Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.04.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Vice Chairman Graham on Monday, April 25, 1983 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman MINUTES - The minutes of the April 11, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda was amended to include election of officers for 1983-84 as the first item of business. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Chair asked for nominations. C. Cistulli nominated C. Graham as Chairman; C. Taylor moved that the nominations be closed. C. Graham elected Chairman on unanimous voice vote. C. Cistulli nominated C. Garcia as Vice Chairman; C. Schwalm moved that the nominations be closed. C. Garcia elected Vice Chairman on unanimous voice vote. C. Cistulli nominated C. Giomi as Secretary; C. Leahy moved that the nominations be closed. C. Giomi elected Secretary on unanimous voice vote. Officers for the 1983-84 year: Harry S. Graham, Chairman; A. M. (Bill) Garcia, Vice Chairman; Nannette M. Giomi, Secretary. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-59P, FOR A 310 ROOM HOTEL ON THE SITE AT 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD IN THE C-4 DISTRICT Reference Draft EIR-59P for the proposed Four Seas Hotel, staff report dated 4/19/83 and City Planner 4/22/83 memo re traffic mitigations in Draft EIR-59P. CP discussed details of the proposed project and then introduced Marty Abell, Associate in charge of preparation of this EIR for Environmental Science Associates, Inc. Mr. Abell summarized significant environmental effects of the project and cumulative impacts as discussed in the EIR. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Those speaking were: - Marilyn Mahaffey, 4 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame, representing an association of Burlingame/San Mateo residents called the Neighborhood Traffic Watch - concerned about the mitigation in the EIR addressing an additional off -ramp from southbound 101 at Humboldt and an on-ramp to southbound 101 at Howard Avenue; this mitigation also appeared in two other Final EIR's in the Anza area; DEIR does not address impact of this mitigation on the neighborhood, i.e., possible loss of one block in h Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 25, 1983 San Mateo, safety, traffic volume, improvements to intersections in the neighborhood which would be required to control the increased traffic flow,as well as air quality and noise; EIR's for Anza development on the east side of 101 should address possible impacts on the west side of 101; EIR should be revised to remove the on- off -ramps as mitigation; area of the proposed ramp construction is within San Mateo city limits. She requested Planning Commission and City Council review and revise the Specific Area Plan for the Burlingame Bayfront to eliminate reference to a new set of ramps for southbound traffic, the revision to read "provide a new ramp for northbound traffic." CP explained the Specific Area Plan is part of the General Plan of the city. She suggested Commission study amendment of the SAP and, if found appropriate, include it with discussion of other General Plan revisions scheduled for May and June this year. Mrs. Mahaffey's comments regarding the mitigation in EIR-59P will be responded to in the Response to Comments document. - Clarence Cravalho, 1265 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, owner of commercial property at the end of Howard Avenue in San Mateo - expressed concern about this dangerous corner (have asked for stop signs but received no action), congested parking, hazardous for children in the area; he questioned this manner of helping hotels on the east side of 101 by impacting residents on the west side. - Maybelle Pinson, 900 North Humboldt, San Mateo (at the corner of Humboldt and Peninsula) and a member of the Neighborhood Traffic Watch - supported Mrs. Mahaffey's remarks; urged the city to initiate another study addressing traffic generated by projects in the Anza area and to follow up the BCDC letter regarding a 101 corridor study so that over time development decisions do not cause unanticipated traffic impacts. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commission comment: page vii, include visual impact of project on future park area and public lands; page 29, include level of service load on 101 during peak hours, this project's impact on peak hour 101 as well as impact of other projects approved in the Anza area; page 31, include Hyatt expansion in list of other developments which would be located near the Anza area; page 40, Employment, Population and Housing, clarify reference to detailed employment data; include employment rate of the City of Burlingame, if possible; also number of jobs being created by approved projects in the Anza area including this one; page 51, clarify mitigation with regard to ecology; page 65, include visual impact on our landfill site, include statement regarding impact on one another from clustering of buildings; page 72, first paragraph, is hotel the sole use city will allow on this site?; page 76, Comparative Evaluation of Project Alternatives, why is traffic solution of Alternate C so much better? look at this again. Further Commission comment: will any grading be required, what provision is made for intercepting drainage from the sanitary landfill; address State highway standards regarding distances between off -ramps as it would affect west side mitigation; look at whether more of the front setback on this busy street needs to be landscaped. One Commissioner commented that the EIR does not appear to relate to a specific set of plans and expressed concern Commission appeared to be dealing with specific factors of the EIR as opposed to determining whether it is legally sufficient. CP explained interaction between an EIR and a project in staff's view: project is submitted in general terms, alternatives are proposed, applicable mitigations required in the EIR will be seen as findings in the Final EIR and as specific conditions to project approval. An EIR looks at the environmental effects of a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 25, 1983 project and specific modifications to the project should be made before the plans are presented to Commission, thus through the EIR process a proposed project can respond to concerns. There is an interaction process between environmental review of a project and development of the project site itself. Staff, Commission and the developer work together to better meet the environmental needs. Consultant will prepare responses to all comments received this evening. 2. REVIEW OF 4/12/82 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR D&M TOWING AT 1250 ROLLINS ROAD CP Monroe reviewed this item. Reference staff report dated 4/19/83; Planner's 4/18/83 memo detailing site inspection at 1250 Rollins Road; Monroe letter of action dated April 20, 1982; April 12, 1983 memo from the City Engineer; "no comments/requirements" memos from the Fire Marshal (4/7/83) and Chief Building Inspector (4/4/83); March 30, 1983 letter of complaint from Cyrus J. McMillan for William Nerli, adjacent property owner; April 12, 1982 Planning Commission minutes with attachments. CP discussed special permit and fence exception granted in 1982, staff review of this property, code requirements for enclosure of storage areas and letter of complaint received from Cyrus McMillan. Staff recommended a 60 day continuation to allow the applicant an opportunity to comply with all requirements of the 1982 approval. Marc Rochette of D&M Towing was present. He advised the CE's requirements regarding fire lane signs would be a minor adjustment but that the required fence had not been installed since he had been unable to get his neighbors to share in the high cost. CP noted the 10 foot fence had been requested by the applicant in his fence exception application in 1982; the code requires outdoor storage areas to be enclosed by a solid fence or wall not less than 8 feet in height. CA advised a chain link fence with redwood slats is permitted. Planning Department procedures were explained with regard to following up on approvals/conditions of a permit; the difficulty of reviewing every permit every year, or every three months, was noted. Further discussion: suggest review in 90 days; relocation of the gates from their present location on private property; Fire Marshal confirmed location of the fire lane; length of time cars are in storage; 10 foot fence necessary to protect adjacent property owner's view. C..Cistulli moved to continue this item for 90 days to allow the applicant an opportunity to comply with the previous conditions of approval. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE ADDITION TO THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD CP Monroe reviewed this request for an 11,814 SF office expansion which includes an underground parking garage. Reference staff report dated 4/19/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 3/24/83; Negative Declaration ND -335P posted April 15, 1983; staff memos as follows: Fire Marshal (3/22/83), City Engineer (3/28/83) and Chief Building Inspector (4/18/83); January 5, 1982 staff report and January 21, 1982 Monroe letter of action when this request was previously approved. CP discussed details of the request, previous approval which expired and thus required a re -hearing, staff review, Planning staff comments regarding drainage, handicapped parking requirements and traffic allocation impact. If approved, three conditions were suggested in the staff report. Pa ge 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1983 Ted De Wolf, architect representing the applicant, Stanley Lo, was present. He noted the problem with water in the area and stated they would prefer to bring the top of the garage up to about 30" above curb with natural ventilation and eliminating the sprinkler system requirement. After some discussion Commission and staff advised that plans for this new proposal would be required and no action could be taken on it this evening. Mr. De Wolf then withdrew his request, action to be on the plans approved in January, 1982 and resubmitted with this application. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was declared closed. It was noted that final plans submitted to the Building Department would be required to meet current handicapped parking requirements. C. Garcia moved to approve this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of March 22, 1983, the City Engineer's memo of March 28, 1983 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of April 18, 1983 be met; (2) that the slope on the ramp to the underground garage shall not exceed 6 percent; and (3) that all conditions of the January 19, 1982 approval shall be met. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. REQUEST FOR 12 MONTH EXTENSION OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1500 SHERMAN AVENUE Reference City Engineer's April 18, 1983 memo, March 25, 1983 letter from James E. Shypertt, Martin M. Ron Associates, Inc., February 10, 1982 memo to the Planning Department from Engineering Division and May 21, 1982 City Engineer letter to Zev Ben -Simon, Gilco Construction Company. CP Monroe reviewed and noted CE's recommendation the extension be granted. C. Taylor moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of a 12 month extension of this condominium permit. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 5. REQUEST FOR 12 MONTH EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 16 UNIT OFFICE CONDOMINIUM AT 345 LORTON AVENUE Reference City Engineer's April 18, 1983 memo and April 4, 1983 letter from the property owner's representative, Skyline Realty. CP Monroe reviewed, noting the CE recommended approval. C. Cistulli moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this 12 month extension of the tentative condominium map. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Recess 9:10 P.M.; reconvene 9:20 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR RENTAL OPERATION AT 1484 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: letter from the applicant addressing specifics on improvements he plans to make to the property and on operation of business. Item set for hearing May 9, 1983. 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT FIVE UNITS AT 1105 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: is there provision for guest parking on-site; will a security gate be provided; where is garbage disposal area; location of fireplaces. Set for hearing May 9, 1983. 8. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE - Set for hearing May 9, 1983. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1983 9. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,500 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1221 DONNELLY AVENUE Requests: site plan of adjacent lots, aerial photograph, more detailed site plan showing power poles and water meters. Set for hearing May 9, 1983. 10. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF A RECEIVING ANTENNA WITHIN TWO REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AT 500 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: address visibility of the disk from park lands; comments on the proposal from BCDC and State Lands Commission; present use of the spaces in the parking lot; scale cross section of the building, parking lot, disk and adjacent park. Item set for hearing May 9, 1983. CITY PLANNER REPORTS 11. CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its April 13, 1983 study meeting and April 18, 1983 regular meeting. 12. RESTAURANTS IN THE C-1 DISTRICT Reference staff report dated 4/20/83. CP Monroe discussed staff research into other communities' concerns and/or regulation of restaurants in their downtown areas and staff concerns about regulation. Commission direction was requested. Commission comments in favor of further study: is this any different from banks and savings and loans as far as enforcement is concerned; concern about traffic congestion; concern by some Burlingame Avenue/downtown merchants that proliferation of restaurants .stops the flow of shoppers; impact on parking starts at 4:00 P.M. now, used to be impacted only at lunch time; think we are talking about 'restaurant row' and we will lose our downtown shopping. Other comments: difference between sales tax for restaurants and other retail uses; don't think trying to suppress restaurants on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway is the answer, believe the problem will solve itself by consumers who use these services; the free marketplace should determine what kind of retail outlet goes on Broadway or Burlingame Avenue; what kind of business could occupy the space used by some of the small restaurants on Broadway; possibility of checking resources such as the League of California Cities. Following this discussion a majority of the Commission agreed to drop further study. 13. WALL GRAPHICS AS SIGNS OR DECORATIVE ART Reference staff report dated 4/20/83. CP noted Council's action in referring this matter back to the Planning Commission and discussed staff research into other cities' handling of the issue and guidelines from review of other ordinances. Staff noted the importance of simplicity of understanding and administration in regulation and the fact that Burlingame's existing sign code is such a regulation. Further, that if an amendment to distinguish art work/graphics from signage is considered that the distinction be clearly drawn and the criteria specific. Commission direction was requested. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1983 Commission discussion: find the guidelines in staff report taken from other cities' ordinances to be appropriate; concern about applications received after the fact, suggest giving each new business a summary sheet of city regulations which might affect them; possibility of charging a fee in such cases. It was pointed out that the Council must make the decision about Flamingo Flowers' graphic, the issue this evening is the need for amending the sign code. Further comment: amendment could result in loss of control; continue with the present code unless Council sees a need to create a new district which might incorporate this type of regulation. C. Taylor moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council no immediate changes to the sign code be contemplated. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting. Staff will transmit Commission's recommendation to Council with Planning Commission staff report for this meeting. 14. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION - PROPOSED RAMADA INN EXPANSION CP advised that Easton Creek improvements being required by the city could impact the available site area for this project and that the applicant is revising his plans substantially after BCDC Design Review Board hearing. The previously scheduled study session on this project was cancelled. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - April 7, 1983 Burlingame Beautification Commission minutes re: removal of Heritage trees on E1 Camino Real. - Item from the "Bingo Bugle", April 1983, advertising bingo on Wednesday nights beginning April 6, 1983 in the ballroom of the Burlingame Sheraton Hotel. C. Cistulli expressed concern about the parking congestion this has caused and the impact on patrons of the hotel. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary