HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.08.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, August 22, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Yie called the August 22, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones. Cauchi, Gaul and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Vistica
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and
City Attorney Gus Guinan
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the July 11,
2011 and August 8, 2011 regular meetings of the Planning Commission, as submitted.
July 11, 2011 Minutes - motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioners Cauchi and
Lindstrom abstained).
August 8, 2011 Minutes - motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioners Cauchi
and Terrones abstained).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
No one spoke from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no study items for review.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. Item 1 a (620 Airport Boulevard) was removed from the Consent Calendar by Commissioner Yie.
There were no other remaining consent calendar items.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
1a. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA — APPLICATION TO RENEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AS AN INTERIM USE (PAUL SALISBURY, APPLICANT;
DEMATTEI WONG ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; AND BOCA LAKE OFFICE, INC., PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-one (21) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Questions of staff:
■ Asked who is responsible for tracking the expiration dates of conditional use permits like this?
(Meeker — noted that staff typically provides notice to the applicant that the term of the permit is
approaching expiration, though the ultimate responsibility lies with the applicant to apply for an
extension prior to the expiration date of the permit.)
■ Are there any fees that the City would need to collect? (Meeker — noted that fees are usually
collected for airport parking facilities — fees for this property would have continued to have been
collected even though the expiration date of the permit has passed.)
■ Are approvals for all airport parking lots limited to five years? (Meeker — yes, this is a restriction
placed by the zoning ordinance upon such uses to ensure that they are "temporary" in nature.)
■ Want to encourage development of the property, not the long-term use of the property as airport
parking.
■ Noted that the plans for the property date back to 2004-05 and that the use has not changed since
then. There is nothing encouraging the property owner to do anything else with the property — the
airport parking use may be extended by the City every five years.
■ Asked if the term of the extension could be based upon the 2009 expiration date; essentially a term
of three additional years from today? (Meeker — yes, this could be done.)
■ The City needs to provide the property owner the opportunity to earn money on the property until
the economy improves. The property owner may eventually build a hotel on the property when
conditions improve and he can afford to do so.
Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Paul Salisbury, 1555 Bayshore Highway; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Clarified that the primary interest in removing the item from the consent calendar was to determine
who is ultimately responsible for bringing the matter before the Planning Commission in advance of
the expiration date.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the permit extension being from
today's date, with the following conditions:
that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped June 22, 2004, sheet Sk.1 a and date stamped September
2, 2003, sheet Sk.2a and date stamped August 17, 2011, sheets AO. 1, Al. 1, L3 and L4;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 30, 2003, memo and the City Arborist's June 17,
2004, memo shall be met, which includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia spaced four feet apart,
with proper irrigation, in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard;
3. that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that
are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the
property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters twice each year as well
as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 — April 1) and shall submit to
the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance;
4. that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with a
maximum of 350 parking spaces, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed
van storage shall take place on site nor shall the use of any number of parking spaces be
contracted to a single user or corporation without amendment of this use permit;
5. that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for any on -site flooding or storm
drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problems;
6. that the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a
building or grading permit for this project;
7. that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but
not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path,
and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved
landscape design;
8. that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use
and shall expire on i6ine 29 20no September 1, 2016 (5 years);
9. that the parking lot lighting shall be energy efficient to the extent feasible to provide adequate light
for customer safety;
10. that the applicant shall work with the City to establish an agreement regarding how the parking tax
is collected if the parking spaces are used in association with a park and fly hotel room or other
promotion program in association with the adjacent hotel or any office, hotel or other use;
11. that prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall
submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City's NPDES (National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System) administrator; the project sponsor shall require the construction
contractor to implement this dust abatement program;
12. that if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted
immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find; accidental discovery of
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the
significance of the find;
13. that if human remains are encountered during project construction, the San Mateo County
Coroner's Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of
a Native American, and if they are, will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The
Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's "most
likely descendant" who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The
Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the
most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional
investigations to determine if other graves are present;
14. that a site -specific, design -level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the
impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The
geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or
Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas
fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title
24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be
incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site
shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before
grading permits are issued;
15. that the project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-term water
quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for
long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems
including but not limited to the operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine service
schedule, specific maintenance activities, and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems.
The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to
determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further
help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, the project
sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall
include, but are not necessarily limited to, regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment,
proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash
receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks
from automobiles;
16. that during operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly
collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris that may accumulate on the project site;
17. that order to maintain the existing on -site well for potential use for any future long-term development
on the project site, the well head elevation shall be modified if needed in accordance with proposed
project grading and construction plans and a new well vault shall be installed in accordance with
San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and
prevent potential damage to the well casing;
18. that the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the
least noise -sensitive times of the day and week (Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.;
and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; none on Sunday and holidays);
121
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
19. that the applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it
in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine -driven equipment shall be fitted with
intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non -impact
tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50
feet;
20. that applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use;
and
21. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
Noted that the larger discussion that needs to occur is the types of uses that should be permitted to
the east of Highway 101 in order to encourage development.
Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner
Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m.
2. 1629 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR SUB -STANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE
(BRIAN PRICE, DESIGNER; DAN PRICE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Need to change this type of parking variance to a conditional use permit or special permit.
Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Brian Price, 925 Church Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Did the applicant consider extending the porch across the front? (Price — attempted to maintain
everything "as -is" on the ground level as much as possible.) Noted that this is a prime opportunity
to extend the porch and make it a more useable area. (Price — the applicant may have chosen not
to do so in order to preserve Japanese maple trees in the front -yard area.)
Noted that the entire front -yard is nicely landscaped; is torn on the desire to expand the porch.
Still concerned regarding detailing — there is still a high brow area above the second level — there is
an opportunity to install larger windows in the area above the play room; need to reconsider this
element of the design — there is a lot of stucco present in this area.
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
■ If approved, a builder may decide to place barge rafters at the gable ends that would be
inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood — need to articulate the fascia so that the eave
is more appropriately scaled on the drawings.
■ Noted that the applicant is proposing very little construction on the ground floor — expanding the
porch would add to the construction cost; the existing landscaping enhances the area.
■ Agrees with comments regarding the windows on the second floor — consider installing larger
windows and/or grouping them together. (Price —the applicant wants to preserve the opportunity to
construct a new demising wall in the interior in the future — alterations to the window placement may
restrict this possibility. Have kept the windows smaller because of the amount of window area on
the rear.)
■ Noted that the existing windows have snap -in grids; the addition includes simulated, true divided -
light windows (wood window, aluminum -clad) — perhaps consider replacing the windows on the
front of the house to match those installed in the addition.
■ The porch looks incomplete — consider a means of enhancing this area.
■ Appreciated the changes that have been made.
■ Will the attic vent be wood? (Price — yes.)
■ Noted that a lot of energy is being put into the design at the rear — a bit more effort needs to be put
into the design of the front elevation.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the project, with direction to the applicant as noted in the
discussion.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner
Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
7:40 p.m.
3. 25 INGOLD ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FLIGHT
SIMULATOR TRAINING (CORY COVINGTON, VIRGIN AMERICAN, APPLICANT; DES ARCHTECTS +
ENGINEERS, DESIGNER; SUSAN LAMBERTSON TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Cory Covington, 555 Airport Boulevard and Elke MacGregor, 399 Bradford Street, Redwood City;
represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Asked if the location for the mechanical equipment was the only location that would work?
(Covington — yes, considered all options.)
■ Will pilots from other airlines be trained at the location? (Covington — only for Virgin America pilots
currently; but perhaps in the future.)
■ Is the only portion of the roof to be raised in the area above the simulator? (MacGregor— described
the limited area that will be raised to accommodate the equipment. There will be little visual
impact.)
■ The variance is supportable, given the odd configuration of the property — the mechanical
equipment is actually to be installed in an area that might better be described as a side -yard.
■ Will there be any screening installed around the equipment? (MacGregor/Covington — two parking
stalls will be moved; there is existing landscaping in the vicinity. No additional screening is
proposed.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the office and training facility shall be limited to approximately 22,150 SF of the existing
office/warehouse building at 25 Ingold Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped August 9, sheets G0.01 through A3.01;
2. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to a flight simulator training facility and shall
become void if the space is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or
destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement;
3. that the office and training facility be open Monday to Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a
maximum of eight full-time employees and 20 part-time employees; and that one person will be on -
site 24 hours per day, seven days a week for security and maintenance purposes;
4. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 29 persons, including all
employees, pilots and instructors;
5. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees, pilots or
instructors, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment
to this Conditional Use Permit;
6. that the applicant shall utilize a 12 person van for the purpose of transporting students and
instructors between headquarters and this training facility;
7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 11, 2011 and July 8, 2011 memos, the City
Engineer's July 11, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's July 11, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
August 22, 2011
July 6, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's July 5, 2011 memo shall be met;
8. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures on the site shall not occur until a
building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and
10. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner
Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
4. 235 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA —
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FULL -SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (PIZZA MY HEART) (MICHAEL
GEORGE, APPLICANT, APPLICANT; JEFFERY FINSAND, ARCHITECT; PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
CENTERS. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Is the prohibition on delivery a standard condition? (Strohmeier—yes, it is a standard condition for
food establishments.)
Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Michael George, 16222 Shannon Road, Los Gatos; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
How many pizza delivery vehicles will be present? (George — during the week, one driver; on week-
ends perhaps three drivers.) Encouraged the drivers to use the Safeway parking lot for loading.
Asked if parking for the delivery vehicles was accounted for in the parking? (Meeker — noted that
excess parking exists on the site. The majority of the tenant spaces in the project have been
spoken for.)
Public comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped April 28, 2011, sheets T-1 through A-9;
2. that this business location to be occupied by a full -service food establishment, with 850 SF of
seating area, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar
upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment, and the criteria for the
new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved;
3. that the 850 SF area of on -site seating of the full -service food establishment shall be enlarged or
extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use
permit;
4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with
the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building
and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the
business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business;
6. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within
10' of the property line;
7. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food
establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void;
8. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment
permit issued by the city;
9. that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 17, 2011 and August 6, 2010 memos, the Chief
Building Official's April 21, 2011, March 15, 2011 and July 23, 2010 memos, the Parks Supervisor's
March 15, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 16, 2011 and July 26, 2010 memos, and the
NPDES Coordinator's July 26, 2010 memo shall be met; and
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 2010 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these
conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these
conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
None.
E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner
Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
5. 1480 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW
CANOPY AND CONVENIENCE STORE AT A GAS STATION (ROGER ABUYAGHI, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; KATHLEEN WARMAN, WARMAN ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN, ARCHITECT)
STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. Noted that the parking variance is no longer required — the spaces at the
pumps may be counted towards the parking requirement, resulting in 11 spaces being provided where 7
spaces are required.
Questions of staff:
What are the hours for the sale of alcohol at the existing service station and for the convenience
store? (Strohmeier — will need to ask the applicant.)
Asked if the alcohol sales were restricted with adoption of the finding of public convenience and
necessity? (Meeker — hours restrictions for alcohol sales are the purview of the California Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board.)
Chair Yie opened the public comment period.
John Campanile (no address provided) and Roger Abuyaghi, 1480 Broadway; represented the applicant.
Hours are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Are not wishing to change the hours for beer and wine sales.
Commission comments:
■ Include a diagram showing how vehicles will enter and exit the property. Will exit to El Camino be
right -turn only? (Campanile — not certain that turning from El Camino Real would be legal; will be
determined by CalTrans.)
■ What is the setback of the existing canopy? (Campanile — not 20-feet, but not certain of the actual
measurement. The new canopy will be a bit less intrusive since it will be angled on the site.)
■ Is there more detail that can be provided relative to the corner element (the monument sign)? More
landscaping? (Campanile — will have the same stone as on the bottom of the building. Can provide
more detail.)
■ Asked if notice was provided to tenants in the area? (Meeker/Strohmeier — notices were sent to
property owners within 300-feet of the property, not tenants. Notices will be sent again prior to the
action hearing.)
■ The design of the building is completely unacceptable — no problem with the use. The building
could be turned and made longer, brought up to Broadway. The building needs to be respectful of
the other buildings present on Broadway. Bringing the typical 7-11 architecture to the site is not
what the Commission is looking for — needs to be respectful of the character of the area. Could
design a nice commercial building — the design must adhere to the City's design guidelines.
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
■ There is support for the variances given the nature of the use.
■ No problem with the hours of operation and alcohol sales.
■ One of the biggest concerns is circulation into and out of the property. People will also access the
site from El Camino Real.
■ Noted that the proposed convenience store is actually a more intense use than currently exists.
Need to provide a more convincing argument in support of the conditional use permit.
■ The building does not add positively to the streetscape.
■ Doesn't support a "cookie -cutter" design approach for the building.
■ Have other options been explored for siting? (Campanile — this was the best design for the best
flow for the site. The feedback provided this evening will inform further modifications to the design.
Want to make it easier to use the site.)
■ Need to look at traffic flow from every direction.
■ Referenced the design of the new Walgreen's store on Burlingame Avenue — is a good example of
how a new building was designed to fit into the area.
Public comments:
Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway; David Hinckle, 1399 Broadway; and
Denise Groebner, 1126 Laguna Avenue; spoke:
■ Expressed views of the Broadway Business Improvement District — have concerns regarding the
proposed use.
■ Concerned that additional crime and litter problems may be brought to the area by the use.
■ The use does not bring anything new to Broadway — asked that the use not be approved.
■ None of the merchants in the area received notification of the requests — notice was not passed
along to the tenants — need to know what is happening on Broadway.
■ Asked for a traffic report and an environmental impact report.
■ Requested improvements to the sidewalks and limits upon the driveways — not a full driveway on all
sides of the property.
■ Objects to the potential increases in traffic — is challenging to get into and out of the site. Was not
anticipating the expansion of the use when the project last appeared before the Commission.
■ There is a 7-11 at the Highway 101 entry less than a half -mile away — don't need another one.
■ Don't need another alcohol outlet.
■ Doesn't feel the use will add anything to the neighborhood.
Additional applicant comments:
Mike Abuyaghi and Roger Abuyaghi, 1480 Broadway; spoke
Having difficulty keeping the revenue flowing so that the business can remain in operation.
Want to do something good for the area —are also area residents. (Commissioner— is an awkward
site for vehicle maneuvers.)
Don't want to add to traffic congestion to the area — will work with the design to find a way to make it
work. (Commissioners — could be more appropriate to limit access to the site. There may be a
possibility for bringing the store out to the corner— may be willing to consider a setback variance to
allow this approach — it would also better define the ingress and egress to the site.)
Additional Commission comments:
II
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
The site could be developed as a completely different use, for example retail with office space
above.
Should consider what the other possible uses may be appropriate for the site - not a great site for a
service station. (Abuyaghi — were hoping to look at other uses further down the road.)
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
Asked if noticing could be provided to the tenants in the area? (Meeker — could work with the
Broadway Business Improvement District representative to provide noticing when the item appears
on the agenda in the future.) Could also ask the Chamber of Commerce to assist.
Doesn't see the need for another 24-hour operation at that location.
Concerned about lighting and its potential impacts upon the neighboring residential uses
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Design Review Study agenda for further
study when project revisions have been submitted.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Design Review Study calendar when
plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Vistica
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35
p. M.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of August 15, 2011:
Denied conditional use permit amendment and request for a finding of public convenience and
necessity to allow a Type-20 ABC license at 1147 Rollins Road.
Discussed a potential ban on the use of gas -powered leaf blowers — referred the matter to a City
Council subcommittee for further discussions with the Bay Area Gardeners Association and the
Citizen's Environmental Council.
FYI: 1416 Cabrillo Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project:
Accepted.
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011
Miscellaneous:
City Attorney Guinan noted the October 5, 2011 study session at 6 p.m. in the Lane Room
regarding wireless telecommunications.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Auran, Secretary
13