The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1030 Bernal Avenue - Plans��i� ,. . . �� . � ,. .. �, . ., . : REGi:iVE� (fG'v 1 � i976 CI P�NNlN RLDEPTME i �� .� � November 12, 1976 � .. .. . . � INTER-OFFICE MEMO T0: Planning Commission Re: Farley Parcel Map 76-10, Glen Hagey, Engr. 1030 Bernal Ave. The following items are called to your attention for consideration: 1. Part of lot frontage is unimproved. Extension of curb, gutter, sidewalk and adjoining street paving is recommended as a condition of approval. �2. Prior to final map, an environmental assessment must be completed. 3. Note the creek cutting deep through side of Parcel A. (No recommendation pertaining to map. There will be added requirements in.building design when lot is developed.) 4. Parcel A is without sewer. Construction of sewer t�Iain in Bernal, connection M.H. in Carmelita and laterai to each pacel is recommended. 5. Water mains in the area are adequate. Payment of the fee for for a new water service to each parcel is recommended. 6. Show adequate drainage facilities. (Map is incomplete as to existing drainage.) 7. Show fence along alley on the map.� Resolve any encroachment. � ��z� . o�� Anthony M. Rebarchik � ; . ,.�o � .t � 0 0 � � � .,! 1 I . I ( I 6 IILOCY( 33 MAG OF EAsTOty A�OIT{ON TO OVRLIKGAME NO.Z SAN MATEO CO.CAL. o� �J¢ � �8 �3' / � /j�, f e �nr�r. E:cal ' . r�-_!C � �^ -� 3 s .�I LSB.46' � � _ _ __� . �i:.' . : t'�.' ._ _.. .. � � _/ ` �_ . V _ -----.k, � _ _ . w'�f',j^' � W g~/�.C.,P � � B E R N� L f.: , r,:r�.:� AU E. � . . o -_-- - � _. .- - . -_ � _ -- �j-� . .. , � . , ' ' " r• - — . � � SSS�O@:C�'E !' ��p,.. ... __ . � ' _ � -- � SO.00`�r , s0.00 ♦ 50.00' S0 u0' . . � C(TY E • � ThiS mn�.7 for con;or.. bo-i44 O{ tr. , � , �;: . ENC�ItJc �%r : . ,�• :- _ � � � • �a�s% . . . r' - , . . . Th�s mc- �� ' �j )�� n, j� 1"d ✓G o{ S r r�c � 7e,,.,.,.,��c C o ri p i 1 e �{ � ?ARCEL A�. PARCEL D f'�• - � � �/ S�FI�� nl� withthere�l �:, ; i • � ... , 3 C2> � k T�r ra �rt-�� c. .-� c r e q u e s t o f �s � _ _.. � , . 3 a,� � �,/ �e o . a:� i ^ � o � �Q�. �w6� �L+�97N �� GOr,:�r:-r5 t� �` ` .� i.. •.. �t�' l v."�.. �� o � L0� � o � . � 6 •�1��"� / . / Of c�rr�r.: o •. O • . p ; � S r / I � � `'� T�I � ` p �. N d' ^7 � � ` . • `1� �� SE'4c3�Y�, 4 a ri 7� �lQt.�%IISh��' a� o► Jr�`:ir �� y t i, y �• N ' �. M V ��/} C/'(k1.1 G%`/ �� Ci�� . � z � Z '..�� i� r ,.� vi ti. �t� � ' : �� ' � .r � d�t�a.'t � ST; ' `\' � �S) S' P,t' � � `, � � a^ SI Q r� s' , s��.�i � F:,;,, ��: `;�;� s :,• � , �.ti� �� so.00� so.00� __- So.00� �a� �. � RECORD a 33 4 - N ss�o4•oo��.W . � _ . o _;�.� _ �� -s'Q� I� O .� �� . �o I- • o lo 0 � � I I N S S' 04' 0 0" W 3 6 9. 50' ., s `. � l 0 0 0 N C., l�'"� F�1ed fo� � (v) S�oz.T�Cl�c�2 4'/ow 4(1F` ---- �r� , l:s ,/ � / Qa as. ro�•y COlif�rntp � ' LEGEND .., _-� ---. 'i � r• � �c��c�-� Q ocr 7 ,g;o D r ile t`to•---- PLAUh'! �QSS�d �y G� �Se ,'J,�]:. 3'j'------ -- Chn�r mc 1 Qurlingame Plann�ing Conunission Minutes Page 2 December 13, _ The C. P, also told Conunission there was private storage on public property, and referred to photographs disi:ributed this evening. C. A. Coleman advised that a letter received late the afternoon of December 13 from one of the neighbors could not be accepted because the public hearing had been closed at the November 22 meeting. C. Jacobs�noted the lot next door of approximately 11,000 SF and the lot across the street of approxin�ately 16,000 SF, and pointed out that the original lot lines for Lot 6 ericlosed a lot of approximately 12,000 SF so that all three lots see�ied to be in conformity. She stated her feeling that anyone should have the right to use his own property as he wished, but not the riyht to affect nearby property o�vners. She exaressed her concern that the applicant tvas proposing very small lots in comparison to his neighbors' lots. Replying to a question from C. Francard, C. A. Coleman advised that the property oa�ner owns to the edge of the right-of-way; the City o��ns the ric�ht- of-way and can require it be developed by the property owner. C. E. Kirkup stated the original condition recommended to Commission was that street improvements be put in by the developer or subdivider, and it was planned that the property oti-dner ��ould pay for improvements out to the center line of the street. Enqineering had proposed that the applicant extend curb, gutter and sidewalk along Lot 6 and place street improvements out to the center line of the street. He added that staff had not intended i:o improve t�ie entire. street frontage, but to require imr�rovements tha.t �vou�d tie-in with existing improvements, and 4�ould not interfere with access to.the other three lots. C. Francard commented upon the 158 foot fronta�e across the street at 1001 Gernal and suggested the future possibility of someone wanting to divide that property and build over the creek. It �vas his feeling all iinprovements should be done at one time. C. Mink reviev�ed Fiis thinking regarding this particular proposal. (1) The lots as subdiv�ided should be somewhat compatible �•�ith the neighborino lots and, therefore, he would ask for reconsideration by the applicant. (2) In rereading sections of the General Plan regarding open space, the fe�� remaining cree4<s in the City of Burlingame had been discussed 4vith interest in maintaining th�t kind of open space for the City; this proposal t�rou�d lose one ii�ore piece of open space. The Commissioner•stated that he would reject this map as an appropriate map for the tu�o preceding reasons. Chm. Taylor also i�ad concern for preservi�ng open space and particularly the few remaining creeks in the City. C. h1ink added his fieeling was that the lot as proposed was not buildable. C. A. Coleman told Corrnnission there was not a one year limit on a parcel map and h1r. Farley could come in aqain at any time if his present proposal were rejected. C: Sine remarked that batten boards are up in the creek and was iold by Mr. Farley he had put them up so Conunission could see ��ihere the piers would be located in consi:ruction .of the house. C. E. Kirkup cornmented that Quilding Code requires a plot plan showinc� the dimensions of the lot, and until these are known the building permit wi 11 not be i ssued; however, i f Mr. Farl ey v��re to �•ri thdr�a��r thi s tentati ve parcel map application, he could get a building perm�t to build on the 12,000 SF lot. According to code and the advice of the C.A., the applicant could build a t�vo-story single fairiily dwelling at the same location over the cre��k as presently proposed. The C.E. told C. Jacobs proper side, front and rear setbacks would be checked before a building permit were issued. C. Jacohs moved denial of t:his tent�ative parcel map; second C. h1ink. C. Y.indig st�ai:ed he tNould absi:ain froi�i votinc� since he was not present at the hearing. /1t the suc�c�estion of C. A. Colt�ni�ln, C. f�1ink stat;cd findinc�s for the niotion: • that the useable lot siz� as proposed by this map is not canipatible with the useable lot size in i;he neiqhborhoocl, since it is somc��h��t undc�r h,000 SF of useablc spacc�; and the concept of buildinc� aver the creek is not in �eneral aqreeiuer��: tvitii t:he (,ener�il f'lan O��en Space objectives of he City of �urlincaamc. P1oi:ion to deny was apE�roved. by the followinc� roll call vote: lingame f'lanni-ng Conmission Minutes AYES: COM�1ISSIONFRS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOQS, h1INK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE� Page 3 December 13, 1976 ABSTAIN: COPrMISS10NERS: KINDIG 2. APPEAL UNDER h1UNICIPAL CODE SEC. 1II.0�.050 FROM UNIFORM 6UILDING CODE SEC. (1973 EDITION) PROHIQI7If•dG �l CFI�NGE FRO�-1 RESIDENTIAL TO COf�IMERCIAL USE AT 1305 �AYSt�lATER AVEPJUE (APN 029-223-OBO), ZOfdED C-1, BY ADOLPH C. FIARRISON. 502 SR. Chm. Taylor announced this item and determined Fire and Building Department representa- tives ti�lere present. C. A. C��leman told Commission the City Code in Fire Zone I, which includes C-1 areas, prohibits the use of Urood frame buildings for commercial use. The Code also states that no change of use shall be made in the character of occupancy or use of any building a:hich would place the building in a different Group of occupancy, unless such building is made to cor�ply with the requirements of the Code for thai; Group�. An excepi;ion is state� that th� character of the occupancy may be changed, sub;ject to the approval of the'f3uilding Official, provided the ne�-r or proposed use is less hazardous. The position of the City has been that the use of u�ood frame dwellings in the.C-1 Zone for commercial use is more hazardous than for residential use. Mr. Harrison has a�pealed this decision. . � � . � - Chm. Taylor asked the Fire Department for comments and C.F.I. Pearson addressed Commission. He reviewed the history of this matter. Conversion of wood frame builclings to commercial use in Fire 7_one I has not been alloi�red since the City Council denied a similar request in 1964. Following that Couricil decision Chief M11oorby had said i;hat all C-1 and C-2 Dist►�icts had been placed in Fire Zone I or II in order to provide a high standard of construction as a iT�eans of preventing a conflagration in 1;he high value area that could destroy the business disi:rict. C.F.I. Pearson referenced a map vrhich he had prepared, noting there are 38 non-conforming buildings in the Fire Zone. Some have been converied to business uses and some are still residences. He said i:he Fire Department ��as not trying to condernn any buildings, but atl;empting to prevent residences being converted to coiT�rnercial use. It was the Fire Department's belief that if this appeal G•�ere sustained it would present a difficult problem,.as relaxation of present pol i cy ivoul d resul t i n other o�,mers of ��ood frame d�vel 1 i ngs requesti ng simi 1 ar conversions. Additionally, in order to change a, d�-�elling to business use the chan�e would be from a Group I Occupancy to a Groun F Occupancy. Tf�is latter classification includes wholesale and retail stores, office buildings, drinking and dining establish- ments and other similar uses; tl�erefore, �:he Fire Department would r,oi: be able �:o restrict the use to office uses under present code. Insp. Pearson stated that "fire risk" is an insurance term synonymous with "fire loss"; if a building is lost by fire the City loses the business, the jobs and the custoiners.. Replyii�g to Chm. 7aylor, the Ii�sp. said that the [3uildinc� Code indica�:es business use is more hazardous than residential use. The Code is less strict �vith regard to residences, p�rhaps because of the need for residences which has resulted in there bein� so m�ny of them. I-le noted that thc� elcn�erit of life hazar�d in a dwelling has been �,ecoc�nized in the new Uniforin f3uilclinc� Code which has some resicJential requirements such is smoke cleteci:ors in hall�•�ays leadin� to beclr•c�oms. The aE��llant, lldolph C. Ilarrison, Sr., ,-�cidressed Connnission ��t. tf�e rec��iesi: of Chm. Ti,ylor. He stated I�e disaqreed with the �ir�e 1nsp, anci was therefor•e ��pe��lir�c� the decision of �:he fire Dep��ri:ment. fle reFerenced p�ict�ir•es of the 1300 blc�ck of aclySlvater �1vei�ue�. There. are six biiild�inqs, all of franie const.ruct.ic�n, onc� stor,y �ir� he�iqht. ExceE�t for his residence, all ��re no�v us��cl conmierci��lly. Tl�c corner hu�ilcliiic�, tivhich at one time was i ciwelline�, v��s removed after the f'.C. c��ive ��ermission i:o c��nstruct -`:_"" ,. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Conrrnission Minutes November 22, 1976 to the Engineer's attention when a building permit was applied for. He said the final parcel map had been received the afternoon of this meetin� and that boi:h tentative and final maps are correct. Plo e�sements or improvements are required, and there is adequate sewer and water for the proposed development. He recommended approval of both maps. There were no comments by Planning staff. In response to Chm. Taylor, a mernber of the audience inquired as to the proposed location of the planned apartment building. He was told by Chm. Taylor the project vJould be r�quired to meet �urlingame Zoning and Quilding Codes and that the City had no control over the existing trees once the property was sold. The Chm. then declared the public hearing closed. C. Sine moved approval of the Tentative and Final Parcel Map, second C. Jacobs, and approved by unanimous roll � call vote of inembers present. 3. TEI�ITATIVE PARCEL P�AP, QEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, �LOCK 33, EASTON ADDITION �10. 2(POP,TION OF AP�! 026-185-080), AT (7ENTl�TIVE ADDRESS) 1012/1016 BERNAL AVENUE, ZOPdED R-1, QY GLEN D. HAGEY FOR TED FARLEY C. E. Kirkup discussed this resubdivision of one parcel into two. He advised that part of.the lot frontage is unimproved.and Engineering would require extension of curb, � gutter, sidewalk and adjoining street paving. l�lith regar�d to the creek tvhich cuts � through the side of Parcel A, this would not affect the map; however, it ��ill be a very difficult building site in future when the lot is developed. Parcel A is without a sanitary se�Ner; it is recommended a sewer be instal.led along 6ernal to serve both Parcels � and 6. ldater mains in the area are adequate; the C. E. would recommend payment of the fee for new water service to each parcel. The map u�ill require a drainage easement, and the fence along the alley snould be shown on the map. Since im�rovements are required, the tentative map must go to City Council; the C. E. recommended approval be conditioned by improvements to be made. He also indicated that norr.ial procedure on subdivisions is that improvements are put in at the time of the final map or guaranteed by bond. . Replying to a question from Chm. Taylor, C. P. Swan told him an environmental impact report is not required. A minor street alteration within established rights-of-way can be considered to be categorically exempt unless tl�ere is an expansion of use. 4�lithout knowing the extent of street improvements, it appears that an environmental assessment would show that a negative declaration is adequate. (Approval of a parcel map is deemed to be a ministerial action.) C. Jacobs had concern about the sta�ility of'the creek when work is started there. The C.A. and C.E. told her the City has control through its buildin_q codes and authority to keep anyone from blocking drainage in a creek. The C.E. told Commission the ourner proposes to extend his fence to include Parcel Q of Lot G. He advised that if this tentative map is approved by Commission and Council, all conditions will have heen met prior to bringing in the final map. At the present time Mr. F�rley could build on any portion of Lot 6, but until this parcel map is approved he could noi; build two dwelling units. The C.A. added that Mr. Farley could build a home over the creek today. C. Jacobs stated she was reluctant to adopt a map with so many concerns. l�t the request of i;he Ch�irman, Secreta��y Sine read into the record a letter dated November 22, 1976 sigt�ed by h1r. and P-1rs. Robert D. Sh��fer of 1003 E�ernal Avenue. This letter opposed the subdivision because tf�ey felt it ��tould result in a'n adverse impact on the surrounding area, and listcd several of these adverse c�ffec.ts on this tanique section of Qurlin�ame. Concern was ex�ressed about the size of the small lots in this area and development over the creek area. � • � Pagc 3 r � .rlinyanic I'lanning Commission Minutes Noven�Uer 22, 197G Chm. Taylor next requested audience comments in favor. Ted Farley, the ovmer of the property, addres,ed Commission, stai;inc� he lives at 1915 Carmelii;a. He said he does not pl an to obsi;ruct the creek and ��ri 11 bui ld on pi ers accordi nc� �;o Ci ty code. The required sewer development; streets and sider��alks �•rill not be objectionable; a bond vii 11 be put up. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in opposition and h1r. Robert Shafer of 1008 6ernal Avenue addressed Commission. Ele stated they h<�d purchased this property in Burlingame specifically because f3urlingan�e has been known for maintaining creeks and property. He objected to anyone building totally over the creek, and it �•�as his belief the ecology of the 4�:hole area ti��ould go. P1rs. Lydia Dozier of 100� �ernal /lvenue also spoke protesting this subdivision, and presented a le�:ter dated Novei��ber 22, 197G voicing her concerns. She noted the s��ort dead end street t��hich is paved for only lU0 fee�:; the large i;rees located there, �:he sloping banks of the cree�:; and felt there 1•�as not adequate parking space for additional family homes. She believed t�•�o additional hoi��es t�lould create consider�ble traffic ��ith parkinc� cong�stion in this dead end area, and that it ti��ould inevitably lead to �;he major problem of vehicles blocking the bridge acess which crosses the creeF; at the very end of this dead end street. She noted tl�is bridge is the only access to her home. It uras further noted that all lots are large in this area. . . 7here beinc� no further audience comments in opposition, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. In reply to C. Jacobs, the C.A. co�rnnented that average lot size ��;as one of the points Com;nission coul�d consider �,�f�en ac�ing or� any parcel map. Tfiere �•ras considerab-le Commission discussion. The C.E. told Chm. Taylor that the developer ��JOLI�CI pay the cost of the stree� improvements, and there �vas no intention by the City to remove exi sti ng trees 1 oca ted vri �:hi n the s�;reet ri ght-of-4•�ay. He tol d Commi ssi on the�bridge is privately ovaned but it does exit onto the right-of-way. C. Sine ��as told by C.E. Kirkup that if tf�e trees in the street were declared a hazard, then the City �vould have to take �;hem ou�;. C. Jacobs remarked that Commission does have concern ��rit,h regard to this unique area of the Ci i:y; and ��1r. Shafer comnieni.ed from the audi �nce that as devel opments i ncrease in tf�e upper hills the level of �:he creek t�rill rise. C. Mink dei:ermined from staff that once the im�rove�>>ents are made and subdivision approved by the City, these lots ��vaul d be 1 ec�al 1 ots . The Connni ss i oner brought up the poi nt that i f the 1 ots are 1 ega 1, why should hir. Farley bear the burden for the surrounding environment, and he also not�d P1r. Farley currently is p�,ying taxes on Lot 6. Chm. Taylor con�mented tl�at al thouc�h most members of the Conmii ssi on mi ght share the vi ews of i:hose opposi n� �:hi s subdi vi sion, there ��ras a c�uesl;i on of Cornnt�i ssi on's authori ty to refuse the appl i cant. He then asE:ed for a motion or a suc��estion of hoti,� to i�esolve this dilem�,�i, stai:ing it tvas his feeling tf�at no parcel ma� should be approved �-�ith a se�; of conditions. C. Cistulli movec( i:hat this application be con�:inued to �:he meetinc� of Decemher 13, commenting that he t•rould l i ke to i nspect tl�e propef�ty personal ly. Second C. Si ne. Since i:he (?uL>lic he��rinc� h�d been closed, C./1. Colem��n CclUt1U11CCI COIllIl11SS1011C1�s if thcy visited i:he S1tC to be very careful <�nd only vic�v thc pro(�crt,y,� not intervic�v any of the F�ari.ies involved. Re��lyii�c� to C. Jacabs' rc�quest, C.E:. Kirku{� s<�id inore definitive 4�r�posed ini��ovcmcnts �•rould b� shown on the ma�� vhcn ii: is subn�ittccl ac�ain in Dr.cemhc�►• or a su��lcnicnt��l cf��,�winc� t��otalci hc macic. �. Cisi:ulli's motion to contiriuc �;his item to t.l�e� mc�etinc7 of �ec��inhc�r 13, 1�)7G w��s tl�c�n a��r�ovc�d b,y un��ninic�us r•oll c��ll vote of inc�inl�cr•; pr��scn�:. C. Piiiik ��ec�uesi.ecl i�tart:her i►i foi�in�� Lion fi,oni st��fi� <i C tl�e [lecembcr l3 in��etii�c� cc�verinc7 i;hr. stiri•otniclittc� neic�hl�or•hc�c�cl, resicict�ces sc'rvrci l�.Y i:ht� de��d �nci si.i�cct ��nd ti��f�i ic. tt tv��s i.hc �iclvic�.� o�� fi:hc� (:.11. �.h��i: �� sc�{�at•nt.c� m�� 111(I1Ci1�.111[� t.hese� coi�cer�ns ►v�ulcf lu� Lhc� I�c�st ��roach. C. Sii�c� ii�f�c��i�iecf n�ciuher•s of the ��uclieiice ��,osr.d i:� t.his ��lic.��tic�n t.��i: i�ecenit�er 13 t��is tlic� on�ly f'.C. ineetii�c� scheclu�lc�c) for i:fi� nt�nt.l� ul' Oc�r.c�nil��r. ' _ _ _ _ - -_ __ -. _ _ _ � _ �,�� 7 (.�� L,, fJo �1%� C' GC�j� G�Gk ce ^l'Ld''v`�1 r''%�fi�i-L�.L,t✓ /✓�!%uf G�' t� L//id�iJ-9 SL L%"�u L' Cc9 .�.-�i'✓Vl�l✓�V . ,jl � / �LtP'`� /�G�-LW�� ``LG-�I.t:-elG?G� r `S, .7l `�I�'CLP l L4� C�"/.7?i�l """. `.� GC�fi%, . i �{'//y /,,��,� /� � ;��.,—� /0 . �,a .��ii L:if ,� �e� �ZCCs. � . G (. : � _ �c��tiG° . / ��q'Z�� --�'L. ., �' � G � �� l ` �� .%