 1982.
14. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Set for hearing April 26, 1982.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe advised that City Council has reappointed C. Graham to begin his first
full term as a Planning Commissioner as of April 1, 1982.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Page 11
April 12, 1982
- March 3, 1982 letter from Kenneth C. Lauder, owner of property at 130 Arundel Road,
and City Planner's reply dated April 5, 1982.
- March 29, 1982 letter to Mayor Mangini from Jacqueline Speier, San Mateo County
Supervisor regarding this year's "Great California Resource Rally".
- Letter from Past Commissioner Ruth Jacobs regarding retirement celebration.
An 10110AIMCKIT
The meeting adjourned at 1:50 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S. Graham
Secretary
AGENDA
CITY OF BURLI.NGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
IV. MINUTES
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VI. ITEMS FOR ACTION
APRIL 12, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
March 22, 1982
1. Special Permit to allow construction of a two story garage that exceeds
five code requirements of Code Sec. 25.60.010 at 1541 Carol Avenue (APN 028-
303-110), zoned R-1, by Dennis and Justine Barnard (property owners).
2. Variance to construct a duplex at 958 Laguna Avenue that does not maintain
the minimum side yard requirements of Code Sec. 25.66.050 (APN 026-202-210),
zoned R-2, by Kosta Bulatovich (applicant and property owner).
3. Special Permit to allow auto towing and auto repairs in an existing building
in the M-1 District at 1250 Rollins Road (APN 026-134-090), by Guy and Marc
Rochette for D&M Towing (applicant).
4. Fence Exception to allow a 10 foot fence to be erected along a portion of
the property line at 1260 Rollins Road, by Guy and Marc Rochette (applicants).
5. Amendment to the Special Permit for Carden School at 2109 Broadway (former
Roosevelt School site) to increase their maximum enrollment to 160 students
(APN 027-340-150), zoned R-1, by Beryl Olmstead (applicant).
6. Special Permit and three Variances to construct a 28 unit condominium at
211 Myrtle Road (APN 029-214-230), zoned C-2, by Panko/Sinclair Associates
(applicant) for Alexander Development Company (property owner) (environmental
assessment previously distributed):
A. Special Permit to exceed the 35'-0" height limit (42'-6" is proposed);
B. Variance to construct an accessory structure to the side property line
(5'-0" minimum side yard required);
C. Variance for four parking spaces in a front setback area (none are
permitted);
D. Variance to allow the underground garage to extend 18" above grade,
12'-0" into the front setback area.
7. Condominium Permit to construct a 28 unit condominium at 211 Myrtle Road,
by Panko/Sinclair Associates for Alexander Development Company.
-2-
8. Tentative Parcel .Map and Condominium Map for a 28 unit condominium project
at 211 Myrtle Road, by James F. Carroll & Associates (Engineer and Surveyor)
for Alexander Development Company.
9. Three Special Permits and two Variances to construct a 1321 room hotel at
1800 Bayshore Highway which exceeds the requirements of Code Sec. 25.41.
025 (APN 024-380-080), zoned C-4, by Marriott Corporation (applicant) for
John & Kathleen Bjorner (property owners):
A. Special Permit to exceed 35'-0" in height (127'-0" is proposed; 137'-0"
including the penthouse);
B. Special Permit to exceed the maximum 1.0 Floor Area Ratio permitted
(1.94 is proposed);
C. Special Permit to exceed the 25% maximum lot coverage permitted
(26.4% is proposed);
D. Parking Variance to allow 1229 on-site parking spaces (1321 are
required);
E. Parking Variance to allow 45% of the off-street parking to be designed
for compact cars (20% maximum is permitted).
10. Review of the March 3, 1981 Use Permit for The Reading Game, a clinical
reading service, at 1200 Howard Avenue.
VII. STUDY ITEMS
11. Condominium Permit to construct an 18 unit condominium at 1500 Sherman
Avenue (APN 026-151-060/070/080), zoned R-3, by Gilco Construction Company
(owner and applicant).
12. Tentative Parcel Map and Condominium Map for an 18 unit condominium at
1500 Sherman Avenue (APN 026-151-060/070/080), by Martin M. Ron Associates
(surveyor) for Gilco Construction Company (owner).
13. Condominium Permit to construct an 18 unit condominium at 1110 Bayswater
Avenue and a Variance to allow the first floor slab which is 18" above curb
grade to encroach 9'-0" into the required front setback area (APN 029-231-
130/140), zoned R-4, by Onorato and Associates (applicant) for Syndel
Properties, Inc. (property owner).
14. Tentative Parcel Map and Condominium Map for an 18 unit condominium at
1110 Bayswater Avenue (APN 029-231-130/140), by Michael D. Ashley (Civil
Engineer) for Syndel Properties, Inc. (property owner).
VIII. CITY PLANNER REPORT
IX. ADJOURNMENT
4/5/82