Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.07.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 23, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, July 23, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman MINUTES - The minutes of the July 9, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item #4, page 5, delete Condition #2 placed on the special permit; this condition would have applied only if the variance for employee parking had been approved, the variance was denied. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-61P, FOR THE PROPOSED HYATT REGENCY HOTEL AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY; ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC., CONSULTANT CP Monroe discussed Hyatt's proposed project, scope of the Draft EIR, significant effects and Commission action this evening. Marty Abell, consultant, Environmental Science Associates, Inc., summarized findings of the DEIR with respect to significant effects: increased fire and police services, safety hazard and congestion at access to the site, increased demand for housing in Burlingame+ and exposure of greater numbers of people to seismic hazards on situ. Two beneficial effects were noted: increased job opportunities and increase in projected revenues for the city. Mr. Abell discussed significant effects with cumulative development: increased police and fire services, improvements to water service facilities, improvements to wastewater treatment plant, increased traffic volumes on local streets and on Route 101, reduced operations at intersections, increased noise levels due to increased traffic, the site would have an exterior noise level higher than that specified iin the General Plan. Richard Hopper, traffic consultant for this EIR, was also present. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue expressed concern about the proposed hotel blocking views; requested the EIR discuss the possibility of designating the present Hyatt motel Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1984 as an historical landmark, he wished to see it preserved; address seismic safety, the city's ability to handle increased sewage; include a study on noise levels, existing noise and current. laws. He was opposed to the construction of this project. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.. Commission discussion/comment: employee traffic generation figures were based on typical traffic generation for a large hotel with shops and restaurants; agree with Caltrans concerns regarding Table 8, page 32, Intersection Impact Summary; clarification of apparent width measurements; what is capacity of the largest meeting room; regarding traffic circulation coming out of the site, should a traffic signal be considered as a mitigation; discuss as mitigation flexible working hours and encouraging employees to use public transit; notify and receive comment from the Airline Pilots Association; address estimate of existing and expected employees, how many would be new in the area; discuss parking situation during demolition and construction; page 27, Figure 9, Vehicular Circulation, how was traffic impact on Broadway calculated; Mr. Hopper advised traffic added to Broadway was found to be so small that the reduction in number of traffic lanes (2 or 4) would not affect impact significantly. Further Commission comment: how did Hyatt arrive at the size proposed for this new hotel; request further information on the off -ramp and how it fits into this particular project; more information on Peninsula Avenue; further discussion of existing traffic, with a project this size traffic will be a big issue; signal in front of the Sheraton is not a mitigation, it is already there; will the development of the project have any impact on the capacity of the creek; would prefer mitigation addressing employment of residents of Burlingame be deleted; clarify cumulative impact statement regarding traffic volumes on local streets and 101; discuss comment regarding conformance to the goals and objectives of ABAG; address Caltrans' request to consider the alternative of a 500 room hotel. Staff advised the off -ramp is not a part of this report, the report deals with only one of the off -ramp alternatives, this EIR is concerned only with the proposed Hyatt project. Continued comment: if all employees live in Burlingame there will be an impact; address secondary employment impact on Broadway, reexamine traffic generation figures for the hotel; many people do come over to Broadway from that area now, provide additional information about impact on Broadway; page 42, Views from the Burlingame Hills, should read "near Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive" rather than Madison Drive; discussed possibility of analyzing jobs, existing and projected, in the same manner as the traffic analyzer, staff advised this would be very difficult because of absence of valid information and for this reason its usefulness would be limited and could be misleading; include more detailed treatment of the bulk of this hotel on the community itself; concern about number of cars, request information on how present Hyatt employees commute to work. The Chair thanked Marty Abell for his presentation. Responses will be prepared and included in the Final EIR to all letters received and Commission comments this evening. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commmission Minutes July 23, 1984 ITEMS FOR ACTION 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 6 AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2-84 MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE MAY, 1984 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CP Monroe referenced her staff report with attachments: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2-84 with Exhibit A, a summary of Commission actions on the May, 1984 General Plan Amendment; and Planning Commission minutes of May 29, 1984; June 11, 1984; June 25, 1984 and July 9, 1984. A public hearing should be held on Item #6 this evening. Commission action is a recommendation to City Council, it is not appealable. Council will then hold public hearings on all the recommendations; these will be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation and noticed to all affected property owners. (6) south side of Carmelita between E1 Camino and Chula Vista, change land use designation from low density residential to medium density residential. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Arlene Bennett, 1041 Laguna Avenue spoke in favor: received notice of the hearing, have discussed with some of the neighbors and with the Planning Department; neighborhood would like to keep the area as it is. Responding to C. Giomi who noted there are many R-1 homes in this area, Ms. Bennett advised the neighbors would approve R-2 zoning but would not want to go to a higher density. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue asked why notification was sent to homeowners. CP explained Comission direction to staff, in view of a proposed policy change for the city, that all affected property owners be notified. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend to City Council a change in the general plan land use designation for the south side of Carmelita between E1 Camino and Chula Vista from low density residential to medium density residential (equivalent of R-2 zoning). Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. The Chair then determined no members of the audience wished to speak on Item #5 of the general plan amendment, frontage on California between Juanita and Rhinette. No change made in Commission's recommendation approved at the July 9, 1984 meeting. - Resolution No. 2-84 Making Recommendations on Various Amendments to the Land Use Element of the Burlingame General Plan CA stated that public hearings have been held on all items in Exhibit A of the resolution, the final hearing (Item #6) having been held this evening. This resolution is merely a recommendation to City Council; comments from the audience on the resolution are not appropriate at this meeting, they should be taken to the City Council. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1984 C. Jacobs moved to recommend to the City Council Planning Commission Resolution No. 2-84 with attached Exhibit A, including the decision on Item #6 this evening. Second C. Giomi. Comment on the motion: request Item b, California Drive frontage between Bellevue and Floribunda, be deleted from the resolution and considered as a separate item in view of the 3-3 vote which, according to Commission rules, is a denial. It was pointed out the minutes reflect this vote; City Attorney advised procedure requires this amendment must now go to the City Council. It was agreed between Commission and staff that those items which require rezoning as a result of Commission's recommendation will be highlighted in the staff report to Council. C. Jacobs amended her motion to add to Item b. "on a 3-3 vote";.C. Giomi amended her second. Motion approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor abstaining (not present at the July 9, 1984 meeting). Staff will transmit to Council. Recess 9:10 P.M., reconvene 9:18 P.M. 3. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 700 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1127 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report, 7/23/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/12/84; June 11, 1984 letter from the applicant, Eugene A. Klein; staff review: Fire Marshal (6/19/84), City Engineer (6/18/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/26/84); study meeting minutes, July 9, 1984; July 12, 1984 letter from the applicant; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed July 13, 1984; and plans date stamped June 12, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Eugene Klein, Sr. and Eugene Klein, Jr., Barker Blueprint Co. (applicant) were present. Mr. Klein stressed that to remain competitive automated equipment was necessary, this has been purchased and he needs space for this equipment and for storage; he has been in business at this location since 1961; the new equipment will reduce employees by one person. There were no audience comments in favor. George Demetrius, 1160 Paloma Avenue spoke in opposition: he is an associate of Town and Country Realty which manages three buildings in the 1100 block of Chula Vista; there are two on -street parking spaces painted green in front of 1127 Chula Vista, these spaces are monopolized by Barker Blueprint 24 hours a day and all weekend; deliveries are made to Barker Blueprint through the front door, trucks block Chula Vista and are a hazard on both Chula Vista and Broadway; concerned this expansion without parking will set a precedent in the area. In rebuttal Eugene Klein Sr. stated his cars do not monopolize the green zones, his business vehicles are out on pickups and deliveries Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1984 between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.; green zones are open to everyone and are used by everyone. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there is no rear delivery area at 1127 Chula Vista, deliveries are made in front and never take longer than 10-15 minutes; cars used by the business for pickup/deliveries are parked on Chula Vista overnight; of the 11 employees, 3-4 walk to work or take the bus, the others drive; permitted uses in the C-1 zone were enumerated, if the variance were granted and a new use replaced Barker Blueprint the parking variance would go with the land and structure; staff has received complaints about ammonia odor, the new equipment will have no odor and will be the major part of Barker Blueprint's equipment; applicant commented ammonia is not a hazardous material. It was noted there is no site area at all for parking, the PG&E easement at the rear cannot be used for access. One Commissioner stated his difficulty in finding exceptional circumstances in order to grant the variance. Further comment: concern about applicant's continued use of on -street parking for his commercial vehicles; would like to find a way to require the applicant find off-street parking; granting the variance will not make the parking situation any better or any worse, situation will remain the same; understand the need to improve the business with new automated equipment but have concern about granting this variance in an impacted area; with any new use of the site the parking variance will follow, city has no control, should look at the long range picture; reluctant to grant the variance, it would benefit the applicant and the community but have concern about setting a precedent; recently a parking variance was approved on Broadway, this business has been on the site many years, lot is landlocked, parking is a problem everywhere, trucks park all over town, this seems a minor request; purpose of a variance is to control parking, do not want to restrict growth but Commission does have the power through the variance process to control unwarranted growth, in this case approval will not increase parking, think it should be allowed. C. Garcia found there were exceptional circumstances in that this site is landlocked, the existing building was constructed to the property line with no parking space available; that the variance is necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owner in order to expand his business and continue to be competitive; it is merely an extension of an existing building and it would not affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Garcia moved for approval of this variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of June 19, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of June 18, 1984 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 26, 1984 be met; and (2) that the addition be built consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped June 12, 1984. Second C. Taylor; motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Leahy and Schwalm dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1984 4. SIGN EXCEPTION - ARATA SUBARU - 198 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Item withdrawn by the applicant. 5. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A WALL SIGN AT 533 AIRPORT BOULEVARD WHICH EXCEEDS SIGN CODE LIMITS, ZONED C-4, BY GTE SPRINT CP Monroe reviewed this request to exceed sign code requirements for height and size. Reference staff report, 7/23/84; Sign Permit received June 13, 1984; Sign Exception received June 13, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (6/18/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/18/84), City Engineer (6/18/84); sign drawing date stamped June 21, 1984; study meeting minutes, July 9, 1984; July 13, 1984 letter from the applicant; staff report and appeal hearing minutes covering denial of a roof sign at 533 Airport Boulevard in 1979; and notice of hearing mailed July 13, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter and justification for the request, history of office building signage in the Anza Area. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John W. Olsen, GTE Sprint, applicant stated his belief times have changed since 1979 when it was said office buildings do not need this type of signage, GTE Sprint is located on about 35 sites in Burlingame, they are not asking for signs at all locations; had not considered the proposed sign as advertising but agree it would appear to be advertising if located on the Bayshore Freeway side of the building. Applicant amended his sign exception application, moving the proposed signage to the Airport Boulevard frontage; Commission accepted this change for hearing this evening. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the city needs a master directional signage program for that area, think approval of this sign would set a dangerous precedent; applicant stated signage was necessary for out of town employees, senior management and visitors to find the building; Commission wondered why an address and a ground sign at the building itself was not enough; code allows no signage above the third floor level; proposed sign would be lighted; presume applicant's reasons for the sign were realistic, designed for employees, when driving up Airport Boulevard will they be able to see the sign; applicant advised they would because of the angle of the building; the identification problem of GTE Sprint was recognized and the large number and type of employees/visitors coming to Burlingame. C. Giomi moved to deny this sign exception. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SIGN EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW TWO WALL SIGNS AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD WHICH EXCEED SIGN CODE LIMITS, ZONED C-4, BY GTE SPRINT CP Monroe reviewed this request for two wall signs to be placed on the primary and secondary frontage. Reference staff report, 7/23/84; Sign Permit application received June 13, 1984; Sign Exception application Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1984 received June 13, 1984; staff review: City Engineer (June 18, 1984), Chief Building Inspector (June 18, 1984), Fire Marshal (June 18, 1984); sign drawing date stamped June 13, 1984; letter from the property owner, Hillsboro Properties (June 11, 1984); letter from the applicant (July 13, 1984); study meeting minutes (July 9, 1984); Council appeal hearing minutes and staff report, office building signage, 1979; and notice of hearing mailed June 13, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's justification, letter from the property owner, history of signage for office buildings in the Anza Area. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John W. Olsen, applicant stated this is GTE Sprint's national headquarters and he felt it would be to Burlingame's advantage to have the building identified; it will help people find the building which has been upgraded; GTE Sprint is adding much to the city and feel they are deserving of this signage. Skip Green, Hillsboro Properties spoke in favor: we are one of the owners of the 800 Airport Boulevard building and proud to have Sprint locate there; other tenants of the building have no concern with this signage nor do the property owners. There were no comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: employees/visitors generally arrive by taxi from the airport, top management is picked up in corporate cars; responding to a question about the need to illuminate the signs, applicant stated people arriving from the East Coast often arrive late, in winter it gets dark early, Sprint also has double shifts; there are not a lot of signage alternatives for this site and do not believe it would be a grant of special privilege to allow this sign for a national headquarters; agree they need a sign but would prefer no illumination; with the sophistication of the present development in that area feel it is time for the city to implement a directional signage program which would enhance the area and satisfy the businesses located there; there is an identification need and not much alternative for placement of the signs, certainly this signage is smaller than the previous La Baie signs, they will have people coming to the site equal to a restaurant or hotel. C. Schwalm found there were special circumstances applicable to this property in the need for identification of this business due to the great number of outside people who will be coming here; that the building only lends itself to signing at the proposed location; that it is a smaller sign than previously on the site with more class. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this sign exception application with the condition that the sign be unlighted. Second C. Taylor. Following discussion on the motion C. Garcia moved to amend the motion to allow only the sign on the Airport Boulevard frontage, moving this sign to the center of the building. Second C. Schwalm; motion amendment failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Leahy, Taylor and Graham dissenting. C. Schwalm's motion for approval failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi, Leahy and Graham dissenting. There being no other motion the application was denied. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1984 ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MONTESSORI SCHOOL, 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE Set for hearing August 13, 1984. 8. PARKING VARIANCE - 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE Requests: information on the amount of parking leased from Northpark by the Velvet Turtle and Mike Harvey Oldsmobile; clarification on use of the shed, materials stored there, etc. Item set for hearing August 13, 1984. 9. RENEWAL OF USE PERMIT - STAR EXCAVATION - 1645 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: what are the applicant's plans to alleviate the problem of dirt and mud on the site and on the street this winter; information on the original permit request. Set for hearing August 13, 1984. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT - ACCUPRESSURE MASSAGE SERVICE - 1290 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: other businesses located in this office building. Set for hearing August 13, 1984. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its July 16, 1984 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary