Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.06.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, June 23, 1986 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: Commissioner Taylor Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the June 9, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item #3, page 4, add to first paragraph, "second C. Jacobs". AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN 8' FENCE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 25 HIGHLAND AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 6/23/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, code requirements for a fence exception. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined this is a single family home located on an R-4 lot. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant was present. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. During discussion applicant stated the extra 2' of fence was needed for more privacy, the patios of the condominium to the rear look right into his lot; prior to the condominiums the lot was vacant at the rear, there was a house at the front with people living in the front part of this house and a garage at the back of the lot which was used primarily for storage. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances with this property in that during construction of the condominium at the rear a landslide had occurred at property line and this property lost its fencing and landscaping; the fence is necessary for an R-1 use with R-4 directly behind; there would be no public hazard and neighboring properties would not be materially damaged. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the fence as installed shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 28, 1986; and (2) that the portion Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 of the fence connecting the 8' fence at the rear of 25 Highland and 27 Highland shall also be 81; remaining side property line fences shall stay at the code allowed 6' maximum. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: the connecting portion of fence between 25 and 27 Highland is proposed to be 8' as well; a site inspection showed the condominium at the rear has a massive appearance, 4' deck at the rear of the condo would look over a 6' fence. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN 8' FENCE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 27 HIGHLAND AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 6/23/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, findings necessary to grant a fence exception. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Brian Stubbs, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this property with a condominium development, including 4' deck, at the rear; that there would be no public hazard and neighboring properties would not be materially damaged. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the fence as installed shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 3, 1986; and (2) that the portion of the fence connecting the 8' fence at the rear of 25 Highland and 27 Highland shall also be 81; remaining side property line fences shall remain at the code allowed 6' maximum. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 13, SUPPLEMENTARY MAP TO MAP NO. 1 OF THE TOWN OF BURLINGAME (65 CALIFORNIA DRIVE) Reference City Engineer's agenda memo, 6/16/86. CE Erbacher advised this is a request/requirement to combine two lots and effectuate construction and accessing across property lines; he recommended the map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Graham moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. 4. REVIEW OF THE SEQUOIAS-BURLINGAME LIFE CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AT 1781 EL CAMINO REAL 4A. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A LIFE CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY ON THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL GROUNDS AT 1781 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 4B. VARIANCE (FOR ACCESS TO PARKING REQUIREMENT) FOR HILLHAVEN CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL AT 1609 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3 4C. TWO VARIANCES (FOR ACCESS TO REQUIRED PARKING AND TO AMOUNT OF PARKING) FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 1515 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3 Reference staff reports, 6/23/86, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed this proposal to build a life care facility for the elderly on a 5.35 acre portion of the Peninsula Hospital site, property is zoned unclassified, application also includes a proposal to relocate the main entrance to the hospital site off Trousdale at Magnolia. CP reviewed details of the request; use of R-3 district regulations for comparison purposes; parking variances required for 1609 and 1515 Trousdale; environmental review; land use and zoning designations; staff review; applicant's letter; comments from the public (included in the packet) (letters in support received by Commissioners from the following: Betty and George Cavalli, 5/28/86; Albert and Frances Biggs, May 30, 1986; Eldon and Yvonne Peterson, 1608 Quesada Way, June 17, 1986) (petition in opposition with 250 signatures) (letters from the public received after preparation of staff report: Mr. and Mrs. L. V. Twohey, 1636 Albemarle, 6/18/86; Edna M. Latta, 1701 Albemarle, 6/20/86; Mr. and Mrs. F. E. Vignati, 1640 Balboa, 6/18/86; Helen J. Weil, 5 Valdivia Court, 6/20/86; Paul and Marianne Fluss, 1661 Albemarle, 6/18/86; George and Dorothy Cawthron, Menlo Park/Palo Alto, 6/18/86); Ralph Knight memorandum, June 20, 1986; questions at study discussed in the staff report. One public hearing for the three items involved was suggested, the variances should be acted upon first, findings of overriding concern must be made in order to act affirmatively on the special permit for the Sequoias project. Thirty-two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion/determinations: the project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan; if the 1515 Trousdale property were sold it would be eight parking spaces deficient, that is why the variance is required; applicant's employee counts are given as full time equivalent; height of the structure is 150'-6" top of curb to top of parapet, it is 161' to top of elevator penthouse. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. David Carr, 216 Park Road, attorney representing Mills -Peninsula Hospital and Northern California Presbyterian Homes (NCPH) addressed Commission. His comments: they have a list of 240 Burlingame residents indicating interest in the project, in 1947 a founding group of local citizens was formed (Peninsula Hospital District), the hospital property was annexed to the city in 1951 after which the hospital was constructed; hospital service has expanded and the district is now joined with Mills Hospital for better service; in 1979 the hospital recognized a significant need of the local aging population and the absence of available life care, proposed site appeared best for this purpose, hospital evaluated developers and selected NCPH. NCPH found there is a greater need Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 in Burlingame for this type of project than in any other city, the financial status of its citizens would permit them to take advantage of the facility. It is a unique facility including senior citizens housing, nursing home and skilled nursing care; all amenities and services will be provided; residents will have their own community without having to leave Burlingame with life time cost free medical and nursing care. It will also be a resource for the community, nursing beds will be available for the community as well as special help for debilitating diseases. Hospital will lease the land to NCPH, hospital is run by a local board of directors; NCPH, headquartered in San Francisco, includes on its board mid -Peninsula people, it is not a national chain. Mr. Carr introduced Ralph Knight, president of NCPH, who illustrated his remarks with the use of slides. His comments: NCPH provides housing, services, medical and social care for persons over the age of 62 who live in Northern California; they have six facilities, three of which are life care with extensive waiting lists; there are three low/moderate income elderly projects; the six facilities house 1,700 residents and have stable, competitive rates. NCPH is proposing a project in Burlingame at the invitation of Mills -Peninsula Hospital, there is a need because of the high number of people in the city over 65. Waiting lists for other projects indicate 95% of the people live within five miles of the city. Sequoias -Burlingame will provide 330 apartment units, an underground parking garage (only one car per apartment will be allowed), personal care (also available to community residents), skilled nursing beds. Personal care skilled nursing will be available on a short term basis as well as treatment of debilitating illnesses, therapy, etc. This life care program provides all services for the life of the resident; if a person's income does not keep up with the cost of care, NCPH takes responsibility for these costs. Mr. Knight addressed the affordability of Sequoias -Burlingame, comparing living costs at the facility with 1988-89 estimated costs for comparable one bedroom and two bedroom units elsewhere. Derek Parker, Anshen + Allen, architects, discussed the proposed project using the overhead projector to illustrate his comments. He clarified the distance to the eight spaces for the 1515 Trousdale parking is about 1001, not half a block; the elevator penthouse does not cover 5% of the roof area, therefore is not considered in height of the building, building height is 150'-6". His presentation: design of the various units was illustrated on the screen; almost half of the 5.35 acres remains in open space, they will increase landscaping along the swale and keep existing trees on El Camino Real; building profile terraces back from Ray Park, from Albemarle the tower line is below the tree line; with the new entrance circulation will be greatly simplified and traffic hazards lessened; there will be no short term loss of parking, parking structure for the hospital will be built first; traffic will be mitigated since residents of the project will have only one car per unit, staff will be encouraged to use public transportation and not use Ray Park as a thoroughfare; the architectural design uses double glazed windows, there would be less Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 aircraft noise impact than on homes in the area; noise abatement and dust control procedures will be used during construction; regarding height and mass, highest portion will be against the blood bank on Trousdale, narrowest facing Peninsula Hospital; roof of Sequoias is 8' below roof of hospital; design includes terraces, they will use landscaping to soften the impact, the building has been lowered adjacent to residential spaces; there will be no shadows created by this structure on residential neighborhoods, existing trees will throw shadows farther into the neighborhoods. Mr. Parker stated this is a high quality residential environment, sensitively designed within the confines of the site. Mr. Carr then introduced United Airlines representative, Gene Langford, who stated he had been a pilot with United for 26 years out of SFO and could see no reason why the Sequoias and the airport would have any adverse effect on each other; there is only one runway in this direction, there are landings toward the south which come over Oakland and touch down at the far end of the runway, there are takeoffs toward the south with a rigid climb and rigid left turn, seldom would the turn come on this side of Bayshore Highway; wind is seldom from the south. Concern about airplanes short of fuel and forced landings in the city is not a valid concern, a generous amount of fuel upon arrival is a requirement. Concerning height of the left turn, regulations require a turn at 300'-400' which should be about at the end of the runway. Anthony Nash, Charles Salter Associates, acoustical consultants, addressed aircraft noise: reflection of aircraft noise into adjacent neighborhoods is very unlikely due to distance of the tall tower from r adjacent neighbors and relatively small profile of the buildings; buildings may provide some acoustical shield; noise levels within the apartments themselves will meet state and local guidelines. Chm. Giomi then asked for public comment in favor of the project. The following spoke in favor: Johanne Foster, 41 Arundel Road; Mrs. Raymond Stites, 462 Cumberland Road; Mrs. Clarence Wolfe, 2865 Hillside Drive; George Cavalli, 2109 Trousdale Drive; Peter Hwang, 1212 Vancouver Avenue; Eldon Peterson, 1608 Quesada Way; Charles H. Mason, Jr., president, Mills Peninsula Hospitals; Jacqueline Meyer, 1720 E1 Camino Real; John Boucher, property owner, 522 Almer Road; Mrs. Lester C. Gunther, Jr., 333 Chapin Lane; Juliet Dowd, 3047 Hillside Drive; Dolly Toms, in business at 400 Primrose Road; Daisy Hoffma, 1629 Balboa Avenue; Donald E. Newman, M.D., 3066 Atwater Drive; DeWayne Moore, 865 Longview Road, Hillsborough. Their comments: considering the demographics of Burlingame, there is a need for this facility, 22-25% of city residents are Seniors and could benefit, have worked with Seniors professionally and observed how important the assurance of life care is; Seniors need to plan for the future, such a facility would enable citizens to stay in the community without disrupting their lives; regarding concerns about noise level, understand insulation will be of fine quality and probably there will be less noise impact than in most homes; have lived for many years Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 one-quarter mile behind Peninsula Hospital and with the exception of four days a year there has never been a problem with aircraft noise in Burlingame Hills, developers are experienced in this type of project; there are 600 such projects in the U. S., am glad that some in Burlingame are foresighted enough to consider this facility; our mothers have lived in another NCPH facility, received excellent care and entertainment, would hope we could retire in the Sequoias - Burlingame; have strongly recommended the facility to parents from New York State for the following reasons: financial security, a strong sense of community, attractive environment, near public transportation and shopping, daughters would be able to walk to see their grandparents; one-quarter of the city's population are Senior citizens and this facility will be affordable to 57% of them; in addition to the development of the Senior Focus Center this facility will respond to the needs of the community in a positive way, preserve independence of Seniors, Mills -Peninsula Hospital is committed to the Seniors issue but is also concerned about the impact on the community of this facility, they have worked hard to mitigate any adverse impacts; as a nurse at Mills -Peninsula have worked in support programs/groups for the elderly, have concern about isolation of Seniors and moving them from one facility to another, with this proposal their environment would not change and they would have 24 hour support; represent a home sharing health and information program, have seen the need for a variety of options for Seniors including life care which will respond to present and future needs of the elderly. Would be delighted to have a place to move into in retirement and not have to leave Burlingame; facility will enhance the city, it will not reduce property values, better to know what is going into a vacant area than not knowing what is going in next door; have reached Senior citizen age, home on Balboa has more than tripled in value and we are in a position to move into such a facility, would be more desirable than pulling up roots and moving away; work with OUTREACH and support programs for Seniors, needs change as the population ages and their needs can be helped with such a facility, we must provide the necessary support, security and choices in care and caring for the elderly, the community will be judged on how we face and deal with this new reality; have worked with the hospital geriatric committee, would endorse all statements regarding the needs of the elderly; regarding aircraft noise, work in a building in South San Francisco under flight patterns of most of the air traffic, this building was designed to be soundproof and proved to be so, there is the technical ability to do this. The following spoke in opposition: Anthony Kakis, 2009 Clarice Lane; Judy Scott, 1116 Dufferin Avenue; Thomas McCall, 1637 Coronado Way; Jim Oppermann, 1653 Coronado Way; Richard McGough, 1712 Davis Drive; Vivian Manfredi, 1649 Coronado Way; Bob Quilici, 1641 Coronado Way; Ruth' Rosenberger, 1109 Dufferin Avenue; Al Grenadier, 1625 Coronado Way; Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive; Jean Ann Carroll, 1525 Meadow Lane; Marie Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive; Peter Wanger, 1604 McDonald Way; Harry Yuill, 1657 Coronado Way; Dorothy Cusick, 1716 Ralston Avenue; Steven Perdue, 1601 Davis Drive. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 Their comments: do residents directly behind the project as well as other Burlingame residents want this built in their backyards; EIR stated the negative impacts, each impact would be a disruption or a hazard, construction would be a disruption of our daily lives over a period of two years; not opposed to the project itself, but do oppose the proposed location; will cause too much traffic, too much noise; have served on the board of a Senior citizens project for the last 10 years, this type of facility is needed but not on this site; project is out of scale for its location, the highrise is main objection, have no problem with the other structures on the site; all structures in this area are residential with the exception of the hospital, concerned about loss of open space, removing the buffer zone between the hospital and residential area; city planners have done a good job in the city, each use in its own place, but this project will be as big as the new Marriott hotel; this is a non-profit facility, who will pay for expansion of the sewer system and sewer treatment plant improvements. A petition in opposition with 119 signatures was presented. Further comment in opposition follows. Concerns: disruption of major traffic patterns, lower property values; outsiders could come in and use the facility but the city would have to foot the bill, object to the method of operation in that one could buy in, die in one year and who would get the balance of the money paid in; Dufferin is adjacent to the proposed site, already have the Senior Focus program which is a big noise problem, also have an existing sewer problem; project will benefit a portion of the Burlingame population, to benefit the entire city it should be put on the tax rolls; too much bulk for the site which will result in greater impact, would foresee a traffic problem on Trousdale, if city allows the requested height believe it would be liable in the event of an airplane or helicopter accident. Bought house nearby just two years ago partially because of the green space to the rear, concern about access road behind her house, possibility of generator outside back windows, cannot tell employees not to use a road, area is disrupted by traffic now; concerns: loss of open space, massive size and scale of the project, would set a precedent for highrise structures on the west side of Bayshore Highway and the west side of E1 Camino Real; possibility of hospital buying 1515 Trousdale, tearing down the existing building and asking the city to allow another highrise structure; re back blast noise, when talking about 45 dBA you are talking about an average, when planes take off back blast noise is a much higher single event noise; concern about changing voting patterns, what will happen to a school bond issue; urge this project be built somewhere else, it should not be a compromise situation. A newspaper ad in the San Mateo Times, June 18, 1986, was presented for the record and commented upon: Peninsula Hospital states it has seen the need and wants to provide for it; Sequoias can take a small number of the population, what about the rest of us; we bought our homes in good faith in an R-1 (single family) district, the project will destroy the character of the neighborhood and set a precedent in R-1; parking figures are somewhat misleading, think traffic congestion will be much higher than the full time equivalent; traffic in the neighborhoods will increase with potential for accidents to children; reflected noise off Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 the existing hospital can only be increased by the project; hospital stands between neighborhood homes and the TV transmission tower now, this building will make matters worse; it is bad policy to place obstacles in the way of a flight path, FAA prescribes 45 minute fuel reserve, how many pilots use up that reserve; understand the project would care for 585 people, what percentage of the needs of this community does that represent, a lot of trouble for 10% of the need; object to providing non-profit status to this facility, the Retirement Inn and nursing homes in the city pay taxes, non-profit status for shelter of the well-to-do would have vast consequences for the future tax base of Burlingame; recognize the need for this type of facility but feel the city cannot compromise its better judgment on location, site is not appropriate; a 13 story tower adjacent to this area with the loss of open space will change the character of the neighborhood, is this the first such proposal received by the city, have the developers looked at alternative sites. David Carr spoke in rebuttal: Commission must find certain circumstances exist on the property to grant the variances, these might include it is a proposal to change the entrance of two buildings to locations which would be controlled by traffic signals, traffic control would be improved by the lighting system at the corner; in support of the eight parking spaces lost at 1515 Trousdale, because of the new configuration the hospital will dedicate eight additional spaces on its property within 100' of the medical office building, the variance to parking would run with the land, a great deal of parking at 1515 _. Trousdale is actually taken by doctors who park and go back and forth to the hospital, parking could be limited to users of the building. Findings of overriding concern must be made for the special permit, even the opposition has admitted the need for some type of full care housing for the elderly, no one wants a project in his backyard, it could be proposed anywhere in the city and those residents would object; height of the building is a part of the economics of this project, without concentrating in a highrise structure the developer would be required to use a great mass of lowrise buildings and more than 55% lot coverage, this would also result in raising the pricing structure and possibly eliminating some of the services. Developer must pay for the increased sewage treatment as well as other increases in city services. There is already a list of 270 people from Burlingame interested in the project. This property is not on the Burlingame tax rolls and it will never pay tax no matter what is put there so long as the hospital owns it, hospital could expand on this property, it could build low cost housing; this is not on the tax rolls and developer is not taking anything off the tax rolls to put the Sequoias in Burlingame. Regarding noise consultant statements, if they differ the city hired the EIR consultant. Would point out the residents of the Portola Valley Sequoias have helped in passing school bond issues. Believe the points raised have been given attention and have been adequately met. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 Existing trees will remain, others will be added; one element of the project is that within 50' of residential property structures are only two stories high. Change is occurring, everyone is against change whether good or bad. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. A recess was called at 10:05 P.M., reconvene 10:20 P.M. Commission discussion/clarification: height of structure (150'-6" to top of parapet, 161' to top of elevator penthouse); height of elevator penthouse is about 2' taller than the existing hospital; landscaping; lot coverage; findings of overriding concern, in particular increased risk of accident to emergency helicopter service and nearby sensitive noise receptors; difficulty in making findings for a variance which refer to ingress/egress to the hospital rather than a reference to the site involved; priority for residents of Burlingame; FAA measures height from mean sea level to top of highest most point on the structure (the elevator penthouse), it was recommended developer put lowest possible aviation warning lights on this structure; other NCPH facilities are not directly adjacent to a hospital but do have direct contact with nearby hospitals; suggested conditions for the variances have attempted to tie in the relocated roadway with these properties; if the variances are denied it will be a different project; what streets will people using hospital surface parking use; if approved, possibility of channeling entrance on Marco Polo to encourage right hand turn going out and left hand turn going in, CE felt this would not be enforceable. Commission statements follow. C. Schwalm: in studying the EIR and the project find one of the best analyses made is Exhibit A, Impacts, Mitigations and Findings by the City Planner; issues involved are identified; overriding issue is balancing the importance of this project to the elderly against the loss to people in the neighborhoods; suggested conditions are strong; Exhibit A states the issues and how to balance them out, i.e., open space - landowner has a right to use his property; value - there is no question of the value of the service they will render; use is in conformance with the General Plan; project will give older people a chance to enjoy the last years of their lives; noise - will be less than in one's home; traffic - impacts shown in the EIR are minor. Think the point is - does this community have a social conscience, believe denial would be a disservice to its Senior citizens and impacts are not so great that the project should be rejected; it would be located next to an existing tall building, the hospital, think impact is lessened because of that. C. Jacobs: everyone here is for people helping people, large percentage of the city are 65 and over, but at what cost? Other Sequoias projects are much smaller, why does Burlingame need almost double the size of these. Think a project could live on that property but one which is in scale with the site; it is too massive and would be the tallest building in Burlingame. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 C. Garcia: will flooding problems on Dufferin be resolved prior to operation of this facility (staff advised conditions require all improvements to the sewer system and to storm sewer collection system would have to be made prior to occupancy of the project). Chm. Giomi: is cogeneration plant mentioned in letter from the applicant in conjunction with the one at the hospital recently reviewed by the city (staff advised this was to serve the hospital only, if Sequoias wish to have a cogeneration plant they would need a separate application to the Commission); proposal is a first class project but have serious reservations about this location, regardless of the condition requiring future residents be notified of noise impacts and potential accident risk, it does not mitigate the problems that exist by constructing the highest building in the city underneath the most dangerous flight path; this is a potential hazard to future residents and the surrounding neighborhoods; cannot vote for the present height. C. Graham: request clarification of entry requirements (Mr. Carr stated NCPH has income requirements to verify residents are able to meet the monthly fee, fees are based on a sliding scale depending upon the unit, with average income of $25,000 no one would have a problem getting in, there is a subsidy program which guarantees a resident a lifetime in the same facility should his income decrease); have problem with the bulk of the project, the city has not allowed this much bulk in the Anza Area, project is on E1 Camino only a few feet back, hospital is set much further back and its bulk is less obvious; this would be the tallest building in Burlingame and is in an area not planned for tall development; parking is inadequate; overlapping of employee/visitor parking may not work; traffic generation in and out of Ray Park is a concern but perhaps it could be regulated; live on Paloma and airplanes come over to the west of my house 99% of the time, have been told the big potential hazard is with the sharp left hand turn and the hospital is in an approximate crash area; believe noise will be a problem, particularly in the highrise, noise is bad on Alturas, think it would be more intense at the 5th level of this structure; cannot vote for the proposal. With reference to Item 4-B, Variance, 1609 Trousdale, C. Jacobs stated there was no overwhelming need to relocate the hospital entrance to Trousdale, the current access to Hillhaven is not so unsafe as to justify relocating the entrance to their parking lot. Being unable to make findings to support the variance, C. Jacobs moved for denial. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: if variances are denied Commission could be considering the entrance of the project off El Camino Real; cannot find a reason to grant a variance for something on another site. C. Schwalm moved to amend the motion to deny the variance without prejudice; second C. Garcia. Amendment was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Motion to deny the variance without prejudice passed on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting, C. Taylor absent. With reference to Item 4-C, two Variances, 1515 Trousdale, C. Jacobs stated there is no current problem with the access to this property and she found a problem with granting parking on another site to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 June 23, 1986 compensate for a variance; she was unable to make findings to support the variance. C. Schwalm commented findings could be: to allow a more efficient entrance into the hospital and Sequoias project and still maintain more parking than they now have. C. Jacobs moved to deny the two variances without prejudice. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Schwalm moved that the Special Permit for a life care residential facility for the elderly on a portion of the Peninsula Hospital site at 1781 E1 Camino Real be approved subject to revision of the project entrance to E1 Camino Real and the 32 conditions as listed in the staff report, and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits. Motion died for lack of a second. With the statement that the project has an FAR of 2.75 (commercial FAR is 3.0); this is a dense project; code parking requirements are not met; 55% of the 5.35 acre site is covered; the project is 150'-6" high, the tallest building in the city; it is massive, the complete front of the hospital will be covered; think applicant should try to work out something better, a project without this much impact, C. Jacobs moved to deny the Special Permit. C. Schwalm moved to amend the motion to deny without prejudice. C. Jacobs stated a revised project will take a great deal of staff time and she felt the applicant should pay for this and not be denied without prejudice. C. Garcia seconded the motion to amend; motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Giomi dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Motion to deny the Special Permit was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 11:15 P.M.; reconvene 11:20 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - OFFICE FOR A FREE, COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER AT HOOVER SCHOOL, 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: review people on site now and parking provided; circulation area of the publication; how is it delivered; copy of the publication. Item set for hearing July 14, 1986. 6. TWO SIGN EXCEP'T'IONS - 1420 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Requests: clarify property line, is aerial correct; comment on Sign B from adjacent property owner; is encroachment permit needed for Signs D and B; existing signage; letter stating why they need Signs D and B over and above any other building in Burlingame. Item set for hearing July 14, 1986. Page 12 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - 1006-1008 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Requests: statement from applicant in justification of his request; clarification of new construction in the front. Item set for hearing July 14, 1986. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - SELF -STORAGE OPERATION - 1231 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: confirm days of the week operation is open; statement from City Engineer regarding controlling traffic on a private street. Item set for hearing July 14, 1986. 9. PARKING VARIANCE - MEDICAL OFFICE/RESTAURANT/RETAIL BUILDING - 1800 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT - MEDICAL OFFICE/RESTAURANT/RETAIL BUILDING - 1800 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Requests: impact on the convalescent hospital of traffic noise from the open ramp; clarify structures on the roof; distribution of handicap stalls; discuss landscaping to soften the facade of the building; is parking secured. Items set for hearing July 14, 1986. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 16, 1986 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary