The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1500 Burlingame Avenue - Approval Letter;� City Cou�ci� Minutes•=� May 1, 1�78 l. 1�PPLICI�TION OI� ,7051?Pi[ I:1�];P; Ri;CL11SSIP'IC71`PION OI' Ot�� L07.' F'ROP9 R-1 `PO R-3, 1500 P,UItLINGT�P4C T�Vf:t�U1: Mayor Cr.osby asked City P]_anner to review the project. Planner. referred to nlanning Commi�sion Resolu�ion No. 2-7f3 recommending reclassification. Iie er.nlained that Mr. Karp o�ans two lots, ot�e zoned R-1 and the oi�her R-3. 1.500 I3urlingame nv,nue is a non-conforming fourp].ex, partly on each of the lots. ile :lisplayed trans�arencies to show boundaries involved: Lot 2, 301 E1 Camino Real, zoned R-3; Lot 3, 1500 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-l. GtiTith reclassifi- cation of the R-1 lot to R-3, as recommended by P1_anning Commission, the boundary will incorporate both properties. Mayor Crosby called on Mr. Joseph Y.arp, 1103 Juanita Avenue. He spoke of his interest iii the reason the different zoning had occurred. He used the library.of John B. Cockcroft and four�d the b�.ock map dated 1928, �vhen .the apartment house was first constructed. A hir. Davzdson was the owner and builder of the apartment house. It evidently was approved at that time. In 1954 or 1955 the City of Burlingame had maps prepared to designate zoninq on a block basis, and whoever did the map work apparently did not carry the R-3 across the back of tlie one lot. One bui].ding si�s across two zoning lines. It is half R-1 and half R-3. It appears to be an oversight o.n the.r�apper's part. The property is used as a single complex. It seems virtually im- possible to break the complex because the unit on El Camino Real contains essential utility equipment to service both builc.ings . . Mr. Y.arp explained there is a problem with insurance on the non- conforming structure. In answer.to a question from Councilman Amstrup, he explained tY�tshould the builc�inc, be destroyed, he would not ,be -re�irnburs�d� b�eause it� is' non�conforriiing. Councilman Amstrup noted that the'Planning ComMission recognized that Mr. Karp is not intending to chang� the property. Mr. Karp exnla.ir.ed he does not plan any new construction. He previously owned Lot No. 4, 1508 Burlingame Avenue, and sold it to a Dr. IIunter_ deliberately to escape the charge of possible rezoning. He has no interest in any other property than those two. He knows that there'is opposition to R-3'zoning'in a westerly direction. He plans only`tb keep the 'two b'uildings in good repair There wer� no-other speakers in favor of the rezoning. Mayor Crosby asked.,i,f theze was anyon.e to speak in opposition. Mrs. Dorothy Cusicic, 1716 Ralston Avenue, stated she was not exactly in opposition to the project, but wished to present a pe�ition�s:igned by 158 persons, as follows: . • . : �- "We the unde�signed are•conce'rned about the rezoning of hal.f of 1500 Burlin;game. Avenue- fro�n R-1 to R-3. Ho�vever, �ae' also` realize tl�is' is a unique situation. There have been legal,ap�r_tments on the lot for more than 50 years. The lot is iirlmec�iately adj�acent to El Camino Real. Half of the land is ai�eafly zonecl R-3: The oianer has puhticl.y stated he is concerned �bout the rezoning for insurance pulposes and is not interested in rebuilding or in incrcasing density. � B�cause of these unique circumstances, and provi.ded we can Ue Q � given assurance that our �leiqhborhood and homes �aill_ be protected � from further creepinq assault:> on the R-1 zoning, w� �aill not � fight the rezoninci of Lot 3, 13].ock 2, }3ur.lingamc Park No. 2, � conui}oilly k�iocan as 1500 Biirl.ingam� 11;ve�lue. In order to ]��ave that protection �ae believe thrce conditions shou].d be made t�ar�i: of this rezoning: 1. That no adclitional R-]. zoilcd llnd be joii�ed to this parcel in the f:utur_e. ' " 2. That any fut:ure cot�:,truc..tion on this parccl shoulcl bc limii.ecl to 35 feet in hei.glit. 3. `1'hat no variance fi-om i-eqtiired T�ar}:inc� }�e qranted. If the u�aner's st:at.ecl intentioris to the Cit.y Council and P].anning Commi.ssion in thc pasL- are to bc t�kcn aL- face value, he �houl.d not mirid tllese conc]iLi.ons beiilq m�ac �art of the rezoning. If. the owi�er does ob-ject to tliese conditi.ons beiiig added, then tae stronc3ly obj�ct to tlie rezoninq of ] 500 }3urlingame i'�venue and urge you to vote 'no."' Airs. Cusick stated the peopl.e ar.e very concer.ned about rezoning of R-1 to multiple use in a westerlv di.rection from F]. Camino or anywilere in the City. Ttiey feel it is important for the City of }3urlingame to be a balanced conununit_v. In 1970 the census indicatecl forty-nine per cent of the residences as owner occupi.ed. Now, ei.yht years lat�r, it is do��m to forty-o�ie per cent. ^1rs. Cusi_ck ezpressed concern that 150& Burlingame Avenue might one day be purch�sed and converted to parking for. the anartment, increasing Qensity and infr.inging on the neighborhood. rran}c J. Pagliaro Jr., 1337 Drake Avenue, asked if, the nrouerty would be assessed as on� or more lots. City Plaiuzer reoli.��d i.t is presently assessed as one narcel. �1r. Paqliaro agmecl taith Tlrs. Cusick's statement. He as}:ed that a stipulation run with th� land and that the owner agr.ee t11at there he no joinder oi this pro��erty witi� any other property. _�_ �� _ ; Sam t4arenco, 207 Clarendon Road, urged acceptance of the stipulations Playor Crosby declared the hearing closed. Mr. Y.arp resnonded th�t he never will buy 1508 �urlingame Avenue and has �zo plans to sell the buildings. Fiowever, if they �•;ere sold, City Council has within its jurisdiction Lo control the thirty-five foot heie�ht limitation; further, a parking variance t,�oulcl be required. Mayor Crosby asked if he had any objecti.ons to the stipulations. [9r. Karp explain.ed that he is not plannina, to sell the property,but simnly attemptinq to resolve a zoning discrepancy. Councilman A]angini envisioned that a new pronerty owner might want • to strai;r;�ten out the property line. A1r. Y.arp noted that City � Co m�cil would have total control if an attemvt �.�ere made to encroach r to�aard the west. ; Couiicilman P�angini spoke of having inspected the area and noting � that the si�:ewalk on I�l Camino Real is in poor conditi_pn. }le 4 asked if ?�1r. F�aro would be agreeab].e to having it repaired. D9r.. ; Karp renlied he 'did not think tliat was fair. Councilm�n R1�11CJ1111 mentioned two utility poles that could be removed. D9r. Karn S stated that.if Council coul.d c?et the utility companies to reMove : them, he had no objection. Councilman rlangini requ�sted that if � there shoilld be a chaiige in ownership or iise, he would recIuest ther.e never be itigress or egress on Pl Camino Rea1. �9r. ;;arp i stated he agreed to t11zt with the Planniny Commi.ssion. i ; Councilm�n nmstrup referred to the zoninn and qucstioned whether it was ��: origin�l erro.r.. ile �lso Zsked when �]r. Karp ha�l purcliZsed ' the pro;�cri�y. �9r. I:zrF� stated he �ssumed it wa�. an crror. This is an eight-- w�it complex; thcre is no way t.o heat thc ;,outh uui.lding r�ii-hout the F�lant l.ocatec3 in thc norkh bui.lding. 7'he J buiiciitig : a�-e used as a tiilit. Ile ptirct�ased tlie ��ro�erty tlirce and one-}ial.f ycars aqo. , Cowici.•].�vainaii l��rton consi.dered the channe i.n zoning reason,ible • and felt i.}irlt. tLe t.hr.ce coildii.i_ons wou]Q not cZu�c Mr. i:�ii�p � }�I'0��.CIl1R; f.ui-ther, thc�y are insiu-�ince for concerned citi_zens. Mr. • Karp stat.cd he �voul.d cie7ree to the tltree conclit.ions. : .� � � � �. ;� Counc� ]man nmstrt�� a��ked the Cii-y nttorne�� to coniment �n t:his ��ropc,:;ai. for. conditional zoni.r�q. 'i'he nitoz�ney rci�]_�ed that cc�ncli.ti.onai ��' , zoninc� is somr••,.�llat ne��. He con�:i r]erec] i t ].eqal and �•�oulil do hi.s best to defei�a i.t. lle statec] tl�e conclitions w.il]_ l�e i.r�cort�oi-at.eQ in ihe ordi»ance, and i_t can be plirc�sed so that 1`i08 I3tir.l.i.nqZme Avenue coulcl never becane ��art: n; the ��c�rcel no�a owneci hy Pzr�. ORDI?dT.i�CP. NO. 112G " A?� ORDINT.NC1: AA9::PdDI:NC SliCTION •25, ].2.010 OF TtIE YUItI.]iC'c7;1.'IE 'iUNJC1Y;1L C011I', I�'vl� 7'I:r� 7,O�JIIIG 'r111P: T13GR],TN I?:CnKPOR.�ITL•'D 13Y 1:FCT,i;�iSII'Y7PIG LOT 3, f3LOC!< 2, }3UPL1VGl.'�iP I',li:l< NO. 2, Pi20[�1 FIRS7' !?ESIllI:^�`.f'IiIL (R-1) DIST1tICl' `I'O TTIIP.D Ri:SII)I:i!'i'I�1L (?Z-3) • UIS'PI:I C`P" to Lc r��.�:�scd to inc].tid� the follc��:�ing cond.it_� oris : (].) Tne_re i_s to t�c no combin,it.i.o�� with �ujacent lots; (?)an;� futu�� ca;struct�on to be not ii�ore than thirty--{i.ve feet in height; and ( 3) no par}:in? vari.r�nce to be rrl�lted, was iniroduced � by Cow;cilman f•Iangini f:or first readinq. YOliTII IlQ GOVI:R'.1P�IEN^t D71Y blayor Crosby c3Cknowledged the youny peoplc in the audicnc� and asked that each participant �.n Yot�t17 in Government llay, �1ay 17, 1978, stand, give their name ancl school, and �he of.fices they �vill be filling. They were applauded for their interest in City governmei�t. . SS - 9 :00 P. t�1. P.ECONV'Pidr - 9: 10 P. D1. HEARIP]G 2. CI]ARLES KING & 71SSOCIATES PROPOS�D OFrICE CPNTER, 1350 F3AYSHORE ll I CH lVt1Y � At Mayor Crosby's request, City Planner re�>ie�aed project. � He referred to his memo dated Apri_1 13, 1978 to City Council which identified four different changes in the project plans. Architectural renderings �aere posted. Project changes �aere outli.ned as follows: l. RCI)C approved Permit No. 24-77 Thursday, ASarch 2 for 47 , par'r:ing spaces�and a landscaped publie access area within � the 100 foot �vide strip nett to San I'rancisco B�y. Tl1is strip taould vary from 20 to 50 feet in width in contrast to a�25 foot wide strip as sho�,�n on the site plan approved ' October 3, 1977. i i ; 2. The plaza level has been redesigned to add about 14,500 i square feet of leasable office snace in contrast �•�ith an � open plaza with a 48' x 48' lobby (2,304 SF.) A basement � par.kiiTg garage is added to provicie 4II additional spaces and t � satisfy off-street parking regulatioiis. � 3. Design changes �vill cause a 6'-0" (or 4.80) iilcr_ease in the overall heiglzt fr.om 124'-G" (114-6" plus 10' high per�thottse) to 130'6" (117'-0" plus 13'-6" penthousc.) ,! 4. Instead of a 135' x 135' offi.ce floor ama, the typical off.ice i. iloor will have an unusual. shaF.�e. Thc buil.ding w�ts "slinped" 4 about: its diZc�o:ial axis so "that the building's ovcrall idiiuensions are shown as 136 Leet by 14S fcet whil.c, ihe floor � area is unchanc�ed." Larqe scale di.mensioned floor ��]ans I wi-].1 be needed to confi.rm thi ;��oi.nt, e. c7. , that i.he qross j floor arca is not morc thcin ].35' x 135' + 18,225 SF•' c�e.r , typical floor. Previou� tot.�l ,fl�or at�e� �.as ].94,0(l0 SP. J � 7'lie E?r.oposcd project, inc].u�ii�lry offi.cc_ si�ncc and i.ol��y at ° plaza le��cl , ��i ll havc 1.57, 897 SI' of gruss f.loor arc�, an . increasc of 13,II97 SF. . Nc�. I�roject pl.�ns di.ffer frc;m th� Censler and nssociates site pltin, i.ncluciinq lcincic,cap�nq, d�ted 10/3/77, Sheet No. 11, S�in Franci-sco Intc � nnY.i�n�il. OPLi.ce Center, ,Tob No. 777.5 for n�hich on Oclol�cr 3, 1.977 the eouncil c�}��r.oved the varirinc.e tor ?_0`:, . � Burlingame Planninq Com�ission Minutes l. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COP�BINE LOTS 2 AND INTO ONE LOT; PROPERTY AT 1500 BURLINGAME 4tRIGHT FOR JOSEPH KARP Page 2 March 27, 1978 3, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME PARK N0. 2 AVENUE (APN 028-283-010), BY WILLIAM Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the purpose of the map is to erase the lot line between Lots 2 an� 3(presently developed as one property). He referred to Item #2 on the agenda, noting the reclassification and this map would put the entire property at 1500 Burlingame Avenue into one zoning district (R-3) and one legal lot. He stated that a recommended condition for this parcel map was that it be approved subject to the City's approyal of the proposed reclassification; then if rezoning were not approved, the map would be void. City Engineer Yirkup stated the map is complete and ready for approval with no conditions from his department. Joseph Karp, the applicant, was present and noted the heating system for the property services both buildings; he felt they should be consi�ered as one project on one lot. Chairperson Jacobs opened the public hearing; as there was no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kindig moved that the map be approved subject to the condition that if Lot 3 is not reclassified to R-3 then this map approval shall be void. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimous1y (5-0). During discussion on the reclassification (Item #2) a concern about access to and from the prop2rty on E1 Carnino Real was discussed. City Attorney Coleman advised that a condition limiting access to the Burlingame Avenue frontage would be more appropriate to the parcel map rather than the reclassification. Commissioner Kindig therefore moved to rescind his motion approving the tentative map; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Sine and carried unanimously (5-0). Commissioner Kindig then moved approval of �he tentative map with two conditions: (1) at such tirne in future the property is redeveloped,,there shall be na ingress or egress from El Camino Real and (2) map approval is subject to the reclassification of Lot 3 from R-1 to R-3 zoning district. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Speaking to the new rnotion, Mr. Karp requested permission to be allowed entry to this property from E1 Camino Real, noting he had not considered this point until this time. Commission explained that since this is a busy corner, ingress or egress from E1 Camino Real would be undesirable. Upon roll call, the motion carried 4-1, Commissioner Sine casting th� negative vote. (See Item #2 for more discussion on this 2. RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE LOT FROM R-1 TO R-3, BEING A PORTION OF 1500 BURLINGAME AVENUE (LOT 3, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME PARK N0. 2) (PORTION OF APN 028-283-010), BY JOSEPH KARP (PROPERTY OWf�ER) (ND-154P POSTED 3/10/78) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the property at 1500 Burlingame Avenue consists of two lots: Lot 2, closest to E1 Camino Real (zoned R-3) and Lot 3, on Burlingame Avenue (zoned R-1). There are two 4-unit apartment buildings on the parcel and two driveways, each of which exits from ET Camino. He noted the property is non-conforming for the following reasons: (1) R-3 use on Lot 3, which is zoned R-1; (2) there are two separate residential buildings on Lot 2(Code states there should be only one); (3) one of the apartment buildings crosses the lot line between Lots 2 and 3; (4) there is inadequate off-street parking; (5) the existing buildings are set closer to E1 Camino than present code permits; (6) the existing carport is set 5 feet closer to the westerly property line than code allows. . Page 3 Burlingame Planning Conm�ission Minutes March 27, 1978 Mr. Yost stated that if this property were redeveloped in future the map and this reclassification would be necessary, unless Lot 3 were to revert to a single family use. He noted that rezoning requires an environmental impact report, and that EIR-32P was prepared in 1975 for this property and others (and was certified by Council with amendments on April 21, 1975}. He stated Negative Declaration, ND-154P, was prepared for this new application and posted March 10, 1978 with the conclusion that the rezoning would have little impact upon adjacent properties; that six additional dwelling units at this location would not cause a substantial adverse change to the neighborhood; and that the amended zoning map would be reasonably consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Yost concluded that findings should be made to support a motion to approve or deny the rezoning. He referred to drart findings on page 3 of the negative declaration and�page 3 of EIR-32P, and also noted that the Commission might consider certain conditions if they choose to approve the rezone, i.e., height or bulk restrictions, location of future buildings (a deeper westerly side yard), and restrictions on access from E1 Camino Real. It was noted Commission action this evening would result in preparation by staff of a resolution vrith findings to be adopted April 10 and forwarded to Council. Commissioner Sine felt that since there is no indication the applicant has any intention of changing ti�e present improvements on i.ne property, he would I�e against any limitation that may anly have effect �in 20 or 30 years. He felt the 35 foot height limit controlled through the special permit process was adequate control. Joseph Kar�p, the applicant, agreed with this point, stating he has no intention a� this -cime to do anything to the present structures and he is currently improving �them. Chairperson Jacobs then opened the public hearing. Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston Avenue, addressed Commission and suggested several conditions for approval of the rezone: that no additional R-1 land be added to this parcel by a future parcel map; that any future construction be lin�ited to 35 feet in height; and that the existing 11 foot wide side yard be preserved along the westerly property line. She stated there was concern that this rezoning would encourage others, which would contir�ue up the block into the R-1 area. Comissior�ers Sine and Cistulli discussed these conditions vrith Ms. Johnson. Commissioner Sine felt such restrictions would landlock the parcel forever and explained Commission has a mandate to maintain the R-1 zoning and further that the existing buildings would not be permitted if constructed under current codes. He also explained that any future development over 35 feet in height would be subject to special permit which would include Commission consideration and then conditions could be made as to building specifics. Chairperson Jacobs added that any future rezoning would require noticed hearing. There being no further discussion or correspondence, the hearing was closed. Commission discussed the application with staff and Mr. Karp. Mr. Yost confirmed that if the existing improvements were destroyed or damaged in excess of 100% of assessed value, the property would have to be brought up to current code standards. Mr. Karp explained that he is only interested in this property, noting he had owned 1508 Qurlingame Avenue but sold it so that it would not appear he planned to continue the•R-3 rezoning up the block. The Commission discussed the E1 Camino Real access; Mr. Yost stated that a condominium permit requires design review and this access could be controlled. However, if the property were developed with an apartment, then there may be no control over future ingress/egress from El Camino. ` ' ' Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1978 Commissioner Sine felt that restrictions of this type when Commission does not know vrhat is going to happen are restrictive, and noted that while he does not like E1 Camino Real acess, this would come before the Commission through other future application, i.e., condominium or special permit. Chairperson Jacobs reminded Commission that, wi�h present zoning regulations, if the project meets code and is under the 35 foot height, a new apartment could be constructed without further Commission review. City Attorney Coleman advised that an access condition would be more appropriate on the parcel map, rather than the reclassification. It was decided this would be resolved after action on the reclassification. Commissioner Kindig found the proposed reclassification to be in accordance with the adopted General Plan and the comprehensive zoning plan of the City; also that the reclassification would not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood; that the 20 foot setback from E1 Camino Real would be a hardship to Lot 2 at such time that it was redeveloped; and that the present use of the property is multi-family and therefore non-conforming. He therefore moved the reclassification of Lot 3 from the R-1 to R-3 district be approved. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Jacobs stated she wished the minutes to show that she would not vote on any future rezoning which was on�y supported by a three year old environmental impact report. 3. VARIANCE FROM CODE CHAPTER 25.62 TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK TO 7 FEET AND ALLOW A.SWIMP�1ING POOL TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT 3096 RIVERA DRTVE (APN 025-341-030), ZONED R-1, BY MIRNEZAM SAJADI Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application. It was then noted by Chairperson Jacobs that neither the applicant nor his architect were present (although notices had been sent to both). Commission then continued this item to the end of the meeting to allow time for the applicant or his representative to arrive. At the end of the meeting this item was then reconsidered. Since neither the applicant � nor his representative were present, the item was continued to the next regular Co�nission meeting, April 10, with the stipulation that, in the absence of communication from the applicant or his representative; it would not be continued a second time, but dropped from the agenda. 4. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.28.050 TO PERMIT A CARPORT TO EXTEND BETWEEN HOUSE AND GARAGE WITHOUT A 4 FOOT SEPARATION; PR�PERTY AT 1004 PARK AVENUE (APN 029- 026-140), ZONED R-1, BY LJUBO BANDOV ___ Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application and described the property at 1004 Park Avenue which has a one story house with a detached garage. Within the 16 foot area between a fiberglass carport has recently been constructed. He noted the carport is attached to both the house and the face of the garage and there is no four foot separation as required by code; new posts had been placed only 2'6" from the property line (rather than the required 4'). He further noted the carport is illegal as no building permit had been obtained and the applicant has been advised by the Chief Quilding Inspector that the carport should be removed or modified to meet code. Mr. Yost advised that findings should be made pertinent to Code Sec. 25.54.020, reading the requirements for variance approval. . 1 •f Page 5 Qurlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 197� Ljubo Bundov, the applicant, 4ras present and explained he needed this as a carport, and also to protect his basement from the rain and his family when walking to and from the garage. Commissioner Cistulli commented that although the applicant may not wish to park a car in the carport, should the property be sold, a new owner might want to park �:here. ;ie felt tnere wer�e o�her vrays to protect the basement from rain which w ould be within code and explained that ordinances are to protect the applicant's property as well as surrounding properties. It was emphasized that fire could more readily spread if the carport were allo�ved to remain without the four foot separation required by code. - Chairperson Jacobs opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor of the variance. Narold fieagney 5tated he is a neighbor and in favor, noting the applicant has greatly improved the property and the carport does not appear to pose much danger. It was noted Conrnission had received a letter supporting the variance from Mr. Heagney. Alois t�lurnitsch, 1010 Park Avenue, stated the applicant has greatly improved the property. George Golinsky, 1000 Park Avenue, stated he felt there was nothing dangerous. Chairperson Jacobs noted Commission's main concerns regard the spread of fire from one building to another and Fire Department access. Secretary Sine read a letter dated March 23, 1978 from Myrn I. and Vern L. Calkins, 800 Linden Avenue, in opposition to the application because the codes and ordinances of the Ci�y should be upheld. There being no further public input, the hearing vras closed. Commission discussed the variance Urith the applicant and he confirmed he has had his coniractor's license for 5-6 months; however, at the time the carport was erected (3 years ago) he was not aware of the regula�tions. He admitted he �ras guilty of building the carport without a building permit but since that time has done all other t�ork with the necessary permits. Staff confirmed the structure had been built approximately three years ago. It was noted the applicant has three cars and only a two car garage. It was also noted that there were alternatives to pro�:ecting the basement from rain. Mr. Yost confirmed the applicant had been advised of the requiremeni;s necessary to grant a variance and he reviewed those findings, noting all four must be true or the variance must be denied. He also confirmed that even with the new carFort, lot coverage is under 40% (the maximum permi�;ted). Commissioner Mink arrived at the meeting (approximately 8:40 P.M.). Corrnnissioner Sine moved that since the applicant has not fulfilled any of the four requirements for variance approval the variance be denied. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Mink abstaining. Commissioner Kindig stated the applicant has done a good job of improving the property and that is appreciated; however, Commission feels he could work something out that would meet code. Chairperson Jacabs said the alternatives could be discussed with staff. 5. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.010 TO PERMIT AN EIGHT UNIT APARTMENT TO COVER 56/ OF THE LOT AT 1210 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE (APN 029-131-210), ZONED R-3, QY GEORGE L. SINCLAIR OF PANKO/SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS) FOR GERALD KUNZ (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND-155P POSTED 3/10/78) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the proposed apartment design is within code requirements except for lot�coverage, and it exceeds the 50% limit by 550 square feet. He noted the lot is somewhat pie-shaped, tapering from 53' to 47.7' with an average depth of 182'. He explained the unusual design Page 19 Burlingame Planning Commission P�inutes June 26, 1a78 40,500 SF building, noting the property is very substandard in relation to current off-street parkir,g requirements. The additional storage lockers would result in one extra employee and up to 2-4 additional customers at one time during the week, with peak times during the noon hour and from 4:00-5:30 P.M. He emphasized that a typical "permitted" use couid have 13 or more employees in a 13,000 SF ��arehouse, and the self-storaye use appears to bQ less intense than many permi�ted uses. He concluded this would seem a reasonable use of the property and recommended that the number of parking spaces marked for this business' exclusive use be increased from the 3 provided now to 5 for the existing 264 lockers and another 5 parking spaces be reserved for the addi�ional 231 lockers, to be reached from Broderick Road. He concluded there was no staff objection to this proposed exGansion by U-Stor-It. John Harringtan, applicant, confirmed that the 10 parking spaces could be reserved and that he would meet all the concerns in the memarandums from John Calwell, Chief Building Inspecior and Larry �eNrell, Chief Fire Inspector regarding sprinklers, restrooms and handica�ped facilities. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was ooer�ed. There was no testimony submitted and the public hearing was closed. Corrrnissioner Min� moved that the above-noted special permit be approved subject to the conditions contained in the memorandums dated June 15 and 16, 1978 from Fire Inspecto•r Newell and Buil�ing Inspector Calwell, and that five marked parking spaces be reserved fo.r exclus?ve use of this business in each of the two parking lots. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and upon r�oll call it carried unanimously 7-0. Chairman Jacobs noted the effective date. "17. FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 2, BURL?NGAME PARK N�. 2 IfdTO � ONE LOT; PROPERTY AT 1500 BURLINGAME AVENUE (APN 028-283-010), BY WILLIAM 4JRIGHT FOR JOSEPN KARP (TENTATIVE P�1AP APPROVED MARCH 27, 1978) Staff reported that the map was in proper order for approval, noting that all conditions were included on the map, i.e., no ingress or egress on E1 Camino Real. There being no discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony and the hearing was closed. � Comnissioner Sine moved for adoption of the above-noted map, with the notation that all conditions are included on the map. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion carried unanimously 7-0. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was regularly adjourned at 12:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary L�`� k.w '�► _...� i iVr �..s Lr' INTER-OFFICE MEMO ��;;',J i � j'�;;'_; June 13, 1978 CiTY OF GIJR�.IPJGEy,ME T0: Ci ty P1 anner ��r4rrpr�u �: ��, Re: 1500 Burlingame Ave. - P. M. 78-3 The rezoning of portion of this property becomes effective June 15, 1978. This Final Parcel Map was submitted and is recommended for approval at the next Comnission meeting. I requested additional Prints for you which I expect to get next week. �� , A. M. Rebarchik Assistant City Engineer AMR:mg �I �. �te,��ta�7 ut �►eu�c�.l nt �..� c�� a. s �,.r, ��a-r�.ti,ca c� �l a.a-e-� Z 7, t� 7 6 �'�- r� f _,r' � � fiL� Y11c fPClhss i�i c.2��s.�n o'� �t` �j -�p,;,� �'--I '�� '• � z�-�.i tn �� s�ri'c�', � ��5�7 fi �� 1 a, � � , ------ l. 71PPL1C11TIOid 01' �70S3;PH 3:11i;P: RRCI,T.SSII�'TC7ITION OI' ONT 1,07.' I'ROf9 12-1 TO R-3. 15U0 L'URI,TI�dGT�f]L; 11VFNU1? � Mayor Cr.osby asked City P].anner to review the pr.oject. Planner City Council referred to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2-78 recommending Minutes (- recl.assification. He er.nlained that Mr. Karp oti,�ns two lots, one zoned May :1, 1978 R-1 and the other R-3. ].500 Bur.lingame flv�nue is a non-conf:orming i fourp7.ex, par.tl� on each of the lots. He :iisplaycd transparcncies � to show boundaries involved: Lot 2, 301 El Camino Rezl, roned � R-3; Lot 3, 1500 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-l. [ti'ith reclassifi- � catioii of the R-1 lot to R-3, as recommendeci by Pl.anning Commission, ' the boundary will incorporate both properties. • Mayor Crosby called on Mr. Joseph Y.arp, 1103 Juanita Avenue. . He spokc of his interest i.n the reason the different zoning had ; occurred. He used the library of John B. Cockcroft and found ' the Ulock map dated 1928, whcn the apartment house caas first ; constructed. I� P�Ir. Davidson �ti�as the o�aner and builder of the , apartment house. It evidently ��as approved at that time. In . 1954 or 1955 the City of I3urlingame had maps prepared to designate zonina on a block basis, and whoever did the map wor}: apparently ' dicl not carry the R-3 across the back of tlle one lot. One � builcling sits across two zoning lines. Ii� is half R-1 and half ; R-3. It appears to be an oversight on the mapoer's part. The property is used as a single complex. It seems virtually im- '` possible to break the complex because the unit on El Camino c Real contains essential utility equipment to service both � builc.ings. � Mr. Karp explained there is a problem with insurance on the non- conforming structure. In ailswer to a question from Councilman � Amstrup, he explained th3tshould the building be ciestroyed, he � would not be reimbursed because it is non-conforming. Councilman Amstrup noted that the Planning Comr,iission recognized that rlr. ; Karp is not intending to change the property. hir. I<arp exnlained � he does not plan any new construction. He previously owned � � Lot No. 4, 1508 Burlingame Avenue, and sold it to a Dr. Hunter � deliberately to escape the charge of possible rezoning. He � has no interest in any other property than those two. He kno�as � that there is opnosition to R-3 zoning in a westerly direction. � He plans only to keep tlie two buildings in good repair � There �oere no other speakers in favor of the rezoning. Mayor � j Crosby asked if there was anyone to sUeak in opposition. Mrs. Dorothy Cusick, 1716 Ralston Avenue, stated she was not exactly in opposition to the project, but wished to present a pe�iiion�signed by 158 persons, as follows: �_ "We the undersi.gned are concerned about the rezoning of half of 1500 Burlingame Avenue from R-1 to R-3. However, we also realize this is a unique situation. There have been legal apartments on the lot for more than 50 years. The lot is immediatcly adjacent to �1 Camino P.eal. FIalf of the land is already 7011CC� R-3. The owner has puhticl.y stated he is concerned about the rezoning for insuranc� purposes and is not interested in r.cbuilding or in incrcasing density. �3ecause of i.hese unique circumstances, and provi.ded we can be given assura�lce thlt our �leic�hbor.hood �nd iiomes w.i.11 be pr.otected from further creeping assaults on the ]t-1 zoning, �ae will not fight t:he r.eza�inct of Lot� 3, Bl.ock 2, 13urlingame Park No. 2, comn}on.ly k�lo�an as 1500 I3url.inqZmc 11ve�1ue. In oi;der to hzve that protection �ve bclieve three conditions shaul.d be made ��art of i.his rezoning: �' 1. That no additional R-]. zoned land Ue joined to this pareel in the future. � �� " 2. That any futurc constri.iction on thi� parcel should be limit-.eQ t-_o 35 feet in heiyht. 3. That no variance from required par.kinc7 be c{rantecl. If the ocaner's stated i.nteni:ions to the City Council. and 1'].annine� Commissioi� in thc past are to bc taken at f�ice value, lie should not mind these conditi.ons bci.nq mzdc ��art oL the rezoniny. If L-he o�,aner docs objecL- to i-hese condition� bei.ng added, then we str.�ngly object to the rezoning oi 1500 13ur]-ingame Avenue and urge you to vote ' i10 .'" D1r.s. Cusic}: stated thc neop].e are �-er1 conceYned about i-ezoning of R-1 to multiple use in a�aesterl.v di_rection ;rom El Czmino or anywilere in ti�e Cii_y. Thcv feel it i� important for the City of T3urlinqame to be a balanced cor�;munity. In 1970 the ceilsiis indicated forty-nine per cent of t11e resi_dcnces as o�aner. occu�ied. Now, eiyht years l�ter, it is down to fort}°-otle per cent. ^1rs. Cusi.c}: eapressed coilcern that 150» 3tirlinqarle l��enue might one day be nu�-chased a»d converted to Uark:inc� for the aj�artmc�nt, inereasi;ig cleilsi_t}� anci infringiny on the neighl�orhoocl. Frani: J. Payliaro Jr., 1337 Drake Avei�ue, asked if, the nroi�erty would be assessed as one or more lots. Cit� Planner revlied it is nresently assessec3 as one t�arcel. hSr. Paqliaro agreec? with Pirs. Cusick's stai�emenL. He asked tliat a stipulati.on run with tl�� ].and and that the owner ac7ree tliat ther� 7�e no joinder of this pro�erty �:>ith any other. property. Sam t9arenco, 207 Clarendon Road, urged acceptance of the stipulations. rlayor Crosby declared the hearing closed. Mr. Y.arp resnonded that he nevcr �aill buy 150i3 Burlingame Avenue and has no plans to sell the buildings. }]o:-:ever, if they r;er.e sold, City Couilcil has �:�ithin ii:s jurisdiction to control the thirty-fi�-e f.00t }ieigi�t limitation; furtller, a parking vari.ance would be required. Mayor Crosby asked if he had any objecti.ons to tlZe stipulations. f•1r. Karp explained that he is noi olanning to sell the property,but simnly attemnting to resolve a zoning discrepancy. Counci.lman h]angini envisioned that a new property owner might want to straighten out the property line. D7r. I<arp noted that City Council woulci have total control if an att�mpt were made to encroach to�aard Ll�e west. Councilman Alangini spoke of having inspected ttie area and noting that the sidewal}: on El Camino Real is in 000r condition. ile asked if �1r. Karu ��ould be agr.eeable to having it repaired. D1r. Karp renlied he rlici not thin}: that was fair. Councilman ;•la�lqini mentioned two utility poles th�t could l�e removed. P9r.. Karn stated th<it if Council cou].d get the utility companies to rer.�ove ihem, he had no objection. Councilman D1angini requested t�at if there should be a chanqe in ownership or usc, he would r.equest ther.e ilever be ingress or egress on P•.1 Camino Real. �9r. ::arp stated he �qL�ed to thzt witli the Planniny Commission. Counei].man I�mstrup r.eferred t.o the zoninct and c�uestioned tahether it taas an or.iginnl err.or.. IIe also asl:ed �ahen D]r. Fari� had purch�sed ' the property. �ir. ]:zrp si:�ted hc ass�med it wa , an crror_ . ' This is zn ciqht-unit complex; there is n� way to hcat the south bui.].di.ng �aithout the plant located in thc norih hui.ldinq. 7'he J builcli�ig�; ��-e used as a unit. Ile purchascd thc I�i-opc�ity three and one-h�].f ycclrs a�o. ' Cou�ici.lwom�n I�arton consi.dei-ed the chan�e in roning reason:ible • and felt. i.hclt the i.hrec co»ditions would not c�use Mr. Rarp prob].ems; f.uri-lier, t.hey �zre instu-nnce for conc� t�ned ciCizc�is. Mr. � Karp stated he w�ul.d c�c�rec to the i:h�-ce conditions. , . - � �.;� Counci l.iucin nmstr.un asY,ed tlre Ci.i:y Attorney t=o conunent on ihis Proposal. for conditior,al zoni.��y. 1'he ❑tlor�lel r.ei�licd that c��tlditi.onal zoning i.s somr�what new. Ile con�sid��rc�cl it leqal �nd �•!ot�lil dc> hi.s besL to cletend i.t. l:� stateQ the conclitions wi.11. l�e incor»orated in the o��clinnnce, anc] it c,�n bc 1>lirased so that 1508 13ur7.inqame Avenuc coul.cl ne��er become p�rt of the E�arcel now o�aneQ by Karp. ORDI?�]T.t��Cr NO. 112G " AN OI:DT"I11NC1; AD7�NDING SEC'PION 25.1?_.010 OP T}1P }30RLliVG;1'�;I�; '�U�ll C1P11L C011L' �I�.'d.l� 7'iIF 70�:'IiVG i']711'.�', 1']i�PI:TN It2CORPOR7ITL''D BY ]tFCI,T,SSII']Ti7G L07' 3, F3I,OCi: 2, }3URT INGJ1^;1; P�1R1; NO. 2, I'ROP-1 I'IRST ]tESII.)I.?�TI1:L (R-1) D1:ST]tIC'i' TO T)IIP.D RESTDL"7'1'I�1L (I2-3) lllSi'I:IC'P" to ue i�ev:;sed to include the fol]-c��:�ing condit=ioils: (1) `i'her.e .i_s to 1_,e no combinati.o�i with �icljacent ]ots; (?.)any futw�c cor.struction to be not more than thir.tv-five feet in height; and (3) no nar};inc7 vai-iance to be c�ranted, was introcluced by Councilman ;•langini for first reading. YOUT}? I1V GOVPP.VPIFNT DAY P9ayor Cr.osby ac}:no�•rledg�d the young people in the audiencc: and as};ed that each n3rticipant in Youth iri Government Day, "9ay ].7, 19`/£3, stancl, c?ive their nam� ancl school, and the of.fices they �oill be fi.11ing. They �•�ere apPlau�led for t,leir interest in Cit�� yovernm�nt. . RE;CF'SS - 9 :00 P. AI. � FECO:�VrNL; - 9: 10 P. D1. IiEI1P.Iiv'G , 2. CllARLES hING & 71SSOCIATES PROPOSTD OI'T'ICE C�NTEk, 1350 BAYSIIOIZE ' II I GI3i�'Al' � At Mayor Crosby's request, City Planner r_eviewed project. He refer_r.ed to his memo dated �pril 13, 1978 to City Council. 4�hich identified four difier.ent changes in the project plans. Architectura7. renderings �•:ere posted. Project chanyes �aere outlined as follo�as : l. BCDC ap�roved Perrnit I�o. 29-77 Thursday, D9arclz 2 for 47 parking space>=anc1 a lzndscaped public access area �vithin the 100 foot wi.de striz� nelt to San lrancisco I3�v. This strip taould vary £rom 20 to 50 feet in width in conirast to a 25 foot wide strip as shotian on the site plan approved October 3, 1977. 2. The plaza level has been redesigned to add about 19,500 square feet of leasable office snace in contrast with an open plaza t•:ith a 48' x 4II' lobby (2,304 SF.) A bzsement parking qaraqe is acded to provicie 48 additional .soaces and satisfy off-street parkinq regulations. � � 3. Design chanc�es will caiise a 6'-0" (or 4.80) increase in the . overall hcigllt from 129'-6" (114-G" plus 10' high pe�ithouse) + to 130'6" (117'-0" plus 13'-6" penthouse.) ; R 4. Instead of a 135' x 135' office floor are�, the typical off.ice i. iloor will have an unusual shape. Thc bui].ding was "slit�ped" i� about its di�c7o:��1 a�:is so "that the builc3i.nc7's ovcrzll dimensi_ons are shown �s 136 icet by 19G fect while the floor ? area is unchzne��:d." I�arcTe scale dimensio:�ed floor pl�ns j will Uc ncedcd to confi�.-m ttiis roint, e.c�. , that tlle c,ross � floor ar.ca is not more than ].35' s]_35' + 18, 225 SF E�er typical flool-. Previous tot-al fl�or arez �ti�as ].94,000 SI'. � � 7'he propo�ed project, includinc7 of_fi.ce sP:ice and lobl�y at ' plaza le��e] ,�o.i.11 liave 157, 897 SF of gr.oss f].00r arc��, an incr.case of 13,II97 Sr. Neti� �iroject p].�ils differ. from thc Cens7_cr and nssociates site plan, incluc]iny lancl_;eap�nc.a, c�zteci 10/3/77, :�l�eet No. 11, St�n 2�ranci:;co Inte�nat.�onci7. OffSce Ccili.er, Job No. 7715 f:oi- �ah�c}� on Oct:oUcr 3, 1977 tlie Council a}�l�roved the vr.iri.rinr.c for ?.0", (�� bk►tG � I�r�r:l Z� � �q�S ItLSOLU'1'ION N0. 22_7�i "Certifying Lnvironmentrzl mpact Rc�port I'or. I'ro- posed C:ocic luuenciincnts To Title 25, Zoriing, LIIt-30P" was 111tX'OC3UCCC� by Councilman Harrison, who moved its adoption, second by Councilma�i �ian- gini and unanirnously carried. la. ORUINANC� N0. 1037: "Amending Chapter 25 Of Thc �iunicipal Code Concernin� O�L-Street Par}:ing itequirements In C-4 Districts, Lot Coverage, Setbac}; l+nd Landscaping Requirements In N1-1 Districts, Lot � Coverages In Residential Districts And Eliminating Use Variances." Declaring ihe hearing open, Tdayor Amstrup invited comr,:ents from the floor pro or con. There were none. The hearing was declared closed. URUINIINCF' N0. 1037 (Title recited above) was given its second reading. On n�otio;l or Councilman Crosby, second by Councilman Harrison, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimouslv adopted on roll call. ...��_. �___. ._ , 2. I:idVIROivi:�NTAL Ii�iT'[i^T RLCLTiSSIFIC11TI0N OF LOTS 5 Aiv'D E, BLOCi< BURLII�GA'•;i, PARiC Pv'0. OF BUP.LI?dGEeT1E . RL'PORT (EIR-32P) : 10 LOTS F'R0�1 12-1 TO R- 3; LOTS 3 AND 6, 3 r�r�[� r�o�rs 3, 9 AND 5, BLOCh 4, n�,L or 2; A•"_dD LOTS 11B, 21A ANU 22, PLOCi: 22, BLOCIC 2 , TG:•7?J Mayor Amstrup annou.nced that the City Planner �oill revie;�: the project covered by �IR 32-P. `i'lie City Planner reported that every property o�.aner �vitnin 500 �eci� of L-lie subject properties received written notice of the pro��osed re�l.as- sa.fication. i3uriznga.m�> Par}: �7_: A transparency of the map (�>:hi�it A, EIR 32-I') titled "Proposed rezoning fror� R-1 (sing.le , family resiciential? to R-3 (apartments: -multi-fQmily residential} " was zevie�ved by t=he C.-i.ty Planner. The map identified by stree� address the seven lots, t.he owners, existing use and la.nd ar�a in square feet. A scco:,d map e:�compasse� the area bounded by �1 Camino, Occi.c3ental T�venue, Chap3.n and Ho�:ard Avenues o,ith subject lots crosshatched. (Property identification: 1500 Burlir.game Avenue, 150II Burlinga;n� <'1ver.ue, two City parking�lo�s, 1501 12alston Avenue, 1500 Ho�•�ard.Aveiiue.) 'Phe City Planner referred to a statement in the �IR that "on1�- t�:�o of the ten lots are subject to change" namely�•1500 Howard I:venue, zoned 12-1 and 12-1 in use at the present time, adjacen-c to a vacant R-3 lot at the corner of �1 Camino and fIoward. Both lots are in one cwnersnip anu could be developed with an eight to 10 unit multi-f�mily builciing. The second loL is £311 Burlinganie Avenue, 15,000 square feet in area, estimated development 10 to 12 units. The C�.ty Pl�nner stated that the Planning Commission, in its deli'acra- tions, considered mea.ns to ma}ce the General Plan very ncarly consistent or close to the zoning ma��. Iie i:raced e�:isting zoning district boundaries in I3urling�.me Park, explaining that accomp]_i;:hment of the reclassification will implement the idea of about 150 feet, or about three 50' lots, bac}: from L1 Camino Real in the R-3 District. A dashed line on the map it.di.ca�cd the new R-3 Uistrict boundary, which �,�.�oulc? also become t,ie tiew R-1 llistrict bounclary. Ile stated that densitics in the t��o aistricts will be discussed later in the meetitig w}ien ��mend- 111E'_1]t of tlie General Plan is consic3erecl. To��m of I3ur]inc;ame: A transparency of the map (l�xhibit I3, LIR 32-P) titlea °l�ro��osecl rezoning f:io�n-}:-1 (singlc� £-am.il}� resicic��itial) to I2-3 (apartnients: multi-famil.y resic3enti.al) " showed location oL- the three lats in Town oi }3urlingznte, Lhe owners � C?C15tilI1�J use and la»c] ar�a in square feeL-. A second tratlsparency showeci the bloc}: boui-,�lc�� x Z3U1"�_lllcjii111C /iVC1lllF� � Ilowaicl �'1VCIlUC � �I7].tc1 i111C� 1lrundel.. l:oad ; W1i:}l t�1C thrce ,lots cro:;shatc}ied, �i�zcl t:he new bound<.iry li�1e wherei�y one lot on }3urlinq�iinc Avenuc �:uid t�•:o on ilo�•�arcl I�vcnuc� will bc rc�classificci to R-3. (Pro}�crt�� ici�nti£ication: all liurlingamc� 1lvcnuc, 812 and..i31G llowarcl e'lvenue . ) �1 . The City Planner explained there is mixed zoning in this block, partly R-]. and partly R-3. `Phere was a consens�i.is aL- L-he joint stucly meeting of the City Council and the Planning Co:�r;�ission that the boundary betwcen IZ-1 and R-3 be fir.eci by a� new linc tlirotigh L-lle midciie of t}ze block Lrom Burlingame Avenue to Iioward nvenue. The Planning Commission conduct-ed a hearing and recommended that action to L-he City Council. • Following an announcement of ground rules and clari£ication from the . City Attorney on procedure, the Chair declared the hearing open on �--� �IR 32-P, Councilman Cusick asked how the audience can speaY to the L'II2 when it -J does not have copies.�' The City Planner read from the EIR, Item 6; Page 3 under the heading "Environmental Impact Of Project"--"There are no irreversible environ- mental challges Lrom this project,�and from "CONCLUSIOi�S: Piirsuant L-o recent public r.:eetings concernin� aecreasing the residential density in Burling�me ParY. and Last IIurlingar,ie, cansensus has been reactied by the City Plannir,g Cor�mission a�ld ttie City Counc.il o�z �he pro�osed reclas�� sificatio:i of cer�ain parcels. It is coi;sideied advzsable to reclassify these parcels for several reasons: They may have one lot in one zone and the rest of the parcel in ancther zone; they�may hold e;:i��ing non-cor�for_rning buildii:qs or land t.ses; aild th�y will provide a zoni.ng district bour.dary consi.stent with the Ger.�?-z°_1 Plan. Tlie pcssiUl.e increase in popul�ztioi; �:ill be minor. It is unlikely that. the proposed reclassifa.caLion wil.l have signifi.car.i: ef£ect upon the local environ- ment. 2'here will be little cr no immedi.,ite change to the project area ar i�s immediate neighborhood." Councilman Cusick repeated her qucstion as}:ed ��hen �he implementing Ordinance was presented f.or intrac3uctior.: Is z.t possible ior the City Council to re.l�ase some of the parccl� before making an EIR? The Ci�y I�ttorney agreed this is possible. Mayor �Zn�trup �..s}:ed , Councilman Cusicl: to idc:ntii�� the lots. She 1"CST?Gl7Ci.P_CI 150� f3urli�ngame l.�venue and ttie t4�o City nar}:ing iots, and that there probau].y ��ould be rnore lots she would li};e del.eted than the rest of the City Council. Councilman Iiarrison asked if the EIR is cer.tified, i.hen, as a resul.t of th� discussion o�1 the Ordinance ther.e is a decision L-o deJ_ete certain parcel.s, can the Council proceed with such deletiors and not be inconsistent �vith t1�e prior. action cer_�if.ying the LIR? The City Attorney advised that elimination of lots will affect the Conclusions recited in the EIR. It will ma);e for some inconsistency in the EIR process. Mayor �lmstrup asked for comments in favor of the LIR, There were none. Boyd D. Johnson, 1528 Ralston �lvenue, asked for clarif_ication on the blocks in question. Tlle transparency of Burlirigame Park area was shown and the blocks identified. Oppoilents �aere accorded �he privilege of the floor. Dr. William Rosenzweig, 1519 P.ay Drive: Referred to the existing apart- meiit building at 1501 Ralston Avenue that occupies three lots, part of the land zoned R-1. He asked by what process the City approved that project. Cou�icilman Crosby advised it was approvecl by variance. Dr. Rosenzcaeig declared that the zoning map is bc�ing maae to conform to the Gener_al Platl in tliis i�ista�ice Uecause of a fait c�ccompli. The City granteci a variance for aparUnent use of an R-l. lot, tlle buildinq w�1s built, tl�e pro:3uct of thai. action is an It-3 lot, which shoulci be an R-1 lot in reality. Ile stateu that is pre�cisely �,�hat the citizens do not want. They wzilt to protct single family areas against mul.ti-family devclop- ments. The City nttorney st��tea tilat ty}�e oL variance is no �.OI1CjE'_I lcyally pos�il�l�; thai: t��p�: of use woulci ta::e rezoning proce:.ses r: tl�er 1:t1�111 use vari.a»ce. r�rs. Joseph i:arp, 1920 Carmelita 1lvenuc�: Was vai:iance rat;hcr. than .� ,:ezoning thc accc7�tec1 practa.ce in the Ci_ty WI1G1 L-he Project was approved? Councilrnan Crosby confirmed it was accepted practice at the time. Joseph Karp, 1920 Cnrmelita Avenue: This was standard method 15 years ago for investors and those wlio wished to build. Mr. Perez, 1533 Ralston Aveilue: To his recollection, the building was built approximately a year ago. He did not receive notice of hearing on the variance application. Councilman Crosby stated the use var'iance was granted several years ago, but construction was delayed. Robert llelzell, 1345 DeSoto Avenue: Primar_il� concerned with increased dei�sity resulting from proposed reclassification. Any change that will increase c3ensity will have strong negative impact on the quality of life,.health and �ae1L-are. Burlingame is locaced on one o� the narro;aest cor.ridors on the Peninsula, si_tuated bet��een Bayshore I'�-eeway, the railroad and 280 rreeway. Because of the narro�a corridor, the entire communi�y is exposed to high pollution resultiny from excessive tr_af;ic. Anything done to increase traLfic bet;reen. the bay and the ^iountains will have a significant impact. The �1R rcports it is unlikely t17�:.t i:he reclassificatiozz will have significa�.t efiec� on thc enviro.��:��nt. Apparer.tly, this is iiot the opinio:l of a major s�,c�ment of the po;:.:- la.tion consader_inq the number of people in attendance this evening. It would appear Lhe LIR cices not properly state conditions that e�>ist. Charles ��dehking, 912 Toyon D?-i�*e: No l.onger. able to see tne bay from his home beca.use o� build uP of .rubbi�h at the dump site. Enjo;Ts the bay but r�.s'r.s liLe and limb in attempting to c;o there. Mrs. Charles Iiarford, 112 Crescent 1lvenue: �xperi_enced a se�aer p,-oblem abcut five montlls after movin.g to ]3urting�;.me tnat required two c��+;rs of roto-r_ooter serv?_ce to correct� Iias heard tha� Burlina,ame does not ,iave the best sewer system. C�n ihe presen� sysi:em serve mo-e people? hirs. Donald A. Knudsen, 315 Occidental Avenue: With five possi.ble lots on which to build apartment houses, there is a related potent�al for incr.eased populati.on wiL-h resultant changc in the environnent-. t+Iayor AmstruP asked how many pr.operties ar.e presently improved wiL'n apartr�ent buzldings. The City Planner responded two, 1500 Burlingame Avenue and 1501 Ralston Avenue. Of the remaining improvcnents, the�e is a fourplex, t�•ro City par}:ing lots and a single family d�aelling. Tlie City Planner noted tnat tlie EI}: states that "gro��:th inducing imnact from the project c,*ould be lirlited to future housing for 30 to 40 people." Tlie statement refers to 1500 tio�vard Avenue and 311 Burlingam� Avenue. If these were developed, estim�ted population �ti�ould be �0 to 40 people, ak�out the same as a 20 unit building at one location. I�Iayor �nstrup pointed out there is just one property in Burl.ingar�le Par.k �2 �aith potential ior future multi-iamily use if the reclassificatioii is approved. Councilman Harrison asked the City Planner for a breaY.down in density between 1500 Howard and 811 Burlingame Avenue. The Planner estimated 10 units in tiie former., 12 in the latter. Edwin P, 'Paylor, 701 13urli�igame Avenue: Agr.eed �.�ith t.}ie LIR finc]inr o£ "no ir.imeciiate effect on the nei<7hborhoocl" for the reason L-hat bui]ders woulci have to have time tD construct a 50 ioot high building. Judqing from the rapidi.ty ��ith �ahich the Plannin�) Cerrunission �nc: the City Cow�ci]. appravc�l tli� 5"l foot 1�uildinc� for Ca ,a Elmigo, it would not take 1: ng. Alulti-famil1� development ai: II11 IIurliilgame 7lvcnuc plus multi--family on the t�vo lots on Iiot4arci Avenue would have far greater long-range im;��ct thari ttie LIR infcrs. Dr. Roscnzwcig, ltay_llrive: It is concciva�lc th�zt thc fourplex at 15U5 IIu!:litlgamc Jlvcnuc coulc'. t�c c�cmol i^ticci for apart.metit cc�ti :tr.uct�_on a�ici thc� two City parking lot� 5old to ��rivate devclo��r_r,. Thcse a1Le�nai=i.vcs shoulci be a�s�u�s�a in the LIR. . Mrs. Itol�crt Craiy, 157 Occidr.i�t-al 1lvenue: n��ked z scr.�es of yur��t�i��ns, 7� concer.ni.ng non-conforrning st-iuctures and hie�}1 cie�zsity. The e,iLy �,L�or„�:y and Cit.y Planncr respondeci, She st��L-cd L-]le people are conccri�c�d witli long-ranc�e eLfects of the proposea zoning boundary clianyes, what wil]. happen in 10 to 20 years. Joseph f:arp, Carrnelita Avenue: na��a that the building at 150�3 i3urlingarne Avenue is a five-unit building, no� a fourplex. Tlie correct adclress at the.corner of Burlingame T�venue and E1 Camino is 1500 IIur- lingame Avenue, not 301 E1 Camino iteal indicated on one of the City's maps. Fle supported the reclassifi.cation and, as far as the l�uildings j a�ith which he is concerned, agreed to maintain existing density. � L.S. 1•7elch, 141 Costa Rica I�venue: Al.l of the builciings within the area of reclassif:ication are ancient �viL-h the exception of 1501 Izalston. Owners will not hesiL-ate to take advantage of rezoning if the opportunity exists. Haz-rist,L- Knudsen� 315 Occidc:stal Avenue: Echo�d tne sent.iments of the p�vi�us spea}:er. Also, consicle;-s Lhe pr<. _.cnt roni,�g a safeg��a�-d agains� ntore cars, more p�ople. At a City Cov.nci.1 r:��eting �cm� yea�s �,ao, the statement �vas made there W011IC� not be parki_nq 1_ots nor apartmen� cic:velop- ments ��est of Ll Camii;o. I;vents disrute this st�*er��en�, Toth of thcse have happ�ned, �:;isti�7g zoning b�-tznciazies s}�c;ild rem�z�.n to pz�c��cr.t grief ar,d hard. feGlings. Town of_ Burlingame: S. Dia=eneo, 207 Clarenc3.on Road: Resicie�lt of Burli.ng�:r,e for 31 years, atta.ched to the are� in Gahich hG live>, Has obser.�ycc1 gradual encroachi:l?'_I1� of multi-farnily uuildi.n;�s �nci fears t.hat "olct timers" wilJ. be iorced ou�. 'Piierc is ta?k tiiai� _�ur�l�ny��r„e liigh School will be forced to close becau_;e of decli:�i.ng school popu- �.c"�t101?. �i�Jcllti�lC.'1"1tS 471Z1 I'i0� b1"lI1R y0UI1Cl Lo.Tii21]_C'S 1T1t.0 t.�lE' �lt.y, '�105� apartment owti�rs do not allow child::en. Apartm�r.l buildi��qs se1_ve a need a.n every ei.ty but this type of cievelo�,:,,ent slloulcl be cot,rinecl to apartrr,en� zoned ��:eas and ziot permitt�d to in�rudc into single fa�aily neighbor.?ioods. Richard T, Perry, 601 Concord �4ay: Aa,reec? �,��ii.h �ir, t•2arenco. Considered need for gro�ath a carong phiZosophy< Asked if anyone had appli�d for a rezon�.ng permiL- for the property on i3urlinq<�me Av�r:ue and th�: t�oo on Howarci Avenue. The City Planner responc:ed iio, �he Plannir.g Co.�,rni ssio,� was the applicant in this case. 2,ir. Pcrry r.�Lerred to earlier cornmeilts that the new 7.OI11IlC� }�OUIlC�c3rj� was agreed to for thc purpose oi strai.ghte;zing the line between R-3 and R-1. He termed tL.:.s "pure sophistry" because the present zoning map shows lot.s and Ulocks aivided in many ��:ays ana many siiapes. It is time to call a halt to creeping "apartr;lentisrn. " T9rs. John Barton, 734 Winchester Di-ive: Opposed increased dcnsi.ty in the vicinity of S•�asnington School and the ]Zecreation Cente�. Thcre is confusioii and hazard w}iere children cross 13u�� lirigame �lvenue near the Recreation Centez. Further density in that area shoulc3 not be permittcd. Edwin P. Taylor, 13urlingame Avenue: On-strect parking generated by the I:ecreation Center e�:tends a bloc}; anci a hal.f do��m to �urlingame I�venue anc3 i3loomfield. ?�iulti-family use of tiie tliree lots could result in buildings 55 fee� in height overloo}:ing aujacent single farii.ly hornc�s. '1'his can only result in' loss of pri.vacy to homeo�•:ners, which certainly must be considered a negative impact. A9rs, 13rian Sixt, 101G Diorrell I�venue: Opposec� any attempt to incrcasc dciisit��. D1is. 13arUara �ruton, in k�chalf of hcr parents, owncr.s of 1�00 lio:va.rcl (Lots Z c�I1C� 3, 131ock 4, IIur.Zingamc 1�ark Jf2) : StaL-ed it 1�ac] t�c,en }�er understanding that Lot 3 �aa:� partially •zonec] R-3 and Fa�lri:ially R-.1., but it a��p^ars now that thc zoni.ng is R-1. She a;kecl i.i it is true that a variance c�in no lanc�er be usec3 to cl�anq� zonin� uncler present rules ai:cl requlations, '1'lle Cit=y I�ttorne�� respondcd yc�. :�7rs. L'r.ut��n statc�l tl�is th�n would neqlte any fut:ure chanr�c of zoni_nq or use throur�h varianr.c: onl}�. '1'hus, i.L- woulcl u�� impo;>:;il�le ior l..oL G(15U�3 13urlinyrimc Avenue) to b� use� f:o�' a��i:tment pur�>c.>:;es tlu-ouc1h �i use per-�7tit, I�L hc;r requcst a traiisi�a�:e�iey was sl�o�an of tlie o}�1�osite sicle oi llc;w<>>:c] nv�'��u� anQ the solicl line marL-ing the propo�ea boundar.y bctween R-3 and R-1. t•1J-s, Bruton pointed otit ttiat the first two lots on the south side of }lo��ard arc R-3 in zoning and R-3 in use. On Lots 2 and 3, the fir.st t�ao lot� on t}i� north sicle of Iloward, there is a 65-year old singlc farnily resiclence that crosses lot lines. In all probability, if the land �vere developed in R-3, there would be a builaing 35 fect in heiglit of not more than eight to 10 units, modern, architecturally pleasinc�, r��acing ti�e existi.ng 65-year old builciing. ' Car1D. Minerv�, 36 Arundel Road: AbouL- a year and a half ago, a gentl.enan ca�:�.c to the PJ_anning Conur.ission and City Council �vith plan � for a iive�l_c:; at 111 Arundnl Itoad. `i'he variancc. ��as dcni_cd. The then mayor, it.D. I�lartin, made a stipulat.ion that c,�ater lines in the arca oi lio�•�arcl � IiYUil(A(_'1. and F3urlinqame Avenue were too small to accept any more build.ir.;s except singl.e family homes. No�r tilere is a movement to bring more rznal:tment. L•uildi.ngs 9_n desnitc t:he former mayor's statemt-_nt t}ier.c shoulci be no more applicai��.ons for_ rnulti-f_am.iJ_y unti7_ n�tv sei:er and �-:ater �.i_nes can be i�zsL-alled. Mr. 2•linerva commentea he has seen neither. � The�� •rere no further_ cor,t::ents ir.om the i'looz . `1`he hearing �•r�:,s declz,red clo�ed. Coun.cil_�;�an t1a�-�ison st��teci f.hat th•� City Cour.cil has beforc� it an F�zR to be certiiicd. ife as}:e�'. ii the Cou:lcil c� i: delei:e a;�y of t'�e ei.g}lt poiilt� mentioneu oi1 Pz,ge 3. The City I�ttoAney r.esponded t.:�a.t the Council c:�n make modi � ic�: t�.oiZs in th� E:�:R ba;;cd upo� tCS�.i.T70i1�� heard '�nis even i�:�; . C011l?CJ_ �I�?11 I:.•.��rison � C�`J?_:��C1 }1E }lc.s circled }>O11?�S 1�� rJ � 6 �%, l�G dS::C:Ci what �lie ef�.ec� wcu.ld be if tliose ar�r.e deleLed. `I'iie City �:ttorne}� ac�vised thlc f.i7= City Counc�_� c�nnot del.�t.e. 'P;zese are �l�e elc�,.��nts i:o be covc>>'ed by the EIi:. Covnc�.l?n� n li<�?-rison the;l �tated he qu�sti;,;ls 1JC111i:S �. � 2� ��i �%. 1'P_C' C1_t}� %1i;LiT'll�'}' dC3V' .'_iC''C? t.}iE� C�::1 1JC 1llOC:l`1ZC1 lt th :t i.s the ��rish of i.he r�ajority oi the Ci.ty Cou:icil. Counci.l�nar4 Cusic}: asked that point 8 be modifi.ed by delet�_:�g "Only propcT-ties nc.�}:t. to tlle two lots" and substitut�_n�1 "'lhe neici�bornoous surrovndi_ng tlie two lots . " Cou?ic.il,7�an tiai.rison�read the modifications he ciesire�i. Councilman A.r.ngzni stated he �,iould be sa�isfieci �aith Lhc� EIR either as presented or with modifications. Later in ttie mr��ting when thi_s s�,:it�e-- ment was ciiallenged frorn the f1ooL, Counci].:�i�n "•langini e}:olained tt;at the Cxt.y Cou�zcil is lega].ly bound to ma}:e an EIR Lor this rec�assi_fi- cation proi�c*. Tne Coancil hGs no a�.ten�ative. That ��ras the reasoning be}iind nis earlier statement. RLSULUTION i10. 23-75 "Certifying Lnviror.raental Impact I:eport For Reclassif=icatiozz Of Ten Lots I'rom R-1 'i'o 7:-3; Lots 3 And 6, L31ocl: 2, Lots 5 And G; Block 3, And Lots 3, 4 and �i, Blo��}: 4, �'�11 Of i3urlin;:ame Yar;. Ivo. 2; A�id Lots 111�, "1111 Anc: 22, Bloc:k 22, 'I'o�,an OL i3urli.iigame - L"IR 32Y" �.�us iniroduced by Council��an Il��rrison, second by Council- man Cusic;:. Points 1,2,5,G,7, modified by Councilman Harrison to read: 1. The znunediate impact from the proposecl project coulci result in ' physical ch��.ngc. l. 'Pl�e increment of change that would be permitL-ed by rezoni.iig coulcl be r,otisidel-ecl signiiicant. S, There coulci be an appr.eciahle ciifference between short term ancl lot�y i;erm use of }.�i-ivate property in the pr.ojcct ar.ea. G. There could be ir�ev�r,it�le CI1V1i011111C111:a1 cha�:qes from this project. 7, '1'hc I111I11T;lL';:1 i3�oti,th-indizcincJ i.mpact from the pr.oject woul.d be f:uture housiiiq f�>� 30 to 40 1>c��l.e. 8. (tdodi!:ied 1�a� Counci?.niari Cusick) 7'he ileighborhooc]s �urrc�undiny t.11� two lots �,tiicl� mir,ht Le i'c�developed woulc3 be signif-icantly af-fcctc�rl I>y the prop^scd ac�ion. '1'he 12esc�lution with the mociiiicai�ioi�s w��s u»�:ni.r�ously a�loF�ted on roll. cal.l . �, RLCONVI�tIL: I�ollo��ing a recess at 9:30 P.M., 1�4ayor Amstrup reconvened the r�eeta.iig at 9:45 P.i✓. , 2a. ORUT14ItP:CE I1�. 1036 PROVIllING FOR R�CLT�SSIFICA`PION OF S�VTN LOTS II� I3IJRL7IIG711�1F PI�RY. NU. 2 A[QD THRL:� LOTS IN '1'OWN OF I3URLI;QG��M�. Ueclaring the hearing open, Pdayor Amstrup invited comments from the proponents. Tnerc were none. Opponents were invited to speak. Ur. Rosenzweig, Ray Drive: Referred to conunents relative to improve- ment of the praperty at 1500 IIoward I,venue �•�ith an architectural].y pleasing huilding, l�.mited in height. Staff indicated that number of units �•rcuJd l�e i.itni.ted by parJ:ing requiremencs. llr. P.osen•r..:eig asked about underg�ound parking. The City Planner stated such parking rnust be toL-al�.;� bclo�•r gr�icie and that the P1Unn�.ng Commission has the resron- sibility of revi.ewiny the landscaping plan. llr. Rosenz.caeig pointeci out it is po.si.ble, then, that on-site parki:ig r.equirerlents iieed not necessarily restrict building densi.i�y c:.oiisidering the possibility of an v.ndergro�.znd garage. . Council�.��n Crosby sf�ated L-h�t a c3eve]_oper probably would ae liraitc:d by econemics. He questioned thut any krr;;z�edgc:ble builcicr �•,culc3 atie;�pt to build uGi�tCi_l11I1C� that would not bc a payin, prc��osition; undergroun.. parkinCj Cilll be very costly. I�rnold Fo�.man, 905 t�Ior.rel_1 Tvenue: and R-4 zoi��.ng in the City wi; hout R-3 and i:-4 are deve�oped tc their apartme:�t. bui.ldzngs. There is su�ficient ur:deve]_o�;ec3 R-3 rreati.xZg addi�zonal iz-3. Once exten;_, 1et �h�re not be any more Rober.t Delzell, DeSoto Avenu�: Recc�; :;�ndecl the Ordinance ribf� be adept.cd Uecausc. there ha.s been no strong eviu�:ice of b�nefiL to the City. t•irs. Ch<:r_-l.es IIar{o�d, Czescant L�VE;lU?: 1��e are peopl.e �•�}�o bel5.eve cities tlave no right to restrici: populai:.ion, In the I�tay, 1975 issue of h1cCa11.s, an article "Subu.r'�s Shut: Th��.r poors" conc�rns three da.fferent places that have l�ceri cri.t�.ci��d fo}_ restric�irig or ati.e:r:ptin<� to restrici. population. In each casf�, the cii:�� •aas ccnc.erned o:ith environ;ient, public services anci preser�fai.ion �f sma.11-to:ar. atmospherc. h]rs Fiarfol.-c1 Gtated her .fan-�i.iy setticd �.n. I3ur.linga;r,e, paj�l.l� i.4J1C:E� as r�uch as tizey i»ter.cieci for their. llo:ne, buL t;ie�r wanted to be p<.ri. oL- a sn;all community and hope that 13urling�me vaz.11 not charge. Edmund Barhera.ni_, 1553 llz�ake Pvenue: Relatively new to the area. ��loved to Burlinga��e because he �aantec] to raise tiis children here. Bc�lie�es tiiat a?iy development on the ��st sidc of El Ca.ni no i.eal snoLld be R-1. 'Phe time will come when apart�:ient huil.dings nc?•� on R-1 lo�s will reacl� the stage of demolit.ion becat:se of age; the l��nci then can revert to R-1 use. Iie ask�d by whom the Plannir.g Commission was ins�ruc- ted to reco�mnend t.his rezonzng. Counciln��:n 1Iarrison explained that Lhe Planning Commission is comprised of sevc�n dedicated p�ople wlio give of. their timc: ireely, serve for hours on end. These people have in mind a conceptual ��icture of what areas siiou].d be like. Any good Pl.ann��% should do this. Fr_om a planner's victajJOlIlt t}7ere are diiferent ap��roaches in planninc� a city from the start a�id planning for an older city. 13urlinc;ar,le is az� older city. In tr}�ing to corrcct whc�t has been done, clecisions will be m�zde tiiat- m�3y not be rie�ht. The ��or?: of t?�e Pl<�nninc� Commissioi; is admirablc. At a joini: mcetinq o� i:he City Council ancl the Planiling Coi�L;�issio�i, the twb bo3ies �aere at var. iaiice bec�use of different aj�l roach •- the P].anninq Conuliission i� resi>on��J�lc to thc CiLy Council, t.i�e City Council to i:he pcople. t•1r. 131rbcr.ini, 1553 Dra}:C: II1 r.efcrrin�r to I311I).111�jc1i11E? as an oldcr city does this not raise thc issue or new multi-f�milv �levclopments rec;uirinc� �letti� sewers, waLer c111(� e1�.ctriczl sy�,tcm �. Lveryone in tl�is City I�as !�uar�i from the county ass��s:suz•. '�:ii� �>u�1�1� c�o r�oL- want: �ii;y aciditional �sscssmeni:s. • Mayoi- 11mst.z�up ret�or.i�ed he :.,I�enL a grcn� ucril of: Lime in Redwood CiL-y rceent.ly �ind lecirned Ll�at tlie State rec�uires t:hc a:�se�c:;or t:o a;sc:�s J every �pr_operty at 25°; oL i.ts fai.r mar.keL val.ue. '1`he �.issessor wil.l ask the owner if he can seil his property at Lhe indicated value, the answer �•1i11 be yes in. most cases. I�iayor I�mstrup explainecl that on1�� a very srnall part of the property t��>: supports the sewer system. Furtizer, the mcmbers of the Council have listened to the people's corn�nents and niust aLtempL to reach a fa�r and logi.cal decision. Mayor I�mstru.p commended the Planning Cor��ission, a group of seven citizens who nave done their job and doile it well. Ldwiti P. Taylor, Burli.�zgame Avenue: 1lgreed thaL the Cit�� is served we).1 by the Planni.ng Comnission and tl:e City Plat�i�er. Iio�•;ever, there are two thir.gs io be considered: Peo, )_e �:�tio �•:aiit to b��ild aiic. pro��i��c jobs, resicl�i�t:s who �aanL- the City io re;:�ain as it is. �v'ithin a day and a half,he and two othc:rs circulate:� a petition in the vicinity of the three ].ot� proF�csed to be reclassified in To�;;n of I3urlingar�e. The petitio:z opposed ttie reclassi.ficat�_on. tvitlzotit any difficulty 137 signatures wer.e obtained, about si:: people re�uscd to sicrn. The consensus appea: s to bc: in f�.vor of_ Y.eepinc� the City c:s it is. �ir. '1'aylor a;}:c�d that� t!ie peti�_i.on be i�icerpol-a.;.c�: in tnc :�:i:zut� �. i�layor T:;nstri.� agr�Gci. .705e��1 :ZczT��! C�':"i��C'�.ltn 1lvenue: Con�rnencied t!1C C7.t=�' C011t1C].� O?� Zl.7LCril7:� �J1tli li�� }� 1=C:)= C).O� G t0 t�•:O heurS �•71Lr1 11.t��.^_ G`O:`� lE'.'.�1:.. IrC' 5��7};C t.0 t}le potent�_al of a:�y ne;a un�_ts Lz-:cn ti��n�'_. ��pe�::rs to be one c;_ t�-ro lo,_:c. I�'lOSt O� 1:P.0 �Oi.S� CiL'i1��Y �I1d11 C11;`>� ��u1}:lY:CJ �_Ol'.� c31C: Y?U11L" ':?J_i:�l 1II1,�1�0�'�:— ment.s; tiie possi_]�ili.+�y o= mor.e units i.s �%I.O:JGbI,� insic7niii.c�ant. �pi:�l��li'i� lll, .ti:0:�(,177.\•;E'1[��S 1.03:C� 117� SE`Z:;C�?1"!Cj O: �' LOt. cZt Lc3::i�Q.Tl� l.i; woulc3 be er.an,:,:;iicall_.' ,!nsosnd to bui'_d u.ndezgreun-.� p�:rk? i�g , T}1e pC0171@ 4:�..1i. I�� flO�ti�}l� }�U�: t}�(_' c:3:��L1IDF171a6 ��YE'_ Il'v'a� g�rrnane. . IrJnL .�UZ�.l.l�i?�.i:ti: E�V(ii+L1C.' ].:� d C�00� L'::c2i,^:i�7!L'. �Y'Oi;l `L�iC'. 5�2.`.1(:JOill� Of "t.1�,_�1:: 1701 SE9 d10;1� � ]. �? S lI1CC:]iCL'1V�:)�1F' �O COii ;1C.�c�I- )�U:I�.Ci:�.::i� d 51.1]ci i P_ ��t.`i: �. )_j' (�V]O��1T'1J Ol1 L�:: � CO):I.C'.:C� ]llS{� �15 1� S90Li(; I�G 1.11C0;..^.C'_1_V�11�1.G i:0 �lll}_C: �: singl� famiJ_�• dv:clling at the COi:Il�i of rdeline Drive and i'1 C��r�inc, The�_e were no further co:�ments frorn the Lloor. `1'he hcarii�g ��as dE�c:Lurc�c� �losed. Council.nan ?,�,ngini asked the City Attorne}� to cla.rify cwi:ers?�ip of the City parking ].ots. �he e�ti.orney r�snoncicd ti�ey �.re o�aned by the C��:.��, tlie City Cl.er.�: reports t]Zey are not encur«bercd by i�ond� or de':�ts. Ii: this, case, it is conceiva.'�le they coal_d b� so]ci. Councilman Crosby st�ted 'ne shar_es the concerns e::pressed by the people herei:.oni�3hi� but there are some citizens �,�ho do not f-ee1 as S�l"OIl�l�� ailout maint�ining rigici R-1 areas. He referred to tne many ineetings held by the Planning Commission on the subject and to a joint study me��ting of i�he Commission and the Council wh�re there �aas in-dep�}l C:�SCLS�lOtl OL 111CYG'dSE.'C� densities lIl residential F?r'CFiS. �3E' stated it �,=as his understanding t.ilat thc Ci�y Council and Planning Com�nission had reached agreement, but tonight there have been comments to the contrary; he did not reczll tliat there was opposition to rezonirig oL tl�e te�i lots w11en the joint mceti»g was }zeld . IIe s�ateci that ]ie ca:inot be swayed by 200 peoL�l.e �,:hen ther� are 2(3,000 peopl.�� in this City, but thc people her�. toniglit have exnressed thei.r feelings and madc thcir positions known. T4hile he has not agrecd with Council- man Cusici: tiiat the Geiie.ral Plan shoulci conform r�itti tne zoning m<�.r�, �he will support the o��position to the reciassification of the 10 lots. i+tayor :�mstrup referred to a com,nent earlier from a gentlem�n in the audience to tt��u eiL�ct that the ir��?ortant issue is to keep the west sicle of El. C:�.tuino i.n 1:-1. Mayoi� AMstrtip st�ted hc lives o�z i:he wesst sicle bui� reco�Ttiizes there are �nzii}� wonclez-r�.1 pco,�':: who li��c en thc erst side; th�:y iiave equal rigllt: to maintzi�i til::ir resicle�lzial areas, �nd, in his opiiiion, ttle Oxforcl ai�d Catribric'c�c� Ito�3d �-srea, is ot�e of the pref-ti.c�st in the City. IIe concur.r.ed �vith C�uncilman Crosby's po_ ition, stating t:l»t lie has foue�ht lang ancl harci to r,�aintain the integrity of the Ci.ty's rc�sidential areas. Councilmnri llcira:isoii sta�ed th��t tlie recl�zssi.fic�ition F>roc.ess r.esult.�.c] irotn a joint mceting oL City Council and 1'l�lnninq Cornmis:;ion. n , consensus of the tD10 bodies and staff lcd to the Iicarings to seek inpui: frorn the ��ublic. Ile concurrecl wit:h Counci.l.man Cr.o�by ai�d i�1��yor nmstrup �vith respect to the proposed reclassificZtion. Councilrnan Cusick stated that, after heari.ng three councilmen say t}�ey are opposed to the re•r.oning, she will rnove to reject Ordinznce No.103G "An Ordinance Amending Section 25.12.010 Of T}ie I3urlingame 1�i11I11C11],1]. Code l�nd `1'he 7.oning ,'•;aps Therein Incorporated I3y lteclassif}�ing Lots 3 And G Of_ I31ock 2; Lots 5 And 6 Of I31ock 3; nnd Lots 3, 4 I�nd 5 Of B1ocY. 4, 33url.ingame Park tvo. 2; And Lots 11-13, 21-n, nnd 22, Block 22, Town OL- Burlingame, rrom First ResidenL-ial, R-1 llistrict, 'Po Third Resiciential, R-3 District." Motion i:o reject the Ordinance �•�as seconcle•:i by Cowzcilman liarrison and unanimously carried on roll cal]_. Re�aL-ive to the abo��e hearing, the fo11o;��ing CO^'.I':L1T11Cclt1011S were received by th� Cit;� C)_erk and accepi�ed foi fili.nr7: 1. Co�lur,unications fr.ont Olga Co.rbell? and Caroiyn CorbeI_li and Anastasi_a Co1e onpos��ig rezoni.�z,� in SllX'�111Cj�,TIlC 1:'a:-l.. 2. Petition "Z�Ie, `_t:e Unders�_�*ned, Urge Th`t 'i'he Zoni.ng, Sch^duled To Be Discussed I�t 'Phe I3urlingame Coui�cil I��eeC�.nq P.pr? 1 21, 1975, IIe }Cel�i� R-1 (Sinrl� L ai�:ily 1<c:siaential) i. or `i'lie Lats nt 7'hc Foll.o��w:zg ?�ddre::r.<:s : �a.�. :3Lii.�J_11Ci;;'il:.' i1V�PL'iE � �l% li0:9c;"ci I�vcnuc !';11C1 ��_� �10',.3?-U. i1t',"`i7JC'_, ��r.1 F'UI"t�:(:'T uLCJ:? �1'lldt. 1`rl(_' PUY'llIlCji:::i:G' vEP.Cl�ll. P1.1ri }iEi �:il�:l:l!j�'C� `!:O COI"1�=C.•1"ii', Thereto." 3. Petitian °I, the unclersignnci resiclent oi �ur.]_inga„Ze, enjoy th^ resicicnt-ul Cil� rai�LCl uIlt� CIllc11.1 l.}� OL� OUY Cli:l�. I ciP.l OT�IJOSi;'u� t0 incre�z;c>ci po�_�utat�.on Gensa.ty. I tavor an,��,ding tlie Genera]. J'_�a.� to reflect identi�y cait.li e>:istin, :o:�ing rcgt:la'4z.ons. „ /; T I' ` 3. GEi:i�i2F,L PLAN DLiJSI'i'7:ES TO CO�Zi'ORi•i i^dITI1 'LOi�Ii.G COD� rN R-1 %1ND _ R-2 uzs�r:;zc7�s - � IdU - 5LF ----- ------ �nder da1:e of: April 16, 1975, the Ci_ty Pi� n��er f_or�c•:�.rded Lor th� Council's consideracion a dr«ft resolut�.on �.o ar.:r:i:d ParL III oi thc Gener_al Plan, a list of document:s regardin_, G�nezal Plan amendment.s and copies oi listed docuraents. Declaring the hearing open, t•layor I�mstrup invited commeni�s iro:r, tne floor. L�ichard Perry, Concord �ti'ay, asYed for inf�rmation on resideni=i.al densities permitted by the zoning code. Tne City P1.anner reau �l�e four density iactors appearing on i:he Generar Plan di�-�c7ram. He explain��i tllat they are not consister.t witli nor i� eiitical �:�itl� �,vhat is in the zoning code. Very fe,•� people und2rstand the purpose of tl.e Gencra]. Plan, it is a reci.tal of guide.lines and objectives tor future dcvelop?�e1zt oi the City. `1'iie zoning code is a legal document of s��eci£ic requlat�io::; for lan:i usc�. The P1u11Tlll:g Commission reCO1lLT1lCI1CZ�C� r�visions to th� General Plan ancl rezoiiing of 10 loi:s to implemeti� Gene�-al_ Pl.an objec'�ives. In Burli!ig�n�e, land area is so small in some zreas that parking detcrr��ines numuer of dwell.ing units. With the exception of ti�r�e built in the last t�:o years, every apartnent builc�ing in the City is non-confort;�ing }��cause they fail to satisty e�isting ��arl:ing regulatioris. Tiirouqh its nar}:ing requirer�ents, 5urlingai;ie has effectively limitecl nwnber of people. At Coui�cil.�,an I3arrison's request, the City Planner read the f_ollo�:��_ng from the resolutioi� prcpareci �OI' t}1C Cotulcil's consider�ltlQI1: __ "NO��, TIIEIZL•'FO1:L•', IT IS IlEPE13Y 1:LSOLVlill 11ivll DL'1'I:I<?•iI'.':i�U 1'iI11T: _3 l. With the exce.ption of nrea A(}:eference L•'�:hil�it II of Part III ` General Plan, Staff ]tevic�a dated Noveml.�cr, 25, L979) ��Itiich is thc PriticJle I�pari�mcnt co:n��le� located at the corner oi Trousclale �iiicl Skyline l�oulevar.d c1I1C� that portion of :�rea I' �•:hich fronts on Capuchino bet��cn Carr,•��lita and 13roadway, Part III of the General P].ai1 stlall l.�e, amencied so L-hat Lhe General Plan Aiap will b�, made id�ntical with thc �present zoninq code in those lt-1 and lt-"l I)�_stricts wher.e ParL- III of thc GciieraJ. Plan now projc:cts �� highcr density or 3 C31f£CY..f'_Ilt use than that allo�eeci by lhe �resent z�ning code. , 2. '1'he variou:; lai�d uses aut}ior.i.zcd by tlie r.onine� ordin<znce (I3ur.]ingama Munici�al. Cc�de, `1'itle 2�i, '/.01JING) arc compatible witli th� I. objec{�ives, ��o].i.cies, c3eneral land uses ancl proc�r<un.:� specified in the Gen�ral Plan. 3. 'Phe I3urlingame Zoning Ordinance and the I3urli.ngame Gencr.al Plan arc consistent within the m�aning of Governr;ient Code Section C;B60." I2ob�rt Delzell, De Soto Avenue, requested the City Council to bring the General Plan do�Jn to the cicnsity gener.ally Lound in the zoning lati�s. Tliere were no £u�-ther comrne�lts from the atic?ience. Tl�e hearinc� �ti�as declared closeci. . In response to an inquir�� f�_om Councilman Cusick, the Cit,� nttorney stated the tesL-imony hcar_d by the Ci.ry Couzzcil has l�een legally suL- ficir�nt. Counc�.l:nan Crosay asked if confc�=mzt,> of th� Ge�zer«1 Plan �•�itli the zonincl code �:iil �revent ar� owner f.rom rebui�ding a n�n-confo�r:�ing building desi:roye:i by iire. Ttic Cicy I,i�i��rncy res��o:ic�c::i thai. tl�` �U11�311�C� 1;:U�t }�.^. Z'C'}�l:lit 1:1 confor:�1::CF' ',4J_�rl ��l!1.ZCli.]:C� i:I1i� 'LOI�li7C)' cedes. Councilma:i C�osb,� asl:ed if �ile Cit:y can b� s�s',ject to legal ac�ion as u r_ecuJ_t o{ ma;:ing t:ze General Pl.�;n zdent�.c�.i �:�ith L-he 7.0111?7c� OrC�:.ri�i:-:CE.:. `l'11L' L'1�:}� r1t-�:.OI_IlE'_�� YES1"�'v'12Ce6U 17G. R�SO]�U�'IO:d i:0. ?_�-75 "Amcr.dir,g Part ITI Gc�;er_al nia:� To Rest.rici: !:es�_- dei�t�i�:. : llensi ��.�s ln R-1 Ancl R-2 Uis �r; ci:_; To T}iose ;?e��r!i.i.t:eci By `1"�e �XC,'SC:11u ZO.1111� �CJ.C� ° i'.'uS 111�lOilUC�:C't k}' COt.1P_C1�.lilc�i7 �:L:51Ci; � 47[l0 illUVt�C: 1tS c:C�V}�t.�-OIlr Si'C:�II:� �;' COl�riC11�1;3I1 .'°1�7.1"1�j]_i�1� 1�1:<<171litU�JSi1' C�.i]'�_CC: OJ7 Y'O11 Cd)_1. RJ-'.CG:dV'::�ia: F0110W111v a�eces� at .1.0:30 P.1�1. , i;avor I�ms1�)"l1n r.c�con': eric;: ttie I.1�C:ti17g at 10:'�0 P.��1. IiEARIi:GS (cor.t. ) !], O)2llINAI�(:L'' id0. 1033: UNI1�0}ti�5 I�tJ]:I,�J:C?`.G� i•ii;CI;'?NSC�L, PLli'.�;PIi'�G CODi.S, 1973 EDITIO�:S, A.dD OTi;7�hS (cont. from m•�eti;�U o`� 4/7/75 Declarit:g the hearing opcn, I,Zayor e'lmstrup imlitcd co:��:nents from thc floor in favor o� ti�c� Or�iziance, introuuced for first readiil, at the meeting on i�iarch 17, 1975. Carl Aiarberry, San Diego, represer.ting the Plastic Pip� InstituL-e, addzessed the Council, reporting he has been to the Pen�nsula >�veral times anci li.steiieci to Thon;as Iiuiiter, Plum'ver.s and Stearl Fitters U;zien Busincss �lanager, tall: about why plastic pipe should not l�e includeu in t:he �1llI11JlIlg code, f•Ir, t�7arberry requested t�he City Counci.l to accepi� the recom::ien�lation of the City's Chi�.f :3uilci.i.ng In�pect.or, a:no has taken tir:le to re��iet•� the Uniiorm Plumbing Code �nd has no objec- tiori to plastic pipe. t4i�ti refer�nce to Dir. liunte�'s clai1r, that ti�crc is ne�.a evideiice whicti shoula be presentecl to the Cetincil, �ir. 1�laraerr�� stated plastic pipe is in a constant stagc of improt�ement and devc�].op- meni., ancl that h� is a��rare oL sorie new feat_ures, but there is noti�inc� at this time that �tioulci require or even suggest a chanc�� in the p]_umbii�g code . , ' COL1I1C1�:P.:lri llarrison referred to ui�datcd n?atcrial furnished the Ca ty Council containi.nq referene<�s to lethal i�oxi.c fwnes. lle as}:e<l the clatc of th� <�iti�.le. Dlr. �1ar}�erry rcporteci iiv� or six year , ago. IIc stateci this is tlot a nc�r propo�itioa anci t;1e debate has becn goi�iq on fo.r auout 10 years. Ci�i.ef: )3uilding Ins1�ector. Cal�oell si:atcd thai: thc Uniiorm Pl.um1_�ing Coc�c. in thc Cit.y of Ij11111riC�71ll�' has 1:>crmittc�i pla:;tic pii�e f_or thc r��st : ivc ye�rs; there l�as not bc��a� one eomplaint. '1']�i,: form of pi��e c�ives the home owner the o�>l:ion of eith�r rep<:ii.rinc� l�i:; o�:n I�lumbinc� o�: hirinc� a pluu;:�c.r. Ii hc, is not �zilowc�i t.o use pla�t.ic, he must rent. ;?.00 to ; 300 ��c�Lt:h of t��ui}�nwiii: i:v �lo lii.:; v�aii �oo�-}:; �il.l I�1ci:�ti.0 r��u i.ie_s i:. � toothl�T-usli anc3 �i hacl: s<��v. }.'lastic pipc i.s J.imitud to s.ingl.c iamily c��ac�l].inqs noi: ov��r t�ti�o :,toric�s. Ins}�ect:ion e�c>e:; not co:;t any more, iC rei�uir.es the : ame .�mr,ui�t of tiiiie for ��lcisti.c a� ca��L ir.on. '1'he i ri �. �1 t,Y �OU11C1 � Ml ►lUt2S - April 21, 1975 consensus of the two bodies and sL-aif: led to the ]�earings to seek inpu� from the public. IIe concurred with Councilman Crosby and Mayor Amstrup witlz respect to Lhe proposed reclassification. Councilman Cusick "stated that, aiter hearing tl�ree councilmen say they are opposed to the rezor�ing, she will movc to reject Ordinznce No.].03G "An Ordinance I�menciing Section 25.12.010 Of The T3urlinqamc �itin�.cipal Code And Thc Zoning Maps Therein Incorporated IIy Reclassifying Lots 3 And 6 Of k3lock 2; Lots 5 And 6 Of Bloc}: 3; And Lo�s 3,4 And 5 Of Block 4, i3urlS.ngame T_'ar.k No. 2; And Lots 12-B, 21-A, And 22, Block 22, ib�an Of Burli.nqame, From First 12esidential, R-1 llistrict, To Third Residential, R-3 Districi�." _ Aiotion to rcject the Ordi.nance was seconded by Councilman Iiarrison and unanimously carxied on roll call. Relative ta the above hearinq, the following communications �•rere received by L-he City Clerk and accepted r'or filinq: ].. ConLmun�catio.is from Olga Corbelli and Carolyn Corbelli and Anastasia Cole opposinq rezoning in Bur].ingame Park, 2. Petition "We, Lhe Undersianed, Urge That The Zoning, Scheduled To Be Discussed nt The Burlingame Council ;�ieeti�ig April 21, 1975, Be F:cpt R-1 (Single 1 an:i].y Re �i.dential) I'or 'Phe Lots 11t Tlle Fol�owir:� Addresses : 811 13urlingame Avenue, i312 Ho�:ard I�venuE� I�rd 816 'i:o��ard Avenue. iVe Further Ur,e Tnat The I3�:r]_ingarne General Plan I3e C1langed To Confor:a 'rhereto." 3. Petition °I, the undersigned resident of I3ur_iingame, enjoy the residential characi:er and quality of our city. I am opposed to increased po�tilation densit.y. I favor a.mending t}ze General nlan to ref]_ect identit� wii.h existing zoning regulai:ions." 3. GENEI2t�L PLA�Z llENSI'i'IES TO C0�'..'ORi�i �•JI'1'Ii ZOi�I:dG CODE 1Pd R-1 F�ND R-2 DIS'i'RI•C`l'S - - ND - 51P __ - Under date o£ Apr_il 16, 1975, the City Fl.anner fOi(da.rded for. the Counczl's cor.sideration a draf� resolut�_on ':o am�nd Par_t I]:I of the General Plan, a list of docu:nents regarciirg General Plan ame�tidments and copies of li.sted documents. Dec].aring the hearing open, Mayor Amsttup invited c.ornm�nts f-rom the flooi. E2ichard Perry, Concord V]ay, ask�ci for information on residentia.l d�nsiti.es permii:ted l�y .the zoning code. T1-ie City Planner read the �our density factors appcaring on the General Plan diaqr�.m. IIe e;,:plainE-.ci ttiaL- the�> are not consistent witli nor 1CZt?ri't1Cd1. FJ11=�1 r�ia;� is in the zoning code. Very few peonle under.stand the purpose of the General �lar, it is a recital ot guiclelii7es and obje��tives for future deve].op-aei.t oi the City. Tne zoning code is a legal documeiit of specific regulatiotis for land use. The Planning Commission reconunended revisions to the General Plan and rezo�iing of 10 lots to implcment General Plan objectives. In Burlingame, Iand area is so small in some areas that parYing determir.�es numi�er of diaelling units. With the e>:ception of three built in the last two years, every apartment building in the City is non-confo:_ming because they fail to satisfy e�:isting parking regulations. Through its parl:inq requzrements, Eurlingame has effectively limited number of people. At Councilman I�arrison's rec;uest, the City Planner read the following from thc resolution prepared for tlZe Council's considcration: "NOt7, TIII;Rli�'OF:L•', IT IS 13LREI3Y RI:SOLVL•'D 11i�7D D�TER;°II;dP;U TIiAT: 1. Witli t}ie ekception of I�:-ea A(}:eference I;�tiibit II of Part III General P1an, Staff izevi.ew dated November. 25, 197�]) �ohich is the Pringle �lpai-tinent co��plex located �,t the corner of Trousda].c and Skyline F3oulevarci and that portion o£ nrca L' which ironts on Capuchino bei.weeii Cari�ie].ita and Ur.oadway, Part III of ttle Gcilcral Plan shall be amencled so that th� Genernl Plan riap will be made identical with thc prr�ent zoning code in those lt-1 arid lt-2. Districts where Par.t III of the Ger.eral Plan now.projects a hiqher dcnsity or a differcnt use than that a1Z�,��c;i liy the pr.csent zonitig codc. 2. '1'he var�ous land uses authori7rd by the'zoning orc3in�.�nce (Bur].inclame t•iunicipal Code, '1'itic 25, 'I,OtdING) are compatihle with the� %, ..a. objectives, policies, general l�nd uses and programs specified in the General Plan. • 3. The Burlingame Zoning Ordinance and the IIurlingame General Plan are consistent wii�hi.n the meaning of Government Code Section G5IIG0." Robert Delzell, De Soto Avenue, requested the City Council to bring the General Plan down to the density.generally found in the zoning laws. Tliere were no further comments from the audience. The hearing was declared closede In response to an inquiry from Cotincilman Cusic}:, the City Attorney stated L-he testimony heard by the City Council has been legally suf- ficient. Council.man Crosby as};ed if conformity of the General Plan with the zoning code will. prevent an owner from rebuilding a non-confor_ming buildi_ng destroyed by fire. The City l�ttor.ney responded that the building must Y�e rebuilt in conformance with buiZding and zoning codes. Councilman Crosby asked if the City can be subject to legal action as a result of ma).lI1cj the General Plan identical wit�i the zoning ordinance. The Cii�y"Attorney responded na. R�SOI�UTION I�O. 24-75 "Amending Part� III General Plan To Restrict 12esi- dential Densities In R-1 And R-2 Districts To Those Permittec? By The Present Zoning Code," was introduced by Councilman Cusick, who m�ved its adoption, second by Councilman P�Iangini, unanir�ously carried an roll call. � P.�COPJVEt1E: i ollowing a recess at 10:30 P.1�1. , I•iayor Amstrup reconv�ned the taeeting at 10:40 P.i�1. IiEARiNGS (cont.} 4. OIZUINAiQCL N0. 1033: UNIFOftf�I F3UILllING, i�iECIiANTCAI,, PLUP-113ING CODES , 1973 LllI'i'IONS, ANll OTIiE1ZS (cont. from meeting of 4/7/75 ____ Declar.ing th�: he�ring ope�1, blayor ��strup invited comments from the floor in favor of the Ordinance, introduced for first reading at the meeting on t�7arch 17, 1975. . Carl ,�iarberry, San Diego, rei�resenti�ng the Plastic P�Pe Insti.tute, addressed the Council, reporting he nas been tc tne Penir.sul.a several times and lisiened to Thomas Iiunter, Plumbers and St:eam Fiti�ers Union �susiness t•lanager, talk about why plastic p�.pe shot�ld not he includeci in the plumbing cocle, t-Ir. I�4arberry request-�ci the Cit.y Council to accept the reconun�ndation of the City's Chie£ Building Ins}��ctor, �,ai�o has t<.ken time to review the Uni£orm Plumbing Code and has no obj��c- tion t� plastic pipe. 6dith reterence to AIr. Iiunter's claim ti�at there is ne�a evideiice which sl�ould be presented to the Council, P1r. I�arl�er.ry stated plastic pipe is in a constant stag� of improverient and develop- ment, and that he is aware of some new fcatures, but there is nothing at tnis time that 5JOU1C1 require or even suggest a change in the plumbing code. Councilman liarrison referred to undated material furnished the City Council containiny references to lethal toxic f.w�es. lie asl:ecl the date of the article. r1r. A9arberry reporteci five or six years ago. IIe stated this is not a new proposition ��rid the debate }zas Ueen going on for about 10 yeazs. � Chief Building Inspector Cal�ael_1 stated ttlat the Uni.form Plumbing Code iii the City of :13url.inyamc tia� perMitted plastic pi��c for the past five year.s; there hris not l�ecn one complaint. `i'his form of pip�� gives the home owner tlie option of either repairii�g his own T�].uml.�i.n�. �r hirinq a plu�n!ier. If }ie is �iot �llo�,�ed to use pla�tic, l�c m�.ist rent $700 to $300 woLth of equipmcnt to do his own woi-k; all pla�>tic requ.ir.es i.s a tooti�l�rush anci a h�ick saw. 1'lasti.c pi�?c is limitecl to singl.c ianily dwc�lling, not over two storie:;. Insl�ectic�n doc; IlOt. cost any mor.e, it rer;uires tt�e samca air�ouni: of time for pl<istic as cast a.ron. '1'1ic � L�