HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.11.10MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1997
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman
Key on November 10, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink, Wellford and Key
Absent: None
Staff Present: City —Planner, Margaret" M6fiioe; City Attorney; Larry Anderson; Senior
Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall
MINUTES - The minutes of the September 22, 1997 Planning Commission approval of the
1801, 1815, 1831 Bayshore Highway and 840 Cowan road application,
condition ##3 on pages 8, 9 and 10 were amended to read; "3) that all rental
contracts for cars rented and stored on this site for the tour businesses arriving
at San Francisco Airport on this site shall be written in Burlingame at the
facility located at 1831 Bayshore Highway;"
Further, the conditions of the September 8, 1997 Planning Commission action
were corrected for the 920 Chula Vista approval, as follows:
1. that the project shall be as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped June 10, 1997 sheets 1-6 (location map, site
plan, floor plan 920A and 920B, existing floor plan 922A and 922B, floor
plan and electrical 922A, Section A);
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's memo dated June 13,
1997 and the Fire Marshal's June 16, 1997 memo shall be met so that the
existing units including 922A shall comply with all the requirements of the
California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame,
1995 edition;
3. that, based on the June 10, 1997 plans, unit 922A shall be removed within
ten years time (by June 10, 2007) and the area of the site occupied by this
unit shall be converted to open space useable by the other tenants as
approved by the City's Senior. Landscape Inspector;
-1-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 10, 1997
4. that the variance for parking for unit 922A and for providing dwelling units
in two buildings in the R-3 zoning district shall expire in the year 2007 so
that if this site is redeveloped for multiple famil;housing in the future the
new project must meet all the requirements of the applicable zoning district
in effect at that time; in the interim period between the year 2007 and any
reconstruction, the three remaining units and three on -site parking spaces
serving them shall be considered nonconforming; and
5. that if before the year 2007, there is any increase in the square footage of
the dwelling units and/or buildings on this site or any other construction,
the opportunity to retain the fourth unit for 10 years (to the year 2007) and
to retain the nonconforming 3 dwelling units on the site shall be voided,
and the property shall be reconstructed within all the code requirements in
effect for the zoning district at that time.
The minutes of the September •89, 4997 and September 22,, -1997 : were: then
approved as amended and certified copies of the Resolutions, as amended, are
to be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo.
The minutes of the October 27, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were then
approved as mailed.
AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT :FOR OFFICE GREATER
THAN 50% OF FLOOR AREA AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN AMBULANCE SERVICE
AT 1606 AND 1616 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, (AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE,
APPLICANT AND JOE DIMAIO, PROPERTY OWNER).
Requests: since these two properties are in one ownership, has the owner considered merging the
properties to eliminate the need for a parking variance; if commission were to grant a variance then
it would be necessary to tie the two properties together and have the variance terminate when the use
terminates on either site; provide information on the total number of ambulance vehicles on the road
at peak hour and total ever parked on site at one time, and the time of that: peak; what, if any, energy
requirements does the county have for the operation of this fleet of vehicles; city attorney needs to
look at parking variance issue and see that these two properties are "joined at the hip" so that a
variance does not extend to future uses on this site. The project was set for public hearing on
November 24, 1997.
ACTION ITEMS
-2-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND AREA AT 1100
BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
AREA, (DAVID R. FRAZER, APPLICANT AND NATHAN & MARILYN SCHMIDT, PROPERTY
OWNERS.)
Reference staff report, 11.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were
recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked why the sign over the door was counted with
the secondary frontage (California Drive) instead of the primary frontage since it can be seen from
either side; staff noted that we assign signage to one frontage, and this sign could have been assigned
to either frontage and was assigned in this case to the secondary frontage.
Chair Key opened the public hearing. David Frazer, 310 Grandville Court, San Jose, representing
Left at Albuquerque, the applicant, noted that the restaurant has been open about a year, people have
commented that coming down -Californ a -they. have -difficulty finding the restaurant; -they- put the arrow
up on the secondary frontage because they felt that it was a piece of art, it has no wording on it; want
the wall sign to identify the business, the sign over the door is hard to see from California; the
proposed sign will be the same color as the one now on the building, commissioners asked; part of
justification in letter was that this is your slow season and need better signage to survive, trying to
target as much of the market as can over the winter which is the slower season for us because the
sidewalk use is not available. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal noted that he had been past the site hundreds of times and it is true if coming south on
California from Broadway one cannot see any identification for this restaurant, if the signage on the
comer were divided evenly between the two frontages there would be less than the maximum 50 SF
of signage on each frontage with this request, also less than the maximum number of signs; therefore
he does not see this request as a grant of special privilege, the signage is in keeping with the building;
he moved approval of the sign exception, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report as
follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped September 24, 1997 Sheets K, S1, and S2; and 2) that the project shall meet all
California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. There were no comments on the motion. The motion to
approve passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD 3 PARKING SPACES
AND TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP AT AN EXISTING GAS STATION AT 1101 BROADWAY,
ZONED C-2, (RHL DESIGN GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND CHEVRON USA, INC.,
PROPERTY OWNER).
Reference staff report, 11.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were
recommended for consideration. Is the dimension of 9' x 20' all right for space number 3; yes since
it is not confined on two sides.
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997
Chair Key opened the public hearing. Tom Piskor, RHL Design, 1137 North McDowell, Petaluma,
architect representing Chevron, stated that they wanted to provide parking for employees and any
customers. He then responded to commissioners questions: now there is a place to fill tires and get
water, is there enough room in front of parking place 2 to use these facilities, yes if one pulls up in
a straight line from sidewalk at Broadway; if cars park in front of the pump island closest to space
number 1 can a car get through; yes; I tried this maneuver today and not a chance a car can get past
stall number 1; did you do the measurements, apparently not well enough.; could move space 1 and
2 forward to curb and add a space behind 2; have you tried this with a template, no. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: difficult site to get parking on, space 3 works, space 2 works, space i is
squeezed into the comer; need to rework the site and change the curb cut; could relocate the pump but
not advantageous, reluctantly in favor; has this gas station been renovated, yes; like to suggest that
we are being incrementally had by Chevron, don't know that there were two parking spaces on site
when they first developed, then they renovated and moved the islands so that they could not get two
parking spaces on site, let alone; three; don't know if -anyone ehecked-mam-uvers --or-,dimension�at•that"" —
time; this is a gas station not a gas station/mini-mall, in their remodel they enlarged the space for the
mini -mall and took up the space needed for parking; agree, using some of these spaces when a delivery
truck comes from Broadway is wishful thinking; why were the pumps part so far apart, delivery is
difficult; they created a mess,now they need to figure it out; people will not be able to get air and
water without creating a conflict, not satisfied with circulation or parking; parking stall number 3
could be relocated by the snack shop, which is very modest, not going to be a destination but will
serve gas customers only; with two full time employees chance someone will park in space 3 all the
time is good; not as affronted as others, perhaps stall number 3 can be put by the snack shop; this is
a very modest retail area with one drink case and some candy, not going to be a destination; agree
parking proposed is a problem with circulation of tanker truck; cars often park in these spaces now;
there seems to be an opportunity to move space number 1 to the lower left hand part of the site, at 90
degrees it would improve access for truck circulation.
C. Wellford moved for a denial without prejudice to allow the project to be revised to locate one stall
down to the left part of the site rather than a redesign of a greater magnitude that requires the
relocation of underground tanks and pumps. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
On the motion it was noted that denial without prejudice was a semi-approval/semi-denial, public will
determine if site is unworkable, they will go to another gas station nearby; believe in motion, see stall
moved to southeast comer, see others where they are, then we can get 4 parking spaces; maybe we
could direct them to move the space to the southeast comer and not make them return to the
commission; when use the station to pick up a cold drink, park in the middle under the canopy, would
they be willing to move space number one there.
C. Coffey moved to amend the motion to one of approval with the added condition that parking stall
1 be moved to the southeast corner of the site including all of the built items needed to achieve this;
and if this is not possible the applicant would return to the Planning Commission for additional
approval. The amendment failed for lack of a second.
-4-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997
Additional discussion: CA Anderson noted that another alternative to denial without prejudice is to
continue the item for a period of time and ask for a redesign; that is the same as denial without
prejudice but without specific direction allowing the applicant to come up with an alternative; denial
without prejudice requires renoticing, a continuance does not. A denial without prejudice is not going
to close this business for the sale of gasoline while waiting, want to see what their solution is. Staff
noted it should be specified when the matter was to be returned since the snack shop is a code
enforcement. Want a clear proposal, want applicant to know that snack sales is not a service related
to a gas station. Commissioner expressed concern about short time frame for redesign to get in for
next meeting noting issues to be addressed.
C. Wellford reviewed the motion clarifying that this was a motion to deny the request without
prejudice directing that parking stall number 1 be relocated to remove the conflict with delivery trucks
and be relocated to the left hand comer of the plans and that this application shall be scheduled to
return to the commission at their first meeting in December.
Chair Key called for the,vote,-The,motion� passed- on a 5-2 (Cers. Galligan,and Mink dissenting) -rol1a.; K
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE AREA IN EXCESS OF 20% OF THE
STRUCTURE AREA AND FOR EXCEPTION TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINE LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENTS FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT; AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR
DIMENSION (UNISTALL) AT 770 AIRPORT BLVD., ZONED C-4, (THE GYMBOREE
CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND BURLINGAME SHORE INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY
OWNER).
Reference staff report, 11.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were
recommended for consideration. It looks as if Alternative 1 proposed reduces landscaping on site from
9545 SF to 9371 SF, yes; could they add two more parking spaces behind the building at the roll up
doors, yes; do the 69 spaces provided in the proposed project meet the on -site parking requirement
for the office conversion, yes; can we identify the spaces which are partially or wholly on another
property, yes, numbers 43 through 54, 67 and all the tandem spaces are partially or wholly on
someone else's property. There were no further questions.
Chair Key opened the public hearing. Dennis Strucker, Korve Engineering a traffic and civil engineer,
spoke representing the applicant Gymboree Corporation, presently there are 56 parking spaces to
support the existing uses in the building, this is a non -conforming number; the project square footage
added would require 13 additional spaces for a total of 69 spaces; these can be achieved without using
tandem spaces by converting all spaces to unistall dimension. The business expects 10 visitors a day
but they will come throughout the day, expect no more than 2 to 3 to be there at one time; national
surveys say that office uses generate one parking space per 360 GSF of building, Burlingame's
requirement 1:300 GSF is conservative; also national surveys indicate that offices generate .79
employees/space (because of sickness, vacation, business travel etc.) on this basis the 95 people
employed here would require 75 on -site parking spaces. Applicant counted employees present on days
in September and found this ratio to parking spaces to be lower than the national average, 6 employees
per parking space. Photographs documenting September parking lot usage were displayed. Maximum
-5-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997
usage of the parking lot currently is 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. noon. Korve has suggested that the applicant
employ TDM strategies to reduce on site demand/usage from 75 to the 69 parking spaces provided,
they outlined a program which is included in the staff report.
They understand the city position on counting tandem stalls for meeting on -site parking requirements,
but in this case these stalls are already there, they suggest that the applicant devise a scheme for
designated employees to use these spaces in such away that cars can be moved if necessary. At
commission's request applicant looked at alternatives to providing parking, Korve did that and they
and the applicant prefer Alternative 1 included in the staff report to the scheme shown in the project.
Alternative 1 provides 3 disabled accessible parking spaces plus 72 unistall. spaces (8.5' x 19') on site;
Korve prefers unistall to compact because more people are driving larger czars now, and small cars can
park in standard stalls while big cars cannot all use compact stalls. After the removal of the roll up
doors they could add 2 more parking spaces at the rear wall, for a total of 4. Since Alternative 1
includes an encroachment into the landscaping at the front of the building they would propose that
initially these spaces in the landscaping not be installed but the two more will be added at the rear of
the building, to help offset theiloss. If the parking sehemc-turn9-out•to�be adequate without the spaces in the front landscaping then the applicant will not have to install them. If it turns out on site parking
is inadequate the applicant can be required to remove the landscaping and construct the appropriate
improvements. In summary the existing parking ratio on site is 1:382 GSF, the proposed project has
an on site ratio of 1:385 GSF, Alternative 1 without the tandem and with parking in the landscaping
to arrive at 75 parking spaces has a ratio of 1:356 (less than the national average of 1:360), Alternative
1 with the tandem and parking in landscaped area has a ratio of 1:3213 GSF; the on site parking
demand would be reduced with a TDM program by about 10%.
Alan Katz, representative of Gymboree Corporation, 700 Airport Blvd., expressed a concern about
the condition stating the hours of operation, since employees are sometimes there longer hours;
commissioner asked what would be preferable, he responded 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., commissioner
asked if they provide on site security for such long hours, no; Alternative 2 is not viable at this time
since they do not have the adjacent property owner's permission to use his land, have permission for
spaces in front of tandem, are negotiating for right to continued to use tandem spaces, are willing to
submit agreement to city attorney for his review; spaces 43-54 they presently have an agreement to
use, only question is tandem spaces; alternatives were prepared at commission's request, they felt that
the proposed project was enough parking based on their experience of use; if you do not install parking
in landscaped area at front Alternative 1 is the same a proposed project except for the use of the
tandem parking spaces; is space 67 located in the same easement as 45-52, yes.
Martin Ling, managing partner of the building, 67 Waterside Circle, Redwood City, they support the
application, feel that the proposed improvements will be good for the building, good for the
neighborhood and therefore good for the city; site is surrounded by class A office buildings and class
A hotels, this is the only office/warehouse structure; changing this to all office would help to upgrade
the area and change the warehouse to a more compatible use. Taking out the roll up door and
converting them to windows will increase the safety at the rear of the building. Edgar Finney,
architect, 315 Moleno Drive, San Francisco, spoke in support, this proposal will remove the steel
framed second floor, installed without permit, which is seismically unsafe; and the building will be
brought up to code. Alan Katz spoke again about the hours of operation, noting the site is not open
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minoru November 10, 1997
to outsiders except between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. There were no further comments from the floor
and the hearing was closed.
C. Coffey commented that he had been to the site,looked at the parking and the buildings next door,
and appreciated the study of alternatives; he was agreeable to the October 14 proposal (the project)
with unistall when he looked at the entire possibilities of the site, current usage, and neighboring
properties, it is impossible to infringe on to the property to the southeast because there is a retaining
wall so the piece of property on this side could be used by this site without any effect on the adjacent
property, but they cannot use this space until they reach agreement with the: adjacent owner, removal
of the rollup doors will provide more space for parking; Alternative 1 without removal of landscaping,
unless they feel the need for the additional parking, seems to meet the parking needs of the building;
so he moved approval of the application for a special permit for more than 20 % office and for an
exception to the design guidelines landscape requirements and a parking variance for dimension
(unistall dimensions except for disabled accessible spaces) removing parking; spaces 70 - 75 for a total
of 69 parking stalls on site unless the applicant needs to install them, can use tandem but they do not
count in the required number of :space@-forthis,site;1 and -change, the, hours -of, operation -nor to,exteed--,
the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. which would be the maximum hours the business would be open
to the public, the action is by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as amended;
Discussion on the motion: the findings for this action should include the information from testimony
received, the use of the property and the location of the property the proposed change will not be
detrimental to other properties in the area especially if the applicant undertakes a TDM program for
its employees at both locations; the history shows that this change to all office is consistent with the
general plan; the building is as built on the site, the retaining walls make it difficult to reconfigure the
property to create more area for parking; granting this exception will not affect any other property
except perhaps one built like this one. Thank applicant for providing alternatives, feel that TDM
program makes project work.
C. Luzuraga moved to amend the motion to require that some of the stalls The standard width, 9 feet,
because there are so many larger utility vehicles on the road now, parking spaces 23 to 42 on Alternate
1 should be converted to 9 foot width with two parking spaces added to the proposed two at the rear
of the building where the roll up doors are to be removed. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
On the amendment: regarding the original motion feel that the tandem stalls provide opportunity for
larger vehicles since on the drawing spaces 76-81 (alternative 1) do not take the whole width of the
area; on the amendment the applicant offered two additional spaces at the rear and making spaces 23-
42 wider will make them more useable, like idea.
C. Deal called for a vote on the amendment to the motion, that parking spaces 23-42 as shown on
Alternative 1 be increased in width to 9 feet each and that two parking spaces be added to the two
shown at the rear of the building for a total of four at this location. The amendment passed on a 7-0
voice vote.
Discussion: tandem spaces are not legal parking spaces, but are a benefit if the project is built, better
than removing existing landscaping; not want complaints a year from now and have to enforce
landscape removal, could use tandem as mitigation for spaces 70-75 in the landscaped area; concerned
-7-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997
that the neighboring property owner may not agree to let the tandem parking continue, if there is an
easement allowing would be comfortable; this is their plan, they have the easement to use; CA noted
that they have a memorandum of understanding to use the parking, do not know that they have a
permanent easement; why not accept that they can put parking there, if not they must come back to
the city for review.
C. Coffey moved to recognize the tandem parking as required and a mitigation for the parking
provided for the spaces shown in the existing landscaped area on Alternative 1. Motion died for lack
of a second.
Chair Key called for a vote on the amended motion on the floor that 2 conditional use permits for
more than 20 % office and to the landscape requirements of the Bayfront Design Guidelines and a
parking variance for dimension to allow all the parking spaces shown on Alternative 1 except numbers
23-42 to be unistall (8.5' x 19), two additional parking spaces shall be added parallel to the building
at the rear where to roll up doors are to be removed making the total at this location 4 parking spaces;
parking stalls 23-42 shall be 9' x 19% the tandem parking stalls may be; used by the business with
proper permission but shall not be considered a part of the required parking for this use at this site;
and the hours this business shall be open to the public shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped October 14, 1997, Sheet A0.1 (General Notes & Legends), Sheet A2.1a (Building Floor
Plans), Sheet A5.2 (Exterior Elevations) and Alternative 1 (parking plan) except that parking stalls 23-
42 shall be dimensioned 9' X 19' . The parking stalls shall be added to the two shown on the
Alternative 1 parking plan at the rear of the building next to the rollup doors to provide 4 parking
spaces at this location; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official and Senior Engineer,
September 29, 1997 memos, (requiring that one of the three handicap parking spaces shall be a van
accessible space with an 8'-0" unloading space) shall be met; and that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal's September 29, 1997 memo (an automatic fire sprinkler protection shall be modified to meet
office design and all fire sprinkler work shall be done by a licensed sprinkler contractor) shall be met;
3) that the tandem parking stalls shown on Alternative 1 Parking Plan may be used by the property
owner for on -site parking using an appropriate program with his employees but these spaces shall not
be counted as a part of the required parking on the site; 4) that the TDM Management Strategies
identified in the Korve Engineering Memo (October 31, 1997) shall be implemented at the site and also
incorporate the Gymboree employees at 700 Airport Boulevard within 90 days of this project's
approval, and an annual report on TDM progress shall be submitted by the TDM coordinator to the
Planning Department by January 1 of each year; 5) that if the property owner finds that it is necessary
for the safe operation of the site or to eliminate impact on the neighboring properties he shall add more
parking to the side by installing spaces 70-75, located in the required landscaping; 6) that no classes,
workshops or training sessions shall occur at this location; 7) that the office shall not be open for
business except between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a
maximum of 95 employees assigned to this site; and 8) 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. Mink. The motion passed on a 6 - 1 (C. Culligan dissenting) roll call
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
amended 11.24.97
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997
that the neighboring property owner may not agree to let the tandem parking continue, if there is an
easement allowing would be comfortable; this is their plan, they have the easement to use; CA noted
that they have a memorandum of understanding to use the parking, do not know that they have a
permanent easement; why not accept that they can put parking there, if not they must come back to
the city for review.
C. Coffey moved to recognize the tandem parking as required and a mitigation for the parking
provided for the spaces shown in the existing landscaped area on Alternative 1. Motion died for lack
of a second.
Chair Key called for a vote on the amended motion on the floor that 2 conditional use permits for
more than 20 % office and to the landscape requirements of the Bayfront Design Guidelines and a
parking variance for dimension to allow all the parking spaces shown on Alternative 1 except numbers
23-42 to be unistall (8.5' x 19), two additional parking spaces shall be added parallel to the building
at the rear where the roll up doors. are..toabe removed. making, the total: at this location 4- parking
spaces; parking stalls 23-42 shall be 9' x 19% the tandem parking stalls may be used by the business
with proper permission but shall not be considered a part of the required parking for this use at this
site; and the hours this business shall be open to the public shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped October 14, 1997, Sheet A0.1 (General Notes & Legends), Sheet A2.la (Building Floor
Plans), Sheet A5.2 (Exterior Elevations) and Alternative 1 (parking plan) except that parking stalls 23-
42 shall be dimensioned 9' X 19' . The parking stalls shall be added to the two shown on the
Alternative 1 parking plan at the rear of the building next to the rollup doors to provide 4 parking
spaces at this location; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official and Senior Engineer,
September 29, 1997 memos, (requiring that one of the three handicap parking spaces shall be a van
accessible space with an 8'-0" unloading space) shall be met; and that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal's September 29, 1997 memo (an automatic fire sprinkler protection shall be modified to meet
office design and all fire sprinkler work shall be done by a licensed sprinkler contractor) shall be met;
3) that the tandum parking stalls shown on Alternative 1 Parking Plan may be used by the property
owner for on -site parking using an appropriate program with his employees but these spaces shall not
be counted as a part of the required parking on the site; 4) that the TDM Management Strategies
identified in the Korve Engineering Memo (October 31, 1997) shall be implemented at the site and also
incorporate the Gymboree employees at 700 Airport Boulevard within 90 days of this project's
approval, and an annual report on TDM progress shall be submitted by the TDM coordinator to the
Planning Department by January 1 of each year; 5) that if the property owner finds that it is necessary
for the safe operation of the site or to eliminate impact on the neighboring properties he shall add more
parking to the side by installing spaces 70-75, located in the required landscaping; 6) that no classes,
workshops or training sessions shall occur at this location; 7) that the office shall not be open for
business except between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a
maximum of 95 employees assigned to this site; and 8) 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 passed on a 6 - 1 (C. Galligan dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
The motion was seconded by C. Mink.
In
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997
INTRODUCTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
REGULATIONS IN C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
AND C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, TO ELIMINATE THE TRANSFER OF FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS FROM PROPERTY TO PROPERTY AND TO CLARIFY WHEN A FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT USE IS TERMINATED.
Reference staff report, 11.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. There were no comments from
the Commissioners.
Chair Key opened the public hearing. Gary Cohn, 347 Primrose Road, commented that he had
personally been involved in 14 real estate deals on Burlingame Avenue and half of them were
restaurants; he felt that there were a couple of issues not fully addressed by this ordinance; if a
restaurant goes out of business and -is-replaeed- by - a•shoe -store; -then, there, will, be"ane! lemTestaatant'
on the Avenue; if one restaurant goes out it can replaced by another restaurant; does this regulation
affect take-out permits, no; if Bon Appetit downsizes and continues his deli operation will that be
allowed. Commissioner noted that this ordinance does not address type of restaurant nor does it affect
take-out permit regulations; this ordinance does address when a food establishment ceases to be such
a use and the fact that you cannot expand an existing food establishment. Why not continue the
practice of having conditional use permit on enlarging food establishments within existing buildings
as is now the practice. Feel that the problems are caused more often by the larger establishments;
commission will be rewriting the entire ordinance and will address differentiation among food
establishment then; this ordinance is to address the immediate problem, which can't wait, of
transferring food establishment rights and increasing size. In next phase will look at size of site,
number of tables, seating, and reach out to the people who are affected. Want ordinance where the
standards are clearly set out in the code so the property owner does not have to apply to the city and
wait for approval, frustrates tenants and they leave. It was noted that the grocery store deli is not a
food establishment and should be treated as a take-out food service use. There were no other
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: if the building burns can the restaurant come back: under this ordinance, yes;
can the square footage of the premise be changed to add a restroom, no; this is not the solution to all
the problems, it is the first step; have all the URM buildings been repaired so there is not need for the
temporary relocation clause, yes; leary of prohibiting expansion, there are times when it is necessary,
should allow a conditional use permit; purpose to hold current situation while study what to do; is
there a sunset on this, no; agree needed to close loopholes in current regulation, could take a year or
more to find a solution, reticent to put on a flat out prohibition. CA Anderson noted that if a special
permit is to be allowed for expansion then commission needs to establish criteria for when expansion
is to be considered.
Commissioners discussion: basic concern is that those already existing; be permitted to expand;
conditional use permit does not make clear enough reason to say no now; historically this began as a
way to address a temporary crisis, it had a sunset, the sunset was extended and then removed so
WE
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997
regulations became permanent; have a clear message that there is a problem; primary issue is to
eliminate the expansion of restaurant; should have a task force of people directly involved and planning
commission to try to write regulations; some existing food establishments could become very large
destination restaurants with big impacts on parking under current code, that is a real fear; would
consider criteria of increase 25 % with a conditional use permit, no, not until understand the problem
better; seems to be a clear charge from Council from Saturday meetings that need to stop selling food
and relocation of food establishment rights.
Chair Key called for a motion. C. Wellford stated that given the complexity of the issue and the need
to deal with a manageable part of it at a time, it is necessary to first stop the sale of restaurant rights
and retain current size, giving an opportunity to address the issue more thoroughly later; so he moved
to recommend to the city council for approval the change to the food establishment regulations. The
motion was seconded by C. Coffey. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
PLANNERS .REPORTS - , - - - - - R - - - -
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions at the November 3, 1997, Council meeting.
Discussion of the 1997 Zoning Update
CP Monroe reviewed the highlights of the changes proposed to the zoning ordinance, noting the
changes made by the Commission Subcommittee in their review. She commented that we should also
consider adding psychic services to home occupations so that they are liimited to no employees, no
visitors to the site; CS 25.68.025 was identified as the place to add psychic; services. Several typo and
editorial items were called out to staff. These changes will be made before the item comes to the
Planning Commission for hearing. C. Galligan moved to set this item for public hearing. The motion
was seconded by C. Coffey. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Staff noted that this item would
be placed on the Commission agenda for the December 8, 1997 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Key moved for adjournment, C. Wellford seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned
at 10:40 p.m.
MINUTES 11.10
-10-
Respectfully submitted,
Chuck Mink, Secretary