Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.09.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, September 12, 1988 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Garcia Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the August 22, 1988 meeting were approved with the following correction: page 7, item #11, tentative and final parcel map, 740 and 750 Walnut Avenue, second paragraph, 8th line, statement within the parentheses to read "(staff stated Hillsborough can close off a street in Hillsborough, they have not indicated to the City of Burlingame that they intend to do this)". AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. It was noted item #9 has been withdrawn by the applicant. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. ONE VARIANCE AND FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: restaurant area in the new proposal compared to existing; comparison of elevation from the street and from the rear; figures on FAR compared with Marriott and Hyatt; letter in support of the variance request; address bulk with the new addition. Item set for public hearing September 26, 1988. 2. PROPOSED OVERLAY ZONE RESTRICTING USAGE OF PARCELS FRONTING ON THE WEST SIDE OF BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: why not rezone to C-4 and restrict to that; is procedure for implementation similar to rezoning. Item set for public hearing September 26, 1988. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 12, 1988 3. REZONING OF FOUR PARCELS FROM M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO C-4 WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL IN THE BAYFRONT ANZA AREA Item set for public hearing September 26, 1988. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. TWO VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1365 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter, findings necessary for variance approval. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: required fire walls; nonconforming status of the garage; required procedures for a subsequent addition; CE's suggestion regarding an alternative design. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. John and Carol Fraher, applicants, were present. Mr. Fraher discussed their plans, the existing house cannot support a second floor, putting the garage in the rear would reduce the size of the rear yard and their children's play area, study by a structural engineer indicated the garage wall would support the addition, they will be happy to comply with all fire codes and all other city requirements. Staff commented that findings must be made relating to the physical aspects of the property to support the variances. Applicant stated a year of study has gone into this, the proposal will be more in character with the neighborhood, in working with their architect they found this is the most economical way they could make the addition, use of the garage wall would be a more sound support for the addition in the event of an earthquake. A Commissioner commented he had trouble making findings and asked applicant what the exceptional circumstances applicable to this property were. Applicant stated that relocating the garage would present a problem with lot coverage, they need the addition for their family and do not want to leave this area, the hardship is personal. Responding to Commissioner questions, applicant advised is lot is level, they will meet fire code and could park five cars in the driveway; there is a utility easement in the back, not part of this property. A Commissioner pointed out the house next door has a similar addition in the back which is connected to but structurally independent of the house; applicant advised they are trying to avoid the existing house because of the condition of. the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 12, 1988 foundation. Mrs. Fraher commented support for a finding that this property is unique would be difficult, if they provide a 20' x 20' garage they will have very little back yard, with the long driveway there is room to park more cars. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: have no problem with the addition, houses in the neighborhood have additions to the rear, have no problem with the substandard garage, but do have a problem with the proposal to hold up an addition with the garage and extend the house to property line. On the grounds there are no exceptional circumstances which would make this lot substantially different from the majority of lots in the city, and there are alternatives to the proposal possible on the property, C.Harrison moved for denial of the variances. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: have a problem granting variances when there are no unusual circumstances, even though the long driveway will permit more parking think applicants should conform as much as possible. Motion to deny was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND YARD FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE YARD AND SHOP AREA AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONE R-1 Reference staff report, 9/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: location and layout of the school as well as the fenced in parking area were pointed out; it was recommended the access ramp be engineered and approved by the appropriate agency; number of spaces existing and expected was discussed. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Dr. James E. Black, superintendent of the Burlingame School District, was present. His comments: will determine number of spaces when the ramp is finished, a stronger and wider ramp is needed; the School District student population has grown in the last two years and has impacted the intermediate school where the maintenance operation is now located, they need those two offices to house their new 6th grade students; Roosevelt is the only available space the School District had; maintenance is minimal in Burlingame, they contract out all major maintenance, it is not a corporation yard, all materials are Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 12, 1988 stored inside; very little time is spent in the shop or at the maintenance yard. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Robert Kane, 2112 Broadway: he has resided in Burlingame since 1950 and at this residence since 1957, there has been a school there for the last 30-40 years and it has been used for school purposes, he lives across the street from the courts and the facility mentioned by Dr. Black, a few months ago he noticed trucks coming to load and going out from that site, then a ramp being built; when he called the city's attention to this he discovered the School District would have to obtain a special permit and that it was the opinion of the city they were exempt from CEQA as an existing facility. Mr. Kane felt this type of exemption should be for minor alteration, negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing, he questioned whether this proposal is negligible, putting in a motor pool on a previous tennis court. He presented photographs of existing traffic on a regular school day and stated his concerns: with parking on the street parents must use end of the street as a turnaround; the maintenance pickup trucks which will be using the street, four of these vehicles take up a great deal of space and come to the site twice a day, for the past two months he has seen them come in during the day also. The opening of the gate prevents ivy planted on the gate portion of the fence about one-third of the frontage, so ivy will not screen a lot. In summary Mr. Kane stated if this proposal is approved there is potential danger to the health and safety of the children in the area, the increase in traffic compounded by opening up an entrance to the court will add to it; between 8:30-9:00 A.M. he doubted a fire truck or ambulance could get up that street and it could not turn around; the proposal will have substantial economic impact on homes in the area; he felt an environmental impact report should be prepared and did not believe the proposal is categorically exempt from CEQA. James Walsh, 2116 Broadway: he lives in the last house on the dead end street; why is the school addressed as 1151 Vancouver when all the impact will be on Broadway; he put on an addition nine years ago, this deck faces toward the school, whether the fence is covered with ivy or not this proposal will make a difference; he had traffic concerns, his car has been hit nine times, on a rainy morning it is impossible to move an automobile; he has lived there for 19 years, think the city must start thinking of the homeowners. James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver Avenue: lives around the corner from the gate; he showed a petition to Commission with 33 signatures of immediate neighbors in Burlingame and three residents of Hillsborough whose backyards abut the maintenance yard, and stated Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 12, 1988 the people are outraged, they feel this is a residential area; he commented this is an inappropriate spot for such a use, it is a narrow dead end street, Vancouver is also very narrow and a problem getting down to Broadway, during inclement weather it is more of a problem; relocation is from Franklin School where access is from Trousdale and Quesada, both wider streets; the shop will be in the annex area, a stuccoed building constructed as part of the complex, not as a maintenance building; agree this is a different use; the gate was constructed within the past month or so and the area has been used as a supply depot, half the fence is taken up by the gate, the ivy won't shield very much, the vehicles are pickup trucks with housing on top; object to use of a purely residential area for this industrial pool use. Harvey Bracken, 2100 Roosevelt Avenue: gate can be opened, kindergarten is next door; if School District can get away with this anyone else can do the same. Applicant responded to Commissioner questions: the District had no contact with the neighbors, any comments Dr. Black heard were made to the city, the major concern appeared to be using the tennis court as a parking lot; he had received no complaints about vehicles being damaged in that area; when Roosevelt School was discontinued and discussed with the neighbors, traffic and parking were major concerns and it was agreed uses allowed would be the same as public school use; Dr. Black advised it was not his understanding maintenance vehicles would be coming in and out all day long, that would be changed. A Commissioner commented if the School District vehicles left by 7:00 A.M., did not return for lunch and returned at 3:30 P.M. this would eliminate their impact during tenants' peak hours and might help to alleviate the situation. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CA discussed possible actions: deny without prejudice or continue the hearing to allow applicant time to work with the neighborhood. CP supported staff's conclusion this use was categorically exempt per CEQA Code Sec. 15301, Existing Facilities: it is a use which can and does occur at schools and is a shifting of a function existing at one school to another school, it is in the general range of what is going on at schools. Commissioners' comments: since this school is closed and going to a leased facility feel the school is under the same stipulations of any other applicant, don't believe Commission would let anyone else do this on this site, it is not compatible with the neighborhood and would have a detrimental effect on property values; am sympathetic with Dr. Black but am concerned about impact on the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 12, 1988 neighbors, would have to vote no, perhaps the neighbors and the School District could meet and work out some of the concerns. C. Harrison moved to continue the hearing to the meeting of September 26, 1988. CA suggested a denial without prejudice. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Giomi moved to deny this special permit without prejudice. Second C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: will go with the motion, understand the neighbors' concern but don't think we are talking about a motor supply depot, hope the School District and neighbors can work something out; next time Commission hears this application would like information about the existing maintenance facility, where it is located now, complaints from neighbors, etc.; would like a copy of the neighborhood agreement for Roosevelt School for the next meeting. Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:56 P.M.; reconvene 9:07 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO REPAIRS AT 1325 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Roland Ducommun, applicant, was present. He advised he had received no objections to his application. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison found no problem with this request and moved for approval of the special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 15, 1988 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's August 9, 1988 memo and the Fire Marshal's August 8, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the business shall be owner operated with no employees and shall not involve any painting or body work; (3) that three code standard (9' x 20') parking spaces shall be available at all times for customer parking inside the building, and that no cars to be worked on shall be stored in these parking spaces; (4) that the existing parking space in front of the building shall not be used for parking a vehicle and that the business owner/employee shall at all times park his vehicle inside the building; (5) that any changes in the operation of this business, including the addition of employees, shall require an amendment of the permit; and (6) that this use permit Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 12, 1988 shall be reviewed in one year (September, 1989) and each two years thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: this type of service is needed. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A 35'-10" HIGH POLE SIGN AT 1649 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's comments, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was noted the present sign code does not allow freeway oriented signage. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Greg Steele, vice president, real estate, The Good Guys, was present. He had reviewed the staff report and letter from Arrow Sign Co. which he found very thorough and wished to restate that the existence of other signs in the area at approximately 35' demonstrated approval of this sign will not be a grant of special privilege; if not approved it will deprive The Good Guys of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. This sign will be tasteful and more modern than the previous GE sign; it willnot be 60' tall and will upgrade the site. He accepted all suggested conditions of approval. Responding to Commissioner question, applicant stated the sign would be advertising but it would also aid vendors and others on Route 101 in finding their site; whether it is freeway oriented is a matter of interpretation. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: things changed in the city from 1970 to 1980, am not in support of the height of this sign; to me it is a freeway oriented sign, as are the others but they were there before the 1977 sign ordinance was adopted, would not have objection to signs on the building. A Commissioner asked if the company would be willing to come in with a lower sign; applicant stated he thought this would be the only submittal. With the statement that one of the reasons the ordinance was adopted was to get away from larger signs that cluster and take away from the beauty of the city, C. Giomi moved to deny the sign exception. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham with the statement he hoped they would find a way to stay within the code. Motion to deny was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 12, 1988 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AND REPAIRS OF BOATS, BOAT PARTS AND SUPPLIES AT 405 BEACH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, property owners letter in support, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. John Sofilos, Unlimited Marine, applicant was present. He submitted a letter (9/9/88) from the property owner (Golden Gate Drywall) stating they were in the process of resurfacing and striping the parking area, this should be completed this month. Applicant comments: there is an access easement in back, 100' wide, 20' allocated to Fire Department; they have side and front access also; he contacts customers at boat shows but the contract is always finalized in Burlingame, tax goes to Burlingame. A letter (9/11/88) was submitted from Howard Hickey, 390 Lang Road, in support of the application. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this is a good use for this area, C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the business shall operate with a maximum of two full time and two part time employees, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday - Friday and 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Saturdays with occasional Sunday hours; (2) that a maximum of 10 boats shall be kept on the property for servicing with an additional five boats for sale; (3) that all employees shall park in the yard area; with five parking spaces to be marked in the yard area and used either for employee or customer parking; and (4) that the project comply with the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's August 15, 1988 memo, the Fire Marshalls August 22, 1988 memo and the City Engineers August 31, 1988 memo. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE - EXERCISE STUDIO - 1550 ROLLINS ROAD UNIT 0 - ZONED M-1 Project withdrawn by applicant. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 12, 1988 10. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR CERAMICS CLASSES AND RETAIL SALE OF SUPPLIES AT 1.550 ROLLINS ROAD, UNIT G. ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, current operation at the site, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained applicant needed two special permits for retail sales and for classes, a variance for parking. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Carol Van Winkle, applicant, was present. Her comments: this is a family run business, she and her mother come to work in one car, there will be two teachers two nights a week; her landlord has not discussed with her removing the spur track and paving this 20' strip for additional parking; no classes are being held here now, her classes are in San Francisco; she would not turn a retail client away who was not in one of her classes; her business is mostly wholesale and mostly delivered, perhaps two people a week come here at present; not too many retail people would come in unless they knew of the operation; current wholesale hours are 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.; classroom hours would be 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and 7:00-9:30 P.M. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi had some reservations but with the way the proposal is presented and with the suggested conditions of approval she could support the project with an additional condition to require review periodically for compliance; in support of the variance she felt the hours of operation, especially those in the evening, would not unduly impact the area and the larger number of students will be in the evening hours when the majority of businesses are not open. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permits and variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits and Variance with the following conditions: (1) that ceramics classes shall be held Monday, Tuesday and Thursday between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M.; Wednesdays from 7:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. and Friday and Saturday from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.; (2) that daytime classes have a maximum of six students and one instructor and evening classes have a maximum of 12 students and two instructors, and that classes last three hours; (3) that this use shall be operated in conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code; and (4) that this use shall be reviewed for compliance in six months time (March, 1989) and every two years thereafter. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 12, 1988 Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 820 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. She also reviewed the following letters in opposition received after preparation of the staff report: Joseph W. Cotchett, 840 Malcolm Road (9/10/88), Brian Delehanty, 845 Malcolm Road (9/9/88), Robert N. Woodward, 1710 Gilbreth Road (9/12/88), Anthony J. Crisafi, 1710 Gilbreth Road (9/12/88), John Sutti, 1710 Gilbreth Road (9/12/88) and A. Randolph Smith, 819 Mitten Road (9/2/88). Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: staff advised the Traffic Sgt. reported no particular complaints in this area during the last three years, no history of problems; CP stated sometimes when a car rental agency was not on a freestanding site but combined with office area the city has had parking complaints, she did not recall any specific complaints about accidents resulting from car rental use. CA said the city has no litigation in process which would relate to this type of use, only one nuisance suit regarding public notice for an entertainment permit. Staff stated the city has no traffic studies specifically comparing the previous use with this use. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. George Corey, attorney representing the applicant, was present and introduced Michael Nilmeyer, architect for the project as well as the general manager of American International based in Los Angeles. Mr. Corey's comments: it was determined by the city that the previous office use had higher traffic generation than would be generated by the car rental use, a fleet of 100 cars; American International will be reducing the traffic in the area with this application; think the letters in opposition are directed more toward Sky Chef than American International; employee figures reflect 21 total, 14 during the day and 6-7 at night; applicant will start with 5 during the day, 3 at night and anticipate a total of 21 based on a five year plan. The building will be converted from 100% to 30% office use, the rest for auto use. Addressing the letters in opposition, Mr. Corey thought these people should be made aware that this use will create less traffic than the existing use, the Traffic Sgt. indicated Sky Chef reacted to complaints from the city very quickly, his client cannot do anything to improve the Sky Chef situation; this will be a very small operation, only 100 cars; all suggested conditions are Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 12, 1988 acceptable, they are anxious to proceed as soon as possible. Responding to a Commissioner question, Mr. Corey advised this is the same company which was located next to Ramada, that company was a franchise, this company has been purchased and his client owns and operates it. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Joseph Cotchett, 840 Malcolm Road (the building next door): he commented on the Marriott employees who park anywhere in the area, tow trucks are called for them all the time; he pointed out that notices of hearing are sent to the property owners who very often are not local, thus he had not heard about this application until the end of the previous week. He submitted another letter in opposition from Donna Iverson, 843 Malcolm Road (9/12/88). His concerns: the narrow street, difficult for vehicle carriers to maneuver, car rental agencies should be located on Bayshore Highway where there is sufficient turning radius, carriers should be loaded and unloaded on site; recently a truck hit a hydrant and two other vehicles almost hit the water department workers who were capping the hydrant; there have been three near misses a month on Malcolm; on Bayshore Highway 100 yards from the entrance to Malcolm is the bus stop where handicapped people going to the Easter Seal Society workshop get off, they must cross Bayshore and Malcolm, there is no traffic sign or stop light there, now there is this proposal to put 100 rental vehicles on the street, how can that generate less traffic than the present office building. Marriott has been a problem, they turned employee parking into valet parking and sent their employees elsewhere; this is the same company that was up by Ramada, and was a problem, am sure they will put a tank in the ground at this location. More people should be heard on this issue, notices go to owners not to renters. Sky Chef is not a problem, they go slowly and simply stop traffic, they are not a danger. The danger is speeding cars on a 24' street. Responding to Commissioner question, Mr. Cotchett stated he had not been retained to represent the Easter Seal Society or any of their individuals, he has not been retained by anyone but is simply expressing his concern for the children and adults he sees in the area. Mr. Cotchett responded to questions: the people who come to the Easter Seal workshop arrive by bus and are dropped off at the corner, then walk to the workshop, he sees them on the street; that this use would have less traffic generation than the office use he found outrageous. Mr. Corey advised all loading and offloading would be done on site, Mr. Cotchett's window overlooks the site, he could complain and enforce; regarding the former owner on the former site, Mr. Corey was not aware of any environmental problems. American Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 September 12, 1988 International's general manager advised they use gas stations down the road, not a ground tank and have no environmental problems whatsoever. Mr. Corey stated they relied on city staff who are as good as any city in determining trips from car rental agencies, Burlingame's engineering staff should be especially competent, they have a large number of car rental agencies in the city. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Responding to a question, staff advised applicant had indicated they would have shuttle service from the airport. C. Harrison noted an office building would generate maximum traffic at peak hours (8:00-9:00 A.M. and 4:00-5:00 P.M.) whereas the car rental use would generate traffic at different times of the day and cause less congestion. C. Harrison then moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's August 3, 1988 and August 25, 1988 memos, the Fire Marshal's August 4, 1988 and August 29, 1988 memos and the Director of Public Works' August 24, 1988 memo shall be met; 2. that the car rental agency shall have a maximum fleet of 100 cars with a maximum of 21 employees and a maximum of 14 on site on a single shift operating from the two parcels at 820 Malcolm Road; 3. that the car rental agency shall be operated 24 hours a day and seven days a week and shall convert 5,280 SF of the existing structure from office to material processing/storage area use, e.g., auto detailing and minor maintenance; 4. that 81 on-site parking spaces will be provided, 48 standard marked stalls, 14 of which shall be designated for and used by employees, and 30 in tandem configuration for on-site auto storage of fleet cars to be rented from this site; 5. that 30% of the structure shall permanently be retained for office and the office area within this structure shall not be expanded without a use permit; 6. that any changes to this operation which affect the fleet size operating from the site, the number of employees, hours of operation, type of service to vehicles, etc. shall require an amendment to this use permit; 7. that this use permit shall be voided for both parcels should the car rental operator lose his right to use either one of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 September 12, 1988 the parcels composing the site as shown on the site plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 17, 1988; 8. that all on-site improvements including landscaping as shown on the August 17, 1988 plans shall be installed and completed within six months of issuance of the use permit and all shall be maintained by the car rental agency operators; and 9. that this use shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of its use permit in six months (March 1989) and upon complaint thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham with the comment the traffic problem has been there since Marriott, have been in the area but have not seen the handicapped adults being dropped off, believe the car rental use will be less intensive. In comment on the motion staff advised there are no plans to signalize Malcolm at that corner; re trip generation, the impact from office buildings is usually the greatest within a 1/2 to one hour period A.M. and P.M., it is reasonable to expect traffic will be spread out for the car rental use, initially a 12 hour period and later over a 24 hour period, can support the motion with the conditions; will vote no, it is not a good area for this use; agree, will not vote for it, with the new hotels and car rentals there are enough car rental businesses. Motion passed on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and Jacobs dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Letter to City Council, copy to Planning Commission, from Francis Toldi, 701 Walnut Avenue, September 8, 1988 (re: tentative and final parcel map, 740-750 Walnut Avenue) PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its September 6, 1988 regular meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 September 12, 1988 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary