HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.05.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 12, 1986
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, May 12, 1986 at 7:31 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; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the April 28, 1986 meeting were unanimously
approved with the following addition: page 5, item #5, 4th
paragraph following the motion, add "second C. Taylor".
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
CONSENT ITEM
1. MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A 9' WIDE CARPORT RATHER THAN 10'
AS REQUIRED AT 9 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1
C. Schwalm moved for approval of this minor modification. Second C.
Graham; motion failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Jacobs,
Taylor and Giomi voting no. Staff will bring this item to the
Commission at a subsequent meeting for full review as a variance
application.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. REVIEW OF FEIR-67P (RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT) FOR THE
SEQUOIAS OF BURLINGAME LIFE CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY
AT 1781 EL CAMINO REAL
CP Monroe reviewed the purpose of the Final Addendum (Response to
Comments document) and EIR as a disclosure document and city procedures
for certification of the EIR by City Council. All interested persons
were notified of the availability of the Final Addendum. CP noted May
7, 1986 letter from Ronald Wilson, Airports Commission correcting a
previous letter erroneously stating the number of flights per year
which depart southerly and mandate a left turn over the proposed site
and Errata sheet, page 59, indicating the necessary changes in the
text.
Commission discussion and concerns with the Final EIR document follow.
Page 38, item 5.1, addressing airborne dust during construction period
and a person being responsible for monitoring a dust control program 24
hours a day, would developer bear the liability and expense of such a
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986
program (staff advised developer would bear the cost of this service);
page 39, item 6.2, believe the tower would have more than a negligible
effect on TV reception for those neighbors in the shadow of the
building; page 42, item 10.2, noise, impact of single event noise from
planes warming up has not been addressed (staff commented the document
disclosed there is nothing which could be done to mitigate this
impact); Exhibit A, item 34, concerning exit at the south end of the
site onto El Camino Real during construction period to mitigate
combined construction and hospital traffic, staff stated that the
traffic consultant suggested this as a temporary solution for the
alternative of retaining the main entrance on El Camino.
Document dismisses the noise factor from airplanes as relatively
unimportant and states it cannot be mitigated, perhaps this is
adequate, would prefer to have all aircraft noise impact material
integrated into one section of the report, impact of the airport has
been minimized, does the EIR truly address the impact of this structure
on the surrounding area and on the people who will live in that
building (staff commented item 27 in Exhibit A attempts to address the
combination of noise events). Page 43, believe single event noise
levels are higher than stated; see nothing in the report addressing
single event noise levels during stormy weather. A Commissioner asked
if the code regulates noise levels; staff commented on the guidelines
in the Noise Element of the General Plan and State requirement for
sleeping areas, there are impacts which cannot be mitigated and must be
accepted in exchange for the overriding benefit of the project to
elderly people. Think there is a need for more precise information to
determine if the document has dealt adequately with the noise impact;
the figures given do not address the factor of flights during winter
storms.
Further Commission comment: the problem of noise has been addressed in
the EIR and a specific statement made that it can't be mitigated, the
trade-off is a home for the elderly; think the Draft EIR was well done,
that the public and Commission posed pertinent questions at the public
hearing and consultant has addressed these comments in the Final
Addendum, find the document adequate to recommend to Council for
certification. Specific comment: pages 3 and 4 are difficult to read,
poor reproduction; page 22, second paragraph, parking for employees and
visitors, take exception to the statement that overlap times are no
longer than 20 minutes; page 36, indicates during construction period
hospital employee parking space would be lost, does this indicate they
would have to park on neighboring streets (staff advised they would
have to park somewhere else, this concern could be handled with the
project conditions); page 44 of the Draft EIR, Figure 17, should show
at Marco Polo 24 cars exiting onto Clarice Lane; page 57, Errata, E-9,
corrections are unclear; there was a comment by a speaker at the public
hearing on sociological concern for developing elderly housing, could
a shared housing program be implemented as an alternative to the
project, this should be addressed (staff advised this could be
addressed in the staff report for the project).
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986
Discussion continued: would have liked to see alternatives which had no
problems or less problems than the proposed project, an alternative
project that was more in keeping with the neighborhood without a
parking variance and lower height; in Exhibit A, 23 of the 36 items
state impact could be reduced to acceptable levels, how is an
acceptable level arrived at; staff commented an acceptable level is a
determination by the City Planner that the impact could be reduced by
the mitigations to a level at which the risk, impact or effect could be
low enough to be accepted, in the case of item 14 (Exhibit A) the walk
signals on Trousdale and E1 Camino Real could be adjusted to extend the
walk phase long enough for.pedestrians to get across the street without
endangering lives and upsetting automobile traffic.
Stating she found the environmental document adequate, C. Jacobs moved
to recommend FEIR-67P to City Council for certification and for
adoption of Commission Resolution recommending this report with Exhibit
A attached. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: have a problem
with this report, the consultant has dealt with all impacts but as a
complete document the negative impacts are minimized, the report may be
adequate but am not satisfied with its accuracy, it tends to minimize
negative impacts unduly, they may be more severe than the document
suggests; believe as a total document it is not adequate. Find the
alternatives insufficient but am more concerned about traffic figures
and their accuracy; believe alternatives should have been dealt with to
a greater extent; document may be technically and legally sufficient
but it gives a different impression than I would wish to give about the
adequacy of the report; noise is a big concern, don't think numbers in
the report approach what they really are.
C. Jacobs withdrew her motion. C. Leahy did not withdraw his second,
stating that whether answers were sufficient or numbers correct it can
be concluded from the document that noise impact cannot be mitigated.
Motion died.
C. Schwalm moved that Commission find the environmental document to be
adequate and that it be recommended to City Council for certification,
and for adoption of Commission Resolution recommending this report with
Exhibit A attached. Second C. Leahy; motion failed on a 3-4 roll call
vote, Cers Garcia, Graham, Jacobs and Taylor voting no.
CP requested clear direction from Commission for further response by
the consultant. Commission requests: single noise events are greater
than stated, would like actual dBA numbers (staff will ask consultant
to check highest dBA over the past year on the receptor at Peninsula
Hospital site); enlarge the alternatives, would like to see an
alternative within the R-4 guidelines which meets the city's parking
requirement; reasons the hospital gave initially to develop on that
site, original permit conditions, was hospital required to create open
space (CA commented this information would be appropriate at the time
the project itself is heard); rationalization for the Trousdale
entrance, once the facility is built why isn't an E1 Camino entrance
adequate; comment was made in the DEIR that no shortcuts through
residential areas would occur on Dufferin and Rosedale, this is an
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
May 12, 1986
assumption without evidence; backup statistics would be helpful;
page 36 of the Addendum, concerned about ambulances on Marco Polo, how
do ambulances enter now, if backed up on Trousdale where will they go.
There were no further comments. Staff will contact the consultant and
bring the requested material to Commission when available.
3. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR THE
HYATT REGENCY PROJECT, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Reference staff report, 5/12/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
history of approvals for this project, reasons for the delay and the
present request. Commission action on permit extension precedes
Council action on traffic allocation extension.
C. Jacobs moved to grant an extension of the use permit approvals for
the Hyatt Regency project to October 2, 1986. Second C. Graham; motion
approved unanimously on voice vote.
ITEMS FOR ACTION WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE FOR AN 81 SF BATHROOM ADDITION
AT 1405 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/12/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. She noted
the accessory structure at the rear shown on the aerial photo has been
removed. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. It was determined that lot coverage presently is
approximately 42%, when the 81 SF is added it will become 43%.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicants, David and Leeann
Myers, were present. Their comments: they purchased this home which
needed many improvements two years ago, they have made these gradually;
the back porch, stairs and utility room were not built on a foundation
and need to be removed regardless of other plans, they would like to
add a second bathroom, feel the addition will add to the marketability
of the house as well as fill a need for their planned family; they have
talked to the immediate neighbors, none objected.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission comment: applicants' statements this evening, market value
of the house and children, are not acceptable findings for a variance
but there is justification in that the addition will square off that
corner of the house and improve its appearance, to reduce the master
bedroom would be a hardship; this is a valid application.
C. Taylor found that the applicants' letter of April 15, 1986 cites
several reasons why the variance should be granted; this could be
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986
incorporated into the record and used to make the necessary findings:
that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances; that the
variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property
right; it would not be materially detrimental to the neighbors,
photographs reflect there would be no adverse impact; and it is clear
the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the
comprehensive zoning plan of the city, it will enhance it. C. Taylor
moved for approval of this variance with the following condition:
(1) that the addition shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped April 15, 1986 and that
additional lot coverage shall not exceed 81 square feet. Second
C. Jacobs.
C. Giomi added a finding that it would be upgrading the housing stock
of the city; lot coverage is already over 40% and this would be a minor
increase. C. Garcia found the variance would add to the property
owners' enjoyment of their property. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AT
2300 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/12/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, uses on the site, staff review, applicant's
comments, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Kenneth Moy, Kaplan/McLaughlin/
Diaz, representing the Sisters of Mercy was present. Commission
determined Sign #3 is proposed at the service exit for the premises at
Hoover and Columbus, there are no directional signs proposed for this
exit since a directional sign would increase the square footage of the
application and create a larger exception. There were no audience
comments in favor.
The following spoke in opposition: David Plyer, 1530 Hoover Avenue; Jim
Arena, 1540 Hoover Avenue; Terry Fibich, 2339 Adeline Drive; Al Sontag,
2601 Adeline Drive. Their concerns: aesthetics and :maintenance of the
sign program, who will monitor this; present signs have deteriorated;
if signs are located inside the gate how will people see them at night,
it is very dark up there, if not lit up it may not solve the problem;
hopefully, the new signs will improve the traffic flow; opposed to
signs in that they are only to direct traffic to commercial ventures on
the site, noise and frequency of events on site has increased and
become annoying.
Concerns not related to this sign exception application were also
expressed: number of facilities/events on the site, increased impact on
sewer system, increased traffic with excessive speeds, large parking
lot being constructed which has resulted in damage to the streets from
construction vehicles, all homes on Hoover face the complex and the new
parking lot, will it be landscaped and lit at night (would expect city
to monitor these impacts); think traffic study should be made,
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986
traffic impact at the back gate is extreme and is increasing, concern
about safety and volume of traffic. Mr. Moy commented he has been
helping with the upgrading of this property, it is zoned R-1 but has
been used over the last 50 years, like many educational properties in
California, as an educational use which benefits a wide range of
community activities. Residents speaking this evening were advised to
refer their other concerns to the appropriate city officials and/or the
Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Schwalm found there were special circumstances in the upgrading of
this large site and the need for signage to direct traffic, the old
deteriorating signs will be removed and the proposed signage is an
inoffensive sign program. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the master
sign program with the following conditions: (1) that the condition of
the City Engineer's April 14, 1986 memo shall be met and all signs
shall be 15' clear of entrances; and (2) that the signs shall be
installed as shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped April 10, 1986 and as individually
described in the Sign Permit application dated April 10, 1986.
Second C. Graham.
Comment on the motion: one Commissioner stated she had no problem with
3' signs nor with the number of signs but did not believe a 5' tall
sign was needed for identification purposes. C. Taylor commented on
the significant increase in use of this site and the need for a revised
sign program to mitigate the impact on the surrounding neighborhood,
and proposed an additional condition to include a sign at the service
entrance stating "right turn only onto Hoover". CA questioned this
condition being made a part of the sign permit application itself since
it relates to traffic flow and is not relevant to this proposal.
Motion with two conditions was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote,
C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:17 P.M.; reconvene 9:25 P.M.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PRINTING SERVICE AT 1199 BROADWAY,
ZONED C-1
CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, May 5, 1986 letter from Sir
Speedy, Inc. corporate offices which indicated number of employees
could increase to 5-6 after a few months in business, staff review,
problem of the handicap ramp at this new commercial building,
applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: during Council review of the parking variance approved for
this building there was discussion whether uses should be limited to
certain kinds of retail, it was concluded at that time this was
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
May 12, 1986
difficult to define; a Commissioner requested the May 5, 1986 letter
from David Kimmel, leasing agent regarding completion of the railings
on the handicap ramp be made a part of the conditions of approval.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicant, Aldorey Mendoza,
was present as well as the northwest regional manager of Sir Speedy,
Inc. Applicant advised he would be handling direct sales with pickup
and delivery which will minimize traffic in the area; the leasing agent
has advised him all required modifications to the building will be made
prior to Sir Speedy going into their leased space. The northwest
regional manager stated they are asking for a maximum of five
employees, three full time and two part time. A marketing analyst for
the company was also present. Northwest manager stated they are a
service industry, there will be no increased walk-in traffic on
Broadway, the handicap rail has been replaced and curb will be taken
care of tomorrow. There were no further audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission comment/discussion: Council approved this commercial
building to encourage retail business, staff has said there is no
difference between merchandise sales and service sales, this business
will not be a retail operation but will provide pickup and delivery,
this seems to be what the city was trying to avoid in that location;
agree with this interpretation, have no problem with this type of
service but do have a problem at this location on Broadway, would not
want to end up with half the building in this use rather than for
walk-in trade; applicant states no walk-in customers, how can you call
it retail when you have no customers visiting the premises.
C. Jacobs moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Leahy. Comment
to support the motion: originally this was considered a pedestrian
business area, even with no parking problem created by this business
believe there are other areas in the city better suited to this type of
marketing. Staff clarified such a service business would be
appropriate in the C-2 zone and, depending upon how much actual walk-in
business there was, it could be appropriate in the M-1 zone, Broadway
is zoned C-1. Motion to deny the application was approved on a 7-0
roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL A DISH ANTENNA AT GRADE AT THE MARRIOTT
HOTEL, 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 5/12/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, BCDC review of this proposal, staff review,
Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions.
Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Comment: proposed location of the dish; required BCDC access corridor;
height of PG&E transformers which are above grade in front of the
antenna; because hotel was built to maximum height allowed, placing
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986
the dish on the top roof was not an alternative, it would be visible
from rooms adjacent and above if on lower roofs; the transformer is
approximately 18' at the back, the maximum height of the dish would be
181.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Keith Martin of Spectradyne,
Inc. was present representing the applicant. His comments: this is a
larger antenna than many, with this size there is a need to receive
information from two satellites simultaneously, the reason for the
large antenna is the FCC will not grant a license to antenna under
4.51, this license will protect them from future microwave
transmission/reception interference, antenna is located in an area next
to a public shoreline walkway, the dish comes in two colors (white and
pink beige).
Commission/applicant discussion: suggest planting a tree which will
grow rapidly for screening; Marriott is prepared to plant several trees
whose height would be limited to 20' (preliminary landscape plans were
distributed); installation is for TV in the hotel guest rooms, strictly
for hotel guests; hotel does not want to pay for cable TV, they chose
to sign a contract with Spectradyne to provide them with satellite
programs; antenna dish is stationary, could receive 48 channels, hotel
chose to take three; with two 5' dishes the FCC will not grant a
license from microwave interference; hotel receives regular local
channels from a roof antenna at present, this reception will be tied in
with the proposed dish; it will not interfere with airplanes or
airport, FAA has approved, airlines are on a completely different
frequency band; this is a receiving antenna only, does not broadcast.
Speaking in favor, Cliff Williams, chief engineer for the hotel: have
local reception now, this will only add three channels for guests,
hotel will do all possible to screen the antenna with trees,
landscaping can be installed between the transformer and the dish and
could get up to 20' without interference, the cost for cable TV would
be much more expensive for the hotel, this antenna gives the hotel an
opportunity for the future for video teleconferences. CA commented
that in his research on antenna ordinances it would appear the
availability of cable TV is an inappropriate reason for denial of a
satellite dish antenna. The district manager for Spectradyne in this
area stated this is a service provided to hotel guests, he will be
charged with maintaining it once it is installed and will adhere to the
landscaping requirements. A Commissioner commented it was his
impression the Crowne Plaza provides the same service with a smaller
antenna; district manager said Spectradyne does not work with Crowne
Plaza.
There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of
Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following
conditions: (1) that the dish antenna shall be installed at the
location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped April 18, 1986 and in accordance with the May 12, 1986
landscape plan; (2) that the structure installed shall not have a
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986
diameter greater than 14'-10", not rise more than 18' above grade, be
painted a pink beige color with nonreflective paint, and be surrounded
by a 6' solid board wooden fence; (3) the applicant shall permanently
maintain the nonreflective surface, fence and screening landscaping or
remove the facility; and (4) any modification to the antenna or its
location shall require an amendment to this use permit. Second C.
Schwalm.
Comment on the motion: special permits should be granted for a reason,
will vote no because this application has not demonstrated hardship or
need, have heard nothing in support other than the fact that they will
put in trees, they merely want to sell their services to hotel guests
(this may be an application by Spectradyne rather than Marriott), in
fact they have demonstrated there are other alternatives to accomplish
this goal; feel this is entirely differentfrom a location in a
residential district, it is in the waterfront commercial zone, the
hotel wants to provide a service to its guests, it is a large building
and they will screen the installation, they should be allowed to have
this in competition with other hotels in the area; hopefully, this will
enhance the renting of hotel rooms and increase the city's hotel tax
revenue.
C. Garcia requested a change in condition #2, that the structure be a
"pink beige" color rather than "dark". C. Jacobs and C. Schwalm
accepted this change in the motion. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call
vote, Cers Graham and Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were
advised.
8. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO REQUIRE LANDSCAPING
IN THE FRONT SETBACK OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS
CP Monroe reviewed the item: presently there are no regulations for the
R-3 and R-4 zones to require landscaping in the front setback for
multiple family units which are not built as condominiums; the proposed
ordinance establishes regulations for multiple family units to the same
standard as required in the open space standards for condominiums.
Discussion: would like a study for all properties including R-1 and R-2
rather than just R-3 and R-4; believe there is a difference between R-3
and R-1, in R-1 there is pride of ownership but R-3 is income
property, owners are looking for income and would be more inclined to
cement the front setback to gain more parking. (Later in the meeting a
Commissioner commented he thought it a good idea to require guest
parking for apartments also.)
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
and the hearing was closed.
C. Taylor moved to recommend Ordinance Establishing Landscaping
Requirements for Apartments to the City Council. Second C. Graham.
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986
Comment on the motion: how will this be enforced; think there should be
more detail in the proposed ordinance. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll
call vote. Staff will forward to City Council.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
9. SPECIAL PERMIT - RELOCATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF A 672 SF
GARAGE - 1524 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: clarification of floor drain/sink shown on the plans; width
of garage door on proposed plans; discuss drainage; statement from
applicant explaining the need for a garage larger than 500 SF. Item
set for hearing May 27, 1986.
10. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED M-1
Requests: clarify which signs need permits; add logos on Rollins Road
to the application; detail on square footage allowed and existing.
Item set for hearing May 27, 1986.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- April 29, 1986 letter from Mithoo Benner, Reach Fitness Club,
1208 Donnelly Avenue.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its May 5, 1986 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy
Secretary