HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.04.12MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
April 12, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Deal called the April 12, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga Vistica and
Deal
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City
Engineer, Frank Erbacker; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall
MINUTES The minutes of the March 22, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were corrected as follows: "P. 4, para 5 & 6; 55 Loma
Vista should have read as follows; C. Luzur-iaga neted that he live
within the netae-axa so „ld i*,. vcrfi-iEti9n. -, and;.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 67-
.; and p. 12, para 4; 1354 Burlingame
Avenue should ave read as follows: C. Boju6s moved to amend the
original motion to provide atwo blade signs of the same size and shape
as on Banana Republic, . " The minutes were then approved as
amended.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no questions from the floor.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR
ADDITION AT 509 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (LEAH & ALEX WINCK,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS
CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: could we have the average
setback on both sides of the street for the 500 block of Burlingame Avenue and identify the number of
garages which are 19 feet or less from the property line; ask the applicant to address why, since this
is new construction on the side of the house, the garage cannot be pushed back to meet setback
requirements and why the 4 foot side setback cannot be met; provide the average setback of the garages
se
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
on both side of the street for this block. There were no further questions and the public hearing was
set for April 26, 1999, providing all the information is submitted in time.
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 640 Sl= ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF A SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE AT 1324 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
(NICHOLAS MORISCO, CSS ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND RUSSELL WEBBER,
PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: how big is the accessory
structure there are several different numbers in the staff report; ask the applicant to explain why they
need so much storage in the accessory structure; a smaller structure closer to the house would be better,
could the design be altered to have a minimum two car garage with a storage room which "L's" off the
side; code has been revised, a structure more than 30 feet long will require a special permit, staff should
check to see if this requirement applies; to accommodate resident's needs the code has been revised in
the past five years increasing the minimum garage size from 500 to 600 square feet, applicant should
address why he needs more than 600 square feet and why such a large garage would not be detrimental
the adjoining property. There were no further questions and the public hearing was set for April 26,
1999, providing all the information is submitted in time.
APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE
DIMENSIONS FOR A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN
REVIEW AT 1420 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (TIM PROCTOR, APPLICANT AND TIM
AND ANNE PROCTOR, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: page E-2 of the plans indicates
that this garage is unique, it appears to be a part of a larger structure on the neighbor's property,
applicant should elaborate on how the garage is used with the neighbor and how it works (neighbor's
access and his access); what was the square footage requested of the garage at 118 Occidental; problem
is existing garage is in bad shape, needs to be replaced, when that happens the site. will be over FAR
and will need a variance if this project is granted, how much square footage is needed to put in a to -
code two car garage, can that be taken from the house now; would like a picture of two cars parked
side by side in the existing garage; according to the California Building Code this is a basement, is it
a basement according to the zoning code, if it is counted as a basement then it does not count in FAR
and is therefore a factor in this decision; concerned about the window size shown, need emergency
egress from sleeping areas, windows shown look too small, should be made bigger now if need to be
since will have to return to commission to take care of later. There were no further questions and the
public hearing was set for April 26, 1999, providing all the information is submitted in time.
APPLICATION FOR LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VARY
FROM THE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT
DEVELOPMENT TO ESTABLISH A LABORATORY USE, AND OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE
SPACE AT 330 BEACH ROAD, ZONED O-M. (GLENN CABREROS, CALLANDER
ASSOCIATES. APPLICANT AND GEORGE & CHIEKO KUJIRAOKA, PROPERTY OWNERS).
CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: could applicant provide
calculation on existing percentage of landscaping on site; from field inspection it looks like there is an
additional building attached to this structure, 320 Beach, which also fronts on Airport with roll up doors
-2-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
but has no parking, where do they park all the curbs appear to be painted red; could the 2 planters along
the main entry be increased in size and planted with trees and couple more trees added along Beach
Road where there are a row of parked cars; thought that there was a long standing agreement between
the Anza Corporation and the property owners of 330-340 Beach that would allow them to use the
parking area at the entrance of the drive in theater for their businesses, what is the status of this
agreement; need a site plan which shows the precise parking layout; letter indicates that project will
have no major impact on the area, but there are alot of wind surfers who use this area and there is a
traffic impact, the traffic and parking will increase with this lab use as well, applicant should address
effects from the point of view of the additional traffic, a traffic study is not necessary. There were
no further questions and the public hearing was set for April 26, 1999, providing all the information
is submitted in time.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYARE
ACTED ON 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.
Chairman Deal asked if anyone from the audience had any questions or would like to call any item off
the consent calendar. There was no response from the audience, hoever C.Key asked that Item Nos.
5, 1544 Ralston, 6, 1548 Newlands and No. 8, 1354 Burlingame Avenue be called up to the regular
calendar for public hearing.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1701
BROADWAY, ZONED R-1. (JERRY DEAL, JD ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JOHN AND
JENNIFER MARTIN, PROPERTY OWNER)
Chairman Deal indicated that he would abstain from this item since he had a business relationship with
the applicant in excess of $250. Vice -Chairman Coffey took over the gavel.
C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Acting -Chair
Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal
procedures were advised.
REGULAR CALENDAR
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1544
RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND TIMOTHY AND AMY
MULRON, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions on the staff report.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway was present representing the
applicant. Commission asked if the applicant would be agreeable to an electric gate to provide more
usable access to the garage. The applicant agreed.
-3-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
C. Key moved approval of the application based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped February 16, 1999, sheets Al through A5; 2) that any changers to the size or envelope of the
second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the
project shall include an electrified gate with remote control to facilitate automobile access to the covered
parking; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1548
NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (WILLIAM & SANDRA LINDSELL, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions of staff.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, 2875 Hillside Drive, was present representing
the applicant. Commission asked if the applicant would be agreeable to an electric gate to provide more
usable access to the garage. The applicant agreed.
C. Key moved approval of the application based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped March 15, 1999, sheets 1-7 and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building
shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the: size or envelope of the first or
second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the
City Engineer's February 16, 1999 memo regarding roof drainage shall. be met; 4) that the project shall
include an electric operated gate with remote control to facilitate automobile access to the covered
parking; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and
it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE
PRIMARY FRONTAGE AT 1354 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (KATIE
MAGUIRE, BEBE, APPLICANT AND PAUL AYOOB, PROPERTY OWNER) CONTINUED FROM
MARCH 22, 1999
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration.
-4-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Dean Stocker, 1522 Carlile Drive, San Mateo was present
representing the applicant. He commented he would answer any questions; thought only other signage
besides blade signs might be 3 decals on windows. The public hearing; was closed.
Commission Comments: there has been some confusion about this application which has been clarified
by understanding the size and measurement of the Banana Republic blade signs; do not like having only
one blade sign off -set from the center of the facade, prefer two like Banana Republic; size of signage
has been confirmed, do not feel it was lopsided, seen many stores with one blade sign, the color is
elegant and program simple, do not want to increase size exception.
C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the application based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning; Department and date stamped
February 16, 1999 and in accordance with the proposed signage table in the Planning Commission's
April 12, 1999 staff report; 2) that any increase in the number or size of the signs on the primary
frontage, including seasonal advertising signs mounted on the window, shall require an amendment to
this sign exception; 3) that all future sign programs on this site shall have the same black and white
color scheme; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the
1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES TO
ADD NEW UNCOVERED DECKING SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND TO EXPAND INTO
AN EXISTING BASEMENT, AND A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED
GARAGE AT 260 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ANTONI:O M. BRANDI, APPLICANT
AND JOSE AND MARIA MONTES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (RESUBMITTAL OF PROJECT
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. In her
review of the staff report the city planner noted that there was a minor code interpretation issue in this
application, the FAR formula includes a bonus for a detached garage, if the garage is smaller can the
remaining square footage be shifted to the FAR of the house. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Toni Brandi, 942 Larch, South San Francisco, represented
the applicant, objective is to make the house better, they are removing 73 SF at the rear of the structure
and reduced the garage by 79 SF, feel that at 10' by 20' they won't be able to open the garage doors
fully, would prefer a 12 foot width, could do that without changing the design of the structure.
Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, Christopher Andrews, 1524 Cypress spoke: glad to see this house
purchased after the flood, it is charming, sold at a more affordable price because there was some
restriction on what can be done because of the lot; am concerned about the addition of a bedroom in
the basement, this is the area which flooded, concerned about the safety of a child who might be
sleeping there in the future; the house was built in a cottage style with diamond windows on the front,
the proposed windows look as if they came from Home Depot, hope they keep the deck at the front it
maintains the scale of the house, the balconies proposed do not; agree that this house is valuable to the
-5-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
neighborhood and the lot limits what can be done; the neighborhood associates with this house because
of its close linkage to the creek; looked at the plans and this was referred to as a Cape Cod house, in
my opinion half round windows do not suit this part of Burlingame, prefer to see a cottage style with
eight panes over one or eight panes over two for windows. The architect for the project responded: the
existing windows in the cottage are too small, code requires that they be increased, have done this by
combining two by removing the middle post, added rounded windows to try to modernize the
appearance of the house some. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
Commissioners comment: do not feel that it was the intent of the detached garage incentive to allow any
extra garage square footage to be added to the house, so should look at the FAR of the house against
the formula without the detached garage include; see the code differently, reduce the size of the garage
so that total FAR complied and a variance was avoided; feel the same, looking at total FAR not house
and garage; favor the project, modified as we requested, this is a substandard lot, agree could make the
garage 12 wide; concerned about the windows, they are all aluminum sliders, prefer a better, quality
wood frame window in keeping with the house's appearance; agree about windows; this is a unique lot,
a left over piece, done a good job within the limitations; no rear yard so side deck over creek serves
that purpose and therefore is necessary; willing to increase size of the garage to original size with the
laundry, it would still blend in.
C. Coffey moved approval of the variance and design review requests based on the restrictions on
construction caused by the idiocrasies of the lot, by resolution, with the staff conditions 1 to 5
including the following changes to conditions that the garage be permitted as originally submitted and
that the windows be upgraded from sliding aluminum to wood frame. The motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
Comment on the motion: the windows have changed from the original plan (dated February 1I, 1999)
to this one, the first plan had a diamond window it was changed to an octagonal and others were
changed from square to hemispherical, prefer the original window placement; agree the February 11
facade was preferable, looks less like it came from Home Depot; can we amend the motion to include
approval of the facade as shown on sheet A-2 of the February 11 plans except without the decking
shown; applicant could resubmit, can apply for a building permit just can't pull the permit until
approved.
Reopened the public hearing: asked the architect about using original plans; when discussed the
revisions with the City Planner she said that revised plans should show what applicant wants to do;
diamond window is in a closet, there is no reason for it to be there, be likes round windows, if prefer
can put a square window in the attic area, not trying to slip changes b;y the commission. Did not think
you were. The public hearing was closed.
C. Coffey withdrew his motion. Made a new motion to continue this; item to the next meeting; asked
that the applicant submit a new site plan with a new garage footprint and revised front facade; the
changes should be brought back on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue with direction. The motion passed 7-
0. The continuation is not appealable since there was no action on the requested exceptions to the
zoning code.
W
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 2104 EASTON
DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (LARRY MORSELLO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (54
NOTICED) (RESUBMITTAL OF PROJECT DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions on the staff report.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Larry and Veronica Morsello, 1353 Bernal, the applicants
and James Chu, architect, spoke. Commented that their letter was misinterpreted, they are not opposed
to the changes suggested by the design reviewer except for lowering the plate lines; they felt that in the
redesign they have tried to conform to the direction of the Planning Commission given previously.
Commissioners questioned: this is a tremendous improvement, are there two skylights on the second
floor, do not show on roof plans, yes in the flat roof area two bubble type skylights; recently amended
code to provide for a special permit for height exceptions between 30 feet and 36 feet to address
situations where the architectural design calls for taller roofs, this is such a situation, would prefer that
you request a special permit rather than clip the roof peak at the front of the house; feel that the plate
heights you propose are all right and you responded to the concerns expressed about the original design
by lowering them a foot from that height; applicant expressed a concern that if they went for another
permit it would take another 3 months; concerned about the window detail, with this style of structure
in Burlingame the window finish used was stucco mold with wood sill„ would like you to change from
the framed windows to that trim detail; the front door is 3 feet by 8 feet tall, seems out of scale with
the house, could the door be widened to 3.5 feet, architect responded that the door is inside of a porch
and would not be that visible, could widen to 3.5 feet. There were no other comments from the floor
and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: this project has come a long way; agree with design reviewer that lowering
the plate heights would reduce the mass of the house, the front door should be smaller -it looks
overbearing; did a nice job to detach the garage, change the pitch of the roof and adding dormers with
wood casements and a good landscape plan; design reviewer made good comments about using earth
tone colors, feel going too far to tell people what to do with driveway paving, that should be applicants
choice but hope they consider suggestions; agree that these should be: recommendations to applicant,
design guidelines say specifically that design review does not include colors; prefer stucco mold with
wood trim on windows and recommended stucco type suggested by reviewer; front door could be 3 feet
by 7 feet, would reduce the scale of the structure; concern with the front door is the height no the
width; feel that this is a good project do not feel it is appropriate to micro -manage it down to the color,
driveway paving and front door.
C. Vistica noted, based on the discussion, he would move approval of the design review, by resolution,
with the conditions in the staff report and the additional conditions that the window trim be stucco mold
detail with wooden sill and that if the flat portion of the roof is extended any skylights on the sloped
roof should be tinted; the following recommendations to the applicant: are also included in the action:
that the front door size is alright but the window in the door be lowered so people can see through it;
that the applicant consider applying for a special permit for roof :height so that the pitch can be
continued to a peak; the conditions of approval are as follows: 1 ) that the project shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 2, 1999, sheets L1 and
A-1 through A-5 and L-1; 2) that except window trim through out the: structure be stucco mold detail
with wooden sills and that if the roof is extended to a peak any skylights on the sloped roof shall be
-7-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
tinted, all other details as shown on the plans shall be included in the final construction documents and
shall be included in construction; 3) that he applicant shall plant a minimum of 3 - 24 inch box trees
on site as a part of this project; 4) that during the demolition of the existing residence and construction
of the proposed residence, the applicant shall comply with Burlingame's Storm Water management and
Discharge Ordinance, and shall apply Best Management Practices (BMP's) pursuant to C.S. 15.14.140.3
to the greatest extent possible to reduce off -site erosion and sedimentation resulting from this project;
5) that the comments of the City Engineer, dated march 8, 1999, and the Fire Marshal's and Chief
Building Official's comments dated March 5, 1999, shall be addressed at the building permit stage, and
the Senior Landscape Inspector's comments dated March 24, 1999, shall be addressed prior to the final
approval of the building permit and issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the residence; and 6)
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building; and Fire Codes, 1995, edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Comment on the motion: asked the CA if the item needs to be continued in order to review the request
to extend the roof; commission cannot act on special permit tonight can act on project and direct
applicant to return and request special permit for height; like the project but would really like applicant
to apply for a special permit and complete the line of the roof especially since the ordinance is in place
to make this possible for just this situation; agree, hope that applicant will take advantage and apply for
exception, could put on consent calendar, prefer not to stop action tonight.
Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote to approve the design review with amended conditions and
recommendations to the applicant. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Chairman Deal called for a five minutes break at 9:05 p.m. and returned to the dias at 9:10 p.m.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE AT 1155
CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (CARL & GRACE BREDL, APPLICANT, AND MANSA
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission asked clarification of condition #4; it is based on applicant's response to study questions
showing one half hour in the morning twice a week for deliveries. Commission would prefer a more
general listing of types of food to be sold, noting that there be no tables/chairs or stand up counter.
CA Anderson noted it would be a problem to define and to enforce so agree on prepackaged goods.
There were no further questions to staff.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Carl and Grace Brehl, 837 No. Claremont, San Mateo, and
Chris Morro were present to respond to questions. Commission asked how they would enforce
"mandatory" public transit; clarification on the number of employees and the times of delivery.
Responded they will strongly encourage employees use public transit or parking on the west side of
Sanchez; anticipate 4 full time and 3 part time, never more than 5 on site at any one time; deliveries
will only be twice a week, however the time 5:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. would work better. The non juice
items are 100 % markup and probably 20 % of the volume. The items for sale will be pretzels, energy
bars and all prepackaged.
H
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
Commission then asked the process for signage at this site. They will. conform to district regulations,
however, to not have anything prepared to present at this time. Franchise has 3 sites at this time; San
Francisco, Fremont and Burlingame. There were no further questions and the public hearing was
closed.
CA Anderson noted there is nothing in the record limiting this site to sale of prepackaged food and juice
bars as conditions are now written.
C. Coffey moved approval of the take-out permit request based, by resolution, with the staff conditions
1 to 7 including the following changes to condition #3; that the delivery, time be 5:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m.,
twice a week. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
Commission discussion: would like to see employee parking off -site; like to limit food sales.
The maker of the motion called for a roll call vote as the motion stands. The motion failed 1-6 (Cmsrs.
Boju6s, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal dissenting).
C. Vistica then moved approval of this take-out permit application, by resolution, with the staff
conditions 1 to 7 including the following changes to conditions; that the time of delivery be 5:30 am
to 6:30 a.m., twice a week; other than juice and smoothies, all Ifoods for sale be prepackaged;
employees park off -site; the trash shall be of the design approved for use by the street scape committee;
and this application be reviewed for compliance or by complaint in one year; as follows: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
March 8, 1999 (floor plan) and site plan (81/2" x 11 ") and shall not have tables and chairs for customer
seating; 2) that the store may not be open for business except during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays; 3) that
all deliveries to the site shall be scheduled twice a week between 5:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m.; 4) that no
alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the juice bar and the take-out food service business shall be
limited to sale of juicies, smoothies and prepackaged foods; 5) that all employees shall park off -site;
6) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash
receptacle inside the door to the store and on the sidewalk along Califormia Drive at a location approved
by the City Engineer and Fire Department, the trash receptacle on the sidewalk shall be of the design
approved for the streetscape improvements; 7) that this application shall be reviewed for compliance
with its conditions in one year (April 2000) or upon complaint; 8) that. the applicant shall remove once
a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all take-out debris on the sidewalk,
in the gutter, and within 50' of the store in each direction; and 9) that the use and any improvements
for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of
Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to
approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
RI
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXTEND THE
HOURS OF OPERATION FOR A NON -AUTO RELATED BUSINESS WITH TAKE-OUT SERVICE
AT 224 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D. (JORGE SALDANA, APPLICANT
AND FRANK LEMOS, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions of staff.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jorge Saldana, manager and franchise owner of Dominio's
Pizza at 224 California Drive, spoke. He noted that it was his intention when he took over this business
to increase sales, he will need more people to work for him even if he does not increase the hours of
operation, have to have more employees to give good customer service. Commissioners asked: do you
intend to have 10 employees, yes; how many of these will deliver, 7; 'where will the delivery vehicles
park, on the side street (South Lane) in the designated loading area by the auto parts business, looked
for a lot to lease for parking, closest was half mile away, would not work; when is the peak delivery
period, will use 7 employees to deliver on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, use 5 during the week, if there
is no need for so many, will send home; where do these delivery people park, use 3 meters by site, 3
meters on South Lane by the Chamber of Commerce, park in rear by railroad tracks if on -street is full,
need most delivery at night and the street parking is available in this area then, there is no parking on
the street during the day. Other Domino's locations must have this parking problem, do you have an
idea about how they handle it, do they dispatch by cell phone to drivers who stop by the curb to pick
up for delivery or some other solution, no. As recently as April 10 (after the letter was sent by you
indicating that abuse of the Chamber parking had stopped) saw delivery people park in front of Chamber
why, had an understanding could use after chamber offices were closed, misunderstood that it was not
OK, was notified on April 1 and told employees those who abused would be suspended for three days
and dismissed on second offense. Do you own this franchise site, yeas; did you review the previous
permit for this site, no one knew about it, opened then received enforcement; permit says no seating
and no lunch, do you want to make this a restaurant with seating, goal is 100 percent delivery, no
seating if come in have to take pizza home to eat; were notified of code enforcement on January 19,
to CP, does it normally take that long to get a conditional use permit to hearing, no. There were no
more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Comments by the Commission: concerned about parking, want to extend hours at the time when there
is the least parking in the area, parking is available after 6:30 or 7:30 p.m., so should keep hours the
same; when has a lease for off -site employee parking can return to the commission and ask again to be
open at lunch; in 1986 when original permit issued parking was a problem, it has gotten worse since
then in this area, OK to increase employees at night but hours should be kept the same; in 1986 the
Planning Commission denied this permit because of parking and the Council overturned the commission
decision.
C. Key based on the discussion moved by resolution to amend the conditional use permit for take out
food service to allow the increase in employees on site to 10 after 6 p.m. 7 days a week and to provide
for a review of the conditional use permit in one year ( April 2000) or upon compliant. The conditions
of approval are: 1) that the restaurant shall be open from 4:00 p.m. until 12:00 midnight on Mondays
-10-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
through Fridays, 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. on Saturdays, and from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight on
Sundays with no service to the public before the hours designated in this condition; 2) that before 6
p.m. the maximum number of employees on the site shall be limited to five with three of these
employees conducting deliveries and after 6 p.m. there may be a maximum of 10 employees on the site
with seven of them conducting deliveries; 3) that there shall be no patron/customer seating inside the
business, no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the site, and 95 % of the business from this site shall
be by off -site delivery; 4) that if there is any change in the proposed operation, number of employees,
delivery schedule, hours of operation or addition of seating, this permit shall be amended; 5) that this
use permit shall be reviewed for consistency with its conditions in one ;year's time (April 2000) or upon
complaint; and 6) that if any improvements are proposed on site the applicant shall apply for a building
permit and the improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Code requirements
in the 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Bojuds. Chairman Deal called for a voice 'vote on the amended
conditions of approval. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO RECONFIGURE THE PARKING LOT AT THE EXISTING MARRIOTT HOTEL AT
1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (GREG JENSEN, MILE HI VALET, APPLICANT
AND HOST MARRIOTT, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-seven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commissioners asked: why condition to report vehicles which were on site more than 24 hours, need
to monitor to see if parking continuing to be abused by airport users and if charging increases
availability; map in staff report to show where employees park but is blank, highlight did not copy,
passed around original. There were no further questions.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Greg Jensen, 31 Camino Alto, Millbrae, spoke. Before the
December 1997 action the hotel submitted plans to create cut throughs along the long parking aisles,
it was denied because creating the breaks would remove 12 parking spaces; with this submittal have
found a way to recoup 8 of those 12 parking spaces; there are 12 spaces at the north end of the site
out side of the controlled parking area, how do you keep employees from parking there, these spaces
are required by the hotel's BCDC permit and they are monitored two times a day to insure that hotel
employees do not use them; do you also patrol these spaces for long germ parkers and call the police,
not in the past; do employees pay for parking on site, no are issued a card to use the area. There were
no more comments from the applicant or the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Coffey moved that because of the need for safe traffic and existing parking movements and the fact
that the number of spaces removed had been reduced to 4, it would improve the normal flow of vehicles
in the lot and increase the safety of visitors, the gates are necessary to control the illegal use of the lot
by airport travelers and have freed up more than the 4 parking spaces lost, the parking variance for
1800 Airport, the Marriott Hotel should be approved, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff
report: 1) that the proposed improvements to the surface parking lot circulation shall be installed as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 19, 1999, Sheets 1
and 2, Site Plan and Details and shall be built in conformance with the California Building and Uniform
-I1-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
Fire Codes, 1995 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; *2) compliance with the conditions
of the City Engineer's memo of April 5, 1982 and the Zoning Aide's memo of April 5, 1982; 3)
contribute 12.2 percent to the modifications to the signalization of the Millbrae/Bayshore Highway
intersection necessary when traffic generated from the project causes a worsening in the level of service
at the intersection of one level; 4) maintenance of catch basins and grease traps serving the project; *5)
development of a final landscape plan which meets BCDC public access concerns and approval by the
Burlingame Park Director; planting and ongoing requirement to maintain whatever landscaping is
approved; 6) contribution, as required by the City and depending upon receipt of Federal grants, to the
improvement of the City's Sewage Treatment Plant, secondary treatment solids improvement; *7) pay
cost of independent review of the Jefferson Associates' Traffic Assignment study for the project; 8)
approval of Phases II and III of the project is subject to an origin -destination study of actual traffic
generation and distribution from previously completed phases of the project; 9) provide signalization
at the Malcolm Road intersection if traffic studies required by the City, for Phases II and III show it to
be necessary; *10) provision of the following during construction of all phases of the hotel: adequate
off-street all weather parking for construction workers and physical protection to the marsh habitat along
El Portal Creek; *11) during construction of all phases require erosion control to include limiting
construction as determined necessary by the City during the wet season, hydro seeding at the onset of
the wet season, developing a specific plan for sedimentation control approved as necessary by the San
Francisco Water Quality Control Board and the City of Burlingame; * 12) as part of the Title 24 survey,
the feasibility of solar energy and other conservation devises should be considered; *13) submit
excavation procedures to protect public and private property and final grading and drainage plans
acceptable to the City; *14) all excavated material, acceptable to the City, shall be treated and placed
in the City's sanitary land fill as directed by the City; * 15) receipt: of permits from all necessary
regulatory agencies including BCDC and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; *I6)
compliance with Mr. Edward Hope's letter of March 19, 1982; *17) the project shall include a 14,000
SF ballroom/convention center in its first phase; *18) the "footprint" as submitted by the developer shall
be followed; * 19) the project shall generally follow those plans date: stamped March 31, 1982 and
submitted to the Council; 20) that the car rental operation at the ]Marriott Hotel, 1800 Bayshore
Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk: in the lobby area between the
hours of 8 am to 5 pm, 7 days a week, and that all rental contracts, shall be written and signed in
Burlingame; 21) that 6 parking spaces shall be reserved for car rental vehicles in the garage and no car
shall be stored in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; there shall be no rental cars parked in
the surface parking lot; 22) that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned, washed or repaired on the Marriott
site; 23) that car rental customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to the operating limits
of the car rental use shall require an amendment to this use permit; 24) that before charging for on -site
guest parking the applicant shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to
install appropriate directional signage; 25) that the conditions of the Senior Building Inspector's
September 9, 1997 memo, Fire Marshal's August 25, 1997 and September 8, 1997 memos, Senior Civil
Engineer's September 11, 1997 memo, Traffic Engineer's September 10, 1997 memo and the City
Engineer's September 22, 1997 memos shall be met and that there shall be no temporary tents for any
purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site; 26) that storage in the parking garage
shall be limited to areas permitted by the Burlingame Fire Department and not designated as parking
spaces on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997 (Sheets 1&2); 27) that on -site security and patrol
shall be provided; 28) that during construction all parking for construction equipment shall be provided
on -site and a supervised program for on -site and off -site parking for construction workers shall be
approved by the Department of Public Works; 29) that the hotel shall install oil separating traps for
-12-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
runoff from parking areas and maintain oil separating traps on a regular basis as approved by the city;
30) that up to 251 parking spaces in the below grade parking garage shall be designated for valet
parking; 31) that any change to the operation of valet parking affecting the fee charge or the area used
shall require modification of this use permit; 32) that long term airport parking for a fee or no fee shall
not occur at this site (including "sleep, park & fly" promotions) without amendment to this permit; 33)
that a fee may be charged for self -park visitors at a rate of up to $0.50 per hour for the first four hours,
and $1.00 thereafter and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 34)
that 14 spaces remain on the site for the purpose of public access in the location indicated on the plans
date stamped February 19, 1999 (Sheets 1 &2), and that these spaces shall be clearly marked as public
access spaces and shall remain unrestricted (outside any parking control gating) and that no fee shall
be charged for these spaces at any time; any revisions to these public access spaces require the
permission of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission prior to any alterations; 35) that any
change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of
the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 36) that this permit shall be reviewed
for compliance with its conditions in one year (April, 2000) and every two years thereafter; and 37) that
the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which have parked
longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more
than 10 % of the on -site parking spaces are employed for this duration.
The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve a 4- space parking variance. The
commissioners voted 7-0 to pass the motion. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONTROLLED ACCESS TO
PARKING AREA, PAID SELF -PARKING AND VALET PARKING AT THE EXISTING
DOUBLETREE HOTEL AT 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (BRUCE CARLTON,
DOUBLETREE HOTEL, APPLICANT AND TODAY'S III. INC.. PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration.
There were no questions on the staff report.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Bruce Carlton, Manager of the DoubleTree Hotel, 1552
Alturis, Kimberly McKitrick, from Gumbinger Associates architects, Brill Hung, valet service operator,
spoke. Want to install gates to prevent use of the hotel parking lot by non -hotel people; offer valet
service as a benefit to guests; proposed rates are different than the other hotels, the first four hours are
charged differently because of the convenience of making change but the total is the same, the over four
hour rate is higher than the others and they are flexible on this charge:, asking $9.00 flat fee for 4 to
24 hours, for 24 hours this is one dollar less than Hyatt or Marriott. There were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran moved approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit for controlled parking and
valet parking finding that this will alleviate parking problems on the site and improve safe traffic
circulation by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the controlled access parking plan shall
be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
-13-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
February 19, 1999, Sheet PK-1, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the
California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 2)
that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 28, 1998 and March 2, 1999 memos and the City
Engineer's March 8, 1999 memo shall be met; 3) that a fee may be charged for self -park visitors at a
rate of up to $1.00 for the first two hours, $2.00 for 2 to 4 hours and $9.00 for over four hours, and
any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 4) that any change to the
number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking
controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 5) that any change to the operation of the controlled
and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require
amendment to this use permit; 6) that prior to use of the City landfill parking lot for paid valet or paid
self -parking, the hotel shall obtain an amendment to the Shared Parking and License Agreement with
the City to reflect this use; 7) that the use permit shall be reviewed annually for the first three years
(April 2000, 2001, 2002) to assess the impact of paid valet and self parking on City landfill parking and
parking on adjacent streets and properties, and/or upon complaint; 8) that the hotel shall report to the
city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which have parked longer than 24 hours and
are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more than 10 % of the on -site
parking spaces are employed for this duration; *9) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 14, 19,97, Sheet AO through All, and
that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the
Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; * 10) that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal's November 18, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos, and the Chief Building Inspector's
November 12, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos shall be met; 11) that small delivery trucks or vans with
periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on
site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 12) that the use and any improvements for the use
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as
amended by the City of Burlingame; *13) that the overall height of the addition as measured from the
grade at the first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 84'-6'/z", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft
and mechanical room shall be 99'-0"; 14) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single
individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the
building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 15) that in the future, as required, the
developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide! an east -west transit connection
to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and
guests as well as providing an on -site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other
employers in the area, to facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by
the hotel; 16) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization
and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by
a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; * 17) that the
traffic allocation for a 101- room addition to an existing 291-room hotel (82.2 roomlacre density) which
is a part of the planning approval of this project and the agreement for use of 115 parking spaces on
the adjacent sanitary landfill shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time
the planning approval expires on the project; *18) that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan
for the transition period between occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and availability of
at least 115 spaces in the proposed shared use parking lot on the sanitary landfill site; * 19) that since
the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required parking by seeking an agreement
with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before issuance of any building permit
under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that provides that
-14-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
the applicant will be allowed to use the City property to the north and west for parking for at least 115
vehicles so long as the applicant's property is used as a hotel or the required parking is not provided
in some other way approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant
shall either reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 115 parking spaces or provide alternative
parking approved by the City; *20) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; *21) that the proposed structure
will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major
earthquake; *22) that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be
designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1995 edition of the California Building Code and
California Fire Code; *23) that in order to minimize settlement of roadways and other site features,
recompacting or surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving.; *24) that
flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground
settlement; *25) that the finished floors for any structure to be at least 9' above the mean sea level or
one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater; *26) that any new construction on the
site shall elevate the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet above the mean sea level or
one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater. Habitable areas include meeting and
conference areas and their support facilities; *27) that this project shall comply with the requirements
of the state -mandated water conservation program, that a complete Irrigation Water Management and
Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application,
and shall be approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit; *28)
that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; *29) that the site shall be
periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; *30) that the developer
shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and
construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 31) that when the level -of -
service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through lane on Airport Boulevard at Anza
Boulevard to a second exclusive left -turn lane. This improvement will improve cumulative conditions
during the p.m. peak hour at this intersection to an acceptable LOS D (V/C=0.85), and the applicant
shall pay a fee at that time toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's
contribution to the total increase in traffic through the intersection; 1132) that payment of a Bayfront
Development Fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required in order to
pay the proportional share for improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other
projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for
a final framing inspection; *33) that the proposed Anza Boulevard driveway access shared with the
future park shall be widened from its current proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet;
a stop sign shall be provided at the driveway to control access on to Anza Boulevard from the shared
parking facilities at the public park; 34) that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport
shuttle service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to Cal.train to accommodate employees
at shift changes; 35) that no portion of the required parking on -site or on the landfill shall be used for
long-term airport parking as part of a hotel promotion; *36) that all construction shall be limited to the
hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven
before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; *37) that the City shall require that
the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip pile drivers with shields,
and shall also develop a schedule for pile driving to minimize the impacts on the existing DoubleTree
Hotel facilities, the Red Roof Inn and Red Rock Cafe; *38) that the hotel addition shall be built so that
the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; and *39) that in the event that any
-15-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during construction -related
earthmoving activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant
shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find were
determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, then representatives of the project applicant,
the City, and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the .appropriate course of action. If
the discovery includes human remains, Section VIII of CEQA Guidelines Appendix K would be
followed, requiring coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission if the human remains
are of Native American origin. All significant cultural materials recovered would .be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by a qualified archaeologist
according to current professional standards.
The motion was seconded by C. Key.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the conditional use
permit to allow controlled access parking, valet parking and paid self -parking at 835 Airport Blvd. The
motion was passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AT 820 MALCOLM
ROAD, ZONED O-M. (HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS., APPLICANT AND JOHN
MONFREDINI, PROPERTY OWNER) (26 NOTICED) (RESUBMITTAL OF PROJECT DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department continents. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission had no questions of staff.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Tim Driscoll, 532 Sea Spray Court, Pacifica, Harvey
Hacker, architect, and Lynn Walden, 1226 Walden Ct, Saratoga, represented the project. They noted:
after the last meeting Enterprise seriously considered all the directions of the commission; to indicate
their commitment to the site they have recently extended their lease term 16 years; they recognize that
there has been a change in how parking for rental cars is calculated since they went on the site
originally and they have conformed to the new rules by providing 40, spaces for an average monthly
rental volume of 160 cars; they have provided on -site landscaping of 15 % where it was not present
before; they do not comply with landscaping in the front setback but that is because of the placement
of the building which was established before the code requirement. Commissioner asked them to
explain the requirements of going on -site at the airport, responded it was a bidding process, had to make
a ten year commitment, decided that since SFO is the third largest car rental market in the nation it was
wise to go on site, car rentals have increased and different customers than they had before when they
were off airport; very happy with SFO facility, have experienced an increase in walk-up business; had
you thought to move the rear fence and increase landscaping on the left side, did parking layout within
existing paved area, with new rules were just barely able to meet the parking for the Enterprise fleet
requirements, tried alot of alternatives to get to the workable on proposed; no detailed planting plan,
no future plantings will need to be compatible with what is there now; can you shift planting and
parking at the rear of the site to provide planting where it will be visible, problem is site geometry,
building is not centered on the site, a double loaded parking aisle (best for parking) is available on only
-16-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
one side; would you consider adding landscaping at the front, if reduce the number of parking spaces;
there is a good sized strip of landscaping on the left side on the neighboring property; could move 6
parking spaces at the front, that is where landscaping is needed, willing to look at alternatives; would
like to know what the landscaping is, will it add visual interest, seems project is close enough now to
do a detailed landscaping plan; this is the regional headquarters for Enterprise Rent -a -Car and we are
as concerned about presentation as you, don't want ice plant anywhere.
Steven Wagner attorney, represented Joe Cochett at 840 Malcolm, second time before the commission
on this matter, pleased with discussions, focus on landscaping and this presentation is more organized;
Mr. Cochett places a high priority on aesthetics and cleanliness; no point in having landscaping at rear
of site, can't see as pass by, would prefer landscaping be added at the front; would suggest that the
applicant resubmit again; concerned about the number of employees at the site; why increase the number
of employees, it may mean more rental contracts being written from the site; if adding front landscaping
interferes with rentals then the number of rentals should be reduced to increase the amount of required
parking for office workers. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Bojues moved that the item be continued with the additional direction to the applicant that perhaps
4 of the parking stalls at the front on the left side be relocated and landscaping at the rear be relocated,
that area could then be used for parking, submittal of a detailed landscape plan which shows the square
footage of each landscaped area and the plant materials and irrigation to be used. The motion was
seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: landscaping on the right side 20 feet back is riot useable or visible, concerned
about the front on both sides; need to address employees on Saturday and Sunday only one employee
to handle all rental transactions; clarification about the 4 parking spaces at the front to be landscaped,
its actually 8, 4 on each side of the aisle, the fence can be moved.
Chairman Deal reopened the public hearing. Applicant's architect suggested that perhaps the direction
might be less specific and he would work with site access and disabled accessible requirements and see
how he could get more landscaping at the front, commissioner agreed. Maker of motion and second
agreed to amend the motion to have it return to the commission at their meeting of May 10, 1999.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the amended motion to continue this item to the meeting of
May 10, 1999. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Since no action was taken there is no appeal at this
time.
PLANNER REPORTS
REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1999.
AMENDMENT TO RULES AND PROCEDURE REGARDING ROTATION OF OFFICERS.
The CP and CA reviewed the proposed changes recommended by the Commissioners to the Planning
Commission's Rules of Procedures. These changes established a rotation among the commissioners for
the various officer positions and established a method of selecting among commissioners to enter into
-17-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 1999
the rotation. Commission's action is a recommendation to the City Council which must review changes
to the Commission's rules of procedure.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Key moved approval of the changes as shown to the commission's rules of procedure and
recommended that they be sent forward to the City Council for their consideration and action. The
motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion. The
motion passed on a 7-0 vote. The changes will be taken forward to the Council for consideration and
action.
- STATUS REPORT ON LUGGAGE CENTER SIGNAGE AT 1200 BURLINGAME
AVENUE.
- FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION' REQUIREMENTS FOR
DISQUALIFICATION (HANDOUT)
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
M[NUTES4.12
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary
-18-