The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1500 Burlingame Avenue - Environmental Document�XI11111'1' B — IJ1:(;117'.T.Vl�, i)1;(:T,11ft11T70N � . '.� . . . , • � - Tc,��it.tit�ve I'�-occcitarc ' • . ' . �<<r!! y. �, S/10/ 13 � Su)�j �c� to Itcvz�a.on �• 1500 BURLINGAME AVENUE n �. . r � � } i. ------�-+r----• — y`.;.`.�_;<i';, ��.. ,. . I'ro�ecL- 1ldcirc:> ; o�: Locatioi� �urzt�ir:��;nc.�r: . ' . ' • ' . `►`�:�.'i' � T0: COUi17.'Y CLrRIC • • • . . , ' -�'��'�• �"��'^ Count�� of �an !•i��tco �1�� Itedwoocl City, Cala.Lornia 94063 ' � • • � ' File i�o. ND-154P ='roject Tii�le: Karp Property ' ' ' � �'ype of Permit: Reclassification of ane lot from R-1 to R-3 �egal. Descrip��_on• Lot 3, Block 2, Burlingame Park No. 2 • � Zonc : R-1 =�roperty Oc-:ner: . � ' - •_ A��p�zcant: . Name: Joseph Karp � . Name: Joseph Karp • Aad:ress• 1103 Juanita Avenue Address 1103 Juanita Avenue � Burlingame, CA. 94010 Burlingame; CA. 94010 �ontact Person: Joseph Karp Area Code : 415 Phone : 348-3055 _ � ROJl;C��.� : ESCI2IP"':f.0�a : Recl ass i fy one 1 ot from R-1 to R-3 to combi ne two 1 ots into one R-3 parcel. There are presently two fourp7exes and a separate 8.car garage on the two lots; the building at 301 E1 Camino Real is on Lot 2; the garage and a little over half o� the building at 1500 Burlingame Avenue are on Lot 3. Both of �the existing 4-unit apartment buildings are nonconforming; both have less than the required ttiventy foot setback from E1 Camino Real,. There are two driveways onto El Camino Real. No redevelopment project has been proposed, only the rezoning of one R-1 lot with 7980 SF of land area, approximately 48x167' in size. The resulting R-3 parcel would be approximately 16,000 SF in area; <<-'- ',' ; ':, �-� °,,_-• . ' 96x167' in size. Present buildings are not .less than 50 years old. The improved property (two 2-story apartments and the garage) were sold March 1, 1940 for $29,000 according to tax stamps on the deed. Existing improvements are legal, but nonconforming, because they predate •adoption of the first Burlingame Zoning Code. , � �', •�� r� , ,' ._') � EXHISIT B - NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE �0 The City of Burlingame by Wayne M. Swan on March 10, 1978 , completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: () It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( X) No Environmental Impact Report is required. EIR-32P which was modified and certified by City Council on April 21, 1975 is incorporated by reference and attached to the posted copy. Reasons for a Conclusion: EIR-32P for�the reclassification of this lot and 9 other lots from R-1 to R-3 was approved by Planning Corrmission Resolution No. 2-75. Reclassification of these 10 lots, including one similar lot at 1500 Howard Avenue, was recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 3-75 adopted March 10, 1975. Subsequently, ND-89P was prepared and posted September 16, 1976 for the Gittelsohn property at 1500 Howard Avenue. This 6770 SF R-1 lot was reclassified by City to R-3 ; -��`� creating a parcel with 12,560 SF of lot area. A ten unit condominium received approval '•�� and is currently under construction. The Karp property at 1500 Burlingame Avenue is 12% larger in area because the lot has 36 feet greater depth. Assuming a similar multifamily residential project could result upon future redevelopment of the Karp property, it would be possible to provide eight more parking spaces or four more living units. Based upon this premise, a 10 to 14 unit condominium project could be constructed with three �. l iving level s over submerged parki ng. - ,' ' -'� `' " ,-,�1-' � � At 1500 Howard Avenue the change from a si ngl e fami ly dwel l i ng to a modern 10-uni t.��.c? �,t; � --- . _ � condomim um will add nine dwelling units. ' _._. --- __ At 1500 Burlingame Avenue a possible future change from two old nonconforming fourplexes to a modern 14 unit multifamily residential building could p�ovide six additional dwelling units. If the property became a 16,000 SF parcel in the R-3 District, there would be other possibilities for development, as conditional uses requiring a special permit. These other land uses would include: a church, a non-profit school, public utility or public service structure or installation, corranunity clubhouse, parking area, roominghouse or boarding house and/or a group residential facility for the elderly. A group residential facility for elderly people requires one parking space for each three residential units where such facilities are designed as separate units; if designed as lodging rooms, one space for each four lodgers, plu�s one space for each two people ' employed on the premises. Assuming 24 off-street parking spaces, a project having 60 to 80 residential units might be proposed. City would be able to regulate.the density of any such project as;a condition of the special permit. EXHIBIT B- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE THREE Any building that is more than 35 feet in height is subject to City review because it is a conditional use requiring a special permit. One likely condition for approval of any new project on this site would be to eliminate driveways off E1 Camino Real. Landscaping along E1 Camino Real and Burlingame Avenue could be required to enhance this importani corner lot at the edge of the downtown business district. The subject R-1 lot is located within a mature urban developed residential area and only fifty feet away from a heavily traveled state highway. The adjacent property to the west at 1508 Burlingame Avenue is improved with a nonconforming four unit apartment building. Directly across the street there is a three story 26 unit apartment building, and on its west side, a City of Burlingame parking lot. The proposed project would have little, if any, impact upon the existing physical conditions on these immediately adjacent properties. A project with six additicnal dwelling units would not cause a substantial adverse change to the Burlingame Park neighborhood. ,, The proposed zoning change would be'�reasonably consistent with the Burlingame General Plan. It would relocate the zoning district boundary to the side prop�rty line instead of running through the middle of a parcel which is in one ownership. In order to determine significant effect per Sec. 15081 of the State EIR Guidelines there must be findings. Required findings Actual findings Project has potential to degrade the Future replacement of 2 nonconforming quality of the environment fourplexes with a modern residential building built to code with adequate � parking will not degrade the environment. Project has potential to be disadvantageous There is no redevel�pment planned at to long term environmental goals this time; a long term goal would include upgrading of nonconforming residential property. Project has possible impacts which are cumulative considerable An individual project might become possible but would have no apparent growth inducing impacts. The environmental effects will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings � -ea - �� Date Signed Rezoning one R-1 lot to R-3 will not have a significant effect upon the local environment. � �� Signature o Processing Official CITY PLAtdNER Title Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date Posted: March 10, 1978 EXHI�IT B - NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION OF POSTING PAGE FOUR I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burl ingame, Cal i fornia on �,?;1 �.z� -�.�- /�''_ _ � Zg78• Appeal ed: ( � )Yes ( ;:� )No � i�% � �. � -�� / �/ �:L: EVELYN H:�HILL, CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 0 � _ :� _ _ - - - - - - �:: -- - _ _ .. -- ---- = --- �--.___=-=��w==_-�_Y=az====�� -s= -_� _ _�- - �u=s- �� y' �.'.'v iy��' '____=__---_=�_-=.�`,d,z'�__�___=__=_--_-_______�_-__---_=_= --------- - --�_��__�✓_�_��=�aa�s,�==--__�_- - - �„_�'-----------_-___�!,`�___�_____ �� ,�� '�ta ��fi�ssn�� a ��__�__=. --_ ___ -=_-________��.==z F�=-==____-_�--_— _ _____=____�=____.__�__,:�� . Cz� �� ' �OL ON/Y/NJ 7�' '� r` 7 K.�,�`'�' �'f?D�-'�� : ;' � � � � , oS' � �� . � i�� . � � � � � ii'f �orZe ,6, � � ;� ,y �JI �`'�� ,6/ � i e � � �� ' h a � II � •��• •��• •�• •��: In I � � '� �;� � � o r 3 �`� � � u � � o , p o • u � o i '� 2� ojI � ` � o� e � � � , � e � � ' � �� - _ �j� • �_ �, \ � -^ ..... 5 ...., �� • �� R-3 m �i � � � � �� , � ^� �. � �+ � 9 x. ��a�� E c.�..,� � ,4 � r�---_. x — — —�.r � C � i x N \ `�- --� h� � � � ..e.� �' 1� k � �� . �iJ � �S � r1� `� _ r . '-- �—� —� — � � --�, ' � I �:: � 1 - �' ; �� -:� = , <" �l .iv: �L>.5.=7� %fJ . . U � `O� '�- / `' i ( � _' � i ' u� � � � �� e i � \ ��: ,�, -_--_-� _ �� ,\ �R,� ;;�-_., k '' r ;,� �� - BLOCK 2 • � � _�`_!— �_ �• , � ° s �; � � � �J �� 1 � :� �� lu \ _ 0 �' �p ; �'1 � � u ,�I --. _ 11�) �� Ii' � � o� ' � i \ �� ? a � `� p � �,' J �� U `' il �y�� ' { f�l ; q � C� /1 \ � � r 5� �, �; �'�Q111 W �`� C�a � P' h , � �N ry � // ""^� u . � �t ,�j ir ij � � ( ,� �� u j � �i '/� '� � ssz � � `� — ° � � �° o Q �i � i � R LWJ � e . � c o v, � 2� I p> �4 � � � � � : � �� r z � M r �, � � � � '^ ��'G _ � oUN�d F� /,? �� F'Ro PO S�l, ��%�.%/l✓QiJ �.r� y i r\•' - • �_ � �.i � : , i ° , � � ,- �. � �e � �- r j" � ---___ ��y, � ,�\ r �'7-. � / e c��-�� o � ��'---- � y r � f� �'c 1 � �'- 1-: . r'� � � -n � r O � � 3 � D -� � m o ��z r --i n o �cNi�n .� �--� i7 � � � w � n n3 --I O z ....�. ! � rilc I�.�o. LLR-32�� Date of Report February 14, 1975 PLANIQIIJG DL'P�RTM�Nl CITY OF BURLINGAI�IE ENVIRUi�I+�L�I:�ITA.L INIPfiC'_l' R�POR�i' � Project R�'CLASSIFICATION of 10 ]_ots from R-1 to R-3 ; Lots 3 and 6, Block 2, Lo�cs 5 and 6, Block 3 anci Loi.s 3, 4 and 5, Block � 4, all ot Bur � ing�,m.= Paxk No. 2; and Lots 11�, 21� and 22, Block 22, To�an ot BLirlingan�e. Lacati.o7 o_f_ Pr_o�ject The seven lots in BLYrlingame Puri: are located �vith�_n 150 i�et irom �� Caznino Real as sho�,an on Lxhibit A. The ��roposed reclas�ification �:�r;�j��ct: �voulci relocate the K-3 �ist-ric-� bounctaiy about 1�0 ieet :•resterly fr_o:� El Camir.o Real. � The three lots ix� the Last Burlinqame area are shoG-rn on Lahibit Be Descra_ption. of Project Site lor further clax�ification the lots in �urlingame Park may be describc;� as -�ollows : L�gal Descri��ciozl �o�c L'locl: 3 2 6 2 5 3 6 3 4,5 4 3 4 Assessors P�'tCcl_ r.TU, Porticn 028--2.33-010 028-283-020 028-2�5-250 Portion 028-2E5-029 Portion 028-286-013 Address 1500 Burlinqame Ave. 1508 Burlinga.me Av�. D1one None 1501 Ralston Ex_isting Use __ Apartment building puili in 1929 and sti11 zor_�d �t--� Non-conforming foux-�lex Ci'ty parking lot Portioi� 028-291-010 City parYing lot 27 unit apartment :�uild i z.cr approved in January, 1971 1500 Ho�vard Single family dcaelling on R-1 l.ot which adjoins vacant R-3 lot. Together. thc 2 lots �aould �ermit a small, new apt. building -1- .T_n 1�ast I3�i.r.linqa;ne t�he ��r.ol�osed reclassilicai.ic�n i_ncludes thrce parcels. They zr� the only R-1 lo-L-s in the westerly halt ot a block zoned R-3. lor further clariiication these Zots may be describcd as follows: Lec�al Desc�ription Lot Block 11B 2?- 2]_1� 22 22 22 Assessors Pa.rcel IQo . 029-251-240 029-251-150 0?_9-251-1�0 Acldress 811 Burlingame Aver�ue B16 How�rd Aver:ue S 1?_ Ho�,aard Avenue Alt�hough �here are :�0 lo�Ls included in �he proj�ct, tor reclassiLication irom R-1 to R-3, or�ly two of them are subject -to change. At -the corner of Ho�aard and Ll Camino Real there is a vacanf� l.ot and a singl_e iamily dwelling at 1500 Howard Avenue. Th� two lots are izi one ouTi�ershi_p a��d could be developed wi�ri an 8 to 10 unit apartment buildir�g. Togecher the t��o lots cortain 12,5C10+ square ieet of area. There is 1�0 s�e� of frontac�e on Ho�aa_rd Aven�e. The lot narrows Lo about 92 teet � L �='�e rea-r, zncl therc� i� ar� act�_ve creek acr.osC the rear of the lot. �T'he��e is a 2-s Lo-ry house at 1508 Howard i�venue . I�: has a high c�abl�s rcof ai.d mature trees surrour:d it. ^o the rear of the Gittelsejn ,�rapertt�� t:rz�r? is an ex�_si:ing aUartment builcling three storics a_n }zeic�hL over s��r��rc;��u parking. �cross tr�e street there is an aparti��ei��c builc�ing tiiat �:� t_��c stories in height. Sa�eway Sto�es is located or_ i�h� o-l.her si�e o� El Cain�no Real from this �rosp�ctive apartm�nt s?te. The Durr property has 75 feei: cf frontage on Eu�lingame Avenue ar.d is 2G0 �eet iri depth. Ii� is estimated that a 10 'co ?_2 unit apari.mer�t building could ;�e developed upon this 15, 000 square fcot lot. Tliex.'e a.s � 2-story fourple� nExt door at the corner of B�arlingame Avenue ar.d T:nita Road.. There is a 6 unit apartTr,ent bui]_aing at 236 t'�nita Road. On the easterly side there are sir.g]_e farnily c!:aelling�. In the K-3 Distr�ct onlv one building �.esigned or used as a resicience for ore or mor� families shall be located, erected or maintaiized on one lot. A buildi.r_y would be su.bject to height limitations, 500 lot coverage and par}.in, regulations of Title 25 Zonir.g Code. A building permit could be obtai�:ea if city codes and zoning district regulations are satisfied. At the other end o� this block which is across from Washington Scho�i t.here is a 2-story fourplex at the corner of Anita and Howarct I�venue. The single story sir�gle family d�aellings at II16 and 812 Howard Avenue are not apt to criange even L-hough the pro�erty is rezoned from R-1 to R-3. All i0 lots are located wi�thin mature urban dc-veloped resideritial areas. Land is nearly level and public services and improvements are avai]_able. ENVIP.O\TI�IENTAL IMPIaCT OF PROJECT No direct change will resu]_t from the proposed reclassif_ication of 10 1ots. Secondary effects can result from subsequent project development. -2- Two new apartm�nt buildings are possible secondary effects. They would not require environmental impact reports. Only projects of modest size could be constructed. ' l. 2. K� The immediate impact from the proposed project could result in physical change. . The increment of change that would be permitted by rezoning could be considered significant. , There are no mitigation measures; reclassification of property is not subject to conditions for approval. 4. Alternatives to the proposed project: a. No change. b. Delete one or more of the 10 lots. c. Change East Burlingame zoning district from R-3 to R-3A. 5. There could be an appreciable difference between short term and long term use of private property in the project area. 6. There could be irreversible environmental changes from this project. 7. : The minimum growth-inducing impact from the project would be future housing for 30 to 40 people. The neighborhoods surrounding the two lots which might be redeveloped would be significantly affected by the proposed action. CONCLUSIONS Pursuant to recent public meetings concerning decreasing the residential density in Burlingame Park and East Burlingame, agreement has been reached by the City Planning Commission and the City Council on the proposed reclassification of certain parcels. It is considered advisable to reclassify these parcels for severai reasons: they may have one lot in one zone and the rest of the parcel in another zone; they may hold existing non-conforming buildings or land uses; and they will provide a zoning district boundary consistent with the General Plan. The possible increase in population will be minor. It is unlikely that the proposed reclassification will have significant effect upon the local environment. There will be little or no immediate change to the project area or its immediate neighborhood. This report is submitted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and Resolution No. 26-73 adopted April 4, 1973 by the City Council of the City of Burlingame. Da te d ��r �rC�i'!_1 /st , /p7a� ll�� i�rco';�e c� ,v/ �; �t`y �Dui�c-�'� / ��=�%i�� 2/, /�75 - -3- Report submitted by: C--Zi/Cl '/ir? �/ � -�' c'� .,; � / r �' �. Wayne M. S an, City Planner CITY OF BURLINGAME z � 2 ¢ _ U u � a � z � � � � m z 0 � � J 2 � . 0 � 4 j 0 2 PROPOSED REZONING FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (APAP.TMENTS: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1500 Burlinqame Avenue : Joseph & Sandra Karp 1508 Burlingame �venue : Roger L. Hunter 1509 Burlingame Avenue : Ci�y of Burlinr�ame 1508 Ralston Avenue : City of Burlingame (portion) 1501 Ralston : David A. Nicolaides et al (portion) 1501 Ralston : Dav�d A. Nicolaides et al (portion) 1500 Hov�ard : Sol & Hope Gittelsojn . (portion) 4 unit apartment : � Llrilt 87JcLY'�It1EIZ� : City parkir_g lot : City parkinc� 1ot . (portion) 27 uni� apartment . (rortion} 27 unit a�artment . (portior_) sir.yle family house : 7980 Sr lot : 7900 SF lOt : 2830 SF lo� : �000 SF lo� : 7460 SF lot : 7560 SF lot : 6770 Sr lot m x _ � � A Rev. 2-15-78 EL CAMINO REAL ARUNDEL w � z w > Q w � ¢ c� z J � � m � f , , � , ( I i i i I j � ---------- I � � � ' -- I i � � � ! I ' j � , � 2. 1. . I I i I 3. �, I I ANITA w � z w > ¢ 0 � Q � 0 2 PROPOSED REZONING FROM R-1 (SINGLE Fr'1MIL`� PESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (AP�RTi�1ENTS: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDEi1TIAL) 1. 8�11 Burlingame Avenue : Harold J. & S�.e11a Durr : sing:le famiiy house : 15,000 Sr lot �; 2. 812 Ho�•aard Aver_ue : Ruth-Jane Duffy : sin.gle f.�:��ly hot�se . 5,25G SF lot i,� 3. 816 Ho��ard Avenue : Mary R. Soar�s : s��gle iamily house . 5,250 SF lot �� -� �� DFCLARIITION OP POSTING I declare under penalty of perjury th.at I am ,��i�� Ci�ty Clerk of the City of Burlingume and that I posted a true copy of the above Lnvironm�ntal im�act Report at the City I�all oi said City near the doors to the Couizcil Char.ibers on Exe�uted at Burlinga.me, California on . ��;�� ► 19 7 5 HERBERT Iz . T�?HI`I'E CITY CL�R: � � ; / - / % " '- �Y: � �'�'_ �C4� � � .�"� �, ��:��; �'� 3urlir�game f'larning Comriission �finutes 1. TENT�TIVE PARCEL hi/IP TO COh�1Q IP;E� LOTS 2/IND INTO 0�1E LOT; PROPER7Y E1T 1500 QURLING/1ME WRTGHT FOR JOSFPH Y.ARP Page 2 f,1arch 27, 197� 3, QLOCK 2, QURLING/1��1F PIIRK N0. 2 AVENUE (/1P�d 028-283-010), QY 41ILLIl�i�1 Assistant City Planner Yost revietved the application, notinq �he purpose of the map is to erase �he lot line between Lo�;s 2 and 3(presently developed as one property). He referred to Item 1t2 on the agenda, noting the s�eclassification and this map t-rould put the entire property at 1500 Burlin�ame Av�nue into one zoning district (R-3) and one iegal lo�:. He stated that a t�ecommended condition for this parcel map was that it be a�proved subject to the City's approval of the proposed reclassificat�ion; then if rezoning ti�;ere not approved, the map ►vould be void. City Enyineer Yirku� stated the map is complete.and ready for upproval ti�rith no cor�di i;i ons from hi s departn�ent. Joseph Karp, the appl i can�t, ��;as present and noted the heating system for the property services both buildings; he felt they should be considered as one project on one lot. Chairperson Jacobs opencd th� puhlic hearing; as there �ti�as no one �visf��ing to speak and no correspondence, tf-�� hearing ��ras closed. Commissioner Kindic� moved that the map be approved subject to �ti�e condition �;h�t if Lot 3 is not reclassified to R-3 then this map approval shall be void. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll ca11 it carried unanimously (5-0). � Durirg discussion on the reclassification (Item #2) a concern about access to and from the property on E1 Camino Real was discussed. Cii;y Attorney Coleman advised that a condition limiting access to the Burlin�ame Avenue frontage 1-�ould be more aopropriate to �;he parcel map rather than the reclassification. Commissione�, Kin�-�J therefore moved to rescind his motion Gpproving the tentative map; th� motion vras seconded by Commissioner Sine and carried unanimously (5-0). Con�missicner K�indig then moved approval of the tentative map vrith two conditions: (1) at such tir,�e in f�rture the property is redeveloped, the►�e shall be no ingress or egress fren� E1 Camino Real and (2) map approval is subject to the reclassification of Lot 3 from R-1 to R-3 zoning district. Commissioner Cistulli second�d the motion. Speakir�g to the ne��r n�otion, i�r. Karp requested permission to be allowed entry to this prop�r�ty from E1 Camino Real, noting he had �iot conside��ed tMis poin�; u»til this iime. Cominission e>:plained that since this is a busy corner, ingress or egress from E1 Carnino Real ��,�ould be undesirable. Upon roll call, the motion carried 4-1, Comrnissioner Sine casting the negative vote. (See Itern ;�2 for more discussion on this.) 2. RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE LOT FROi�� R-1 TO R-3, BEING A PORTION OF 1500 QURLING/1C�E A1�ENUE (LOT 3, aLOCf: 2, BURLINGAME PARK N0. 2) (POR7IO�d OF APN 028-283-010), 6Y JOSEPH KAl�P (PROPERTY OI�JiVER)__ (�D-154P POSTED 3/10/7f3) Assistant City Planner Yost reviev�ed the applicaiion, noting the property at 1500 Burlingame /lvenue consists of t��ro lots: Lot 2, closest to El Camino Rea1 (zoned R-3) and Lot 3, on [turlingame llvenue (zoned R-1). There are trro 4-unit apartment buildings on the parcel and two drivetvays, each of �•�hich exits from E1 Camino. Ile not:ed the property is non-conforming for the following rensons: (1) R-3 use on I_ot 3, WIl1CI1 is zoned R-1; (2) there are two separate residential buildinqs on Lot 2(Code sta�:es there should be only one); (3) one of thi apartment buildings crosses the lot line bel;wcp�n Lots 2 and 3; (4) there is inadequate off-street parking; (5) the existing buildings are set closer to El Camino than present code permits; (C) the existiny carport is set 5 feet closer to tt�e wes�:erly property line than code allows. Mr. Yost stated that if this prnperty �•lere redeveloped in future the map and this reclassification arould be necessary, unless Loi: 3 we�re to revert i;o a single family use. fle noted that rezonin� requires an environmental iu�pact report, and tfiat E1R-3?_P �-�as preparetl in 1�75 for this proper�ty and others (and a�as certified by Council ��1ith amendrnents on fapril 21, 1975). He stated f�egative Declaration, ND-154P, was prepared for this rrew application and posted P1arch 10, 197II �•�ith the conclusion that the rezoning �•�ould have little impact upon adjacent properties; that six additional dsvelling units at this location ti•rould not cause a substantial adverse change i:o the neighborhooa; and that the amended zoning map �;ould be reasonably consistent v�ith i:he General Plan. Mr. Yost concluded that findings should be made to suppori: a motion to approve or deny the rezoninc�. He referred to draft findings on paye 3 of the negative declaration and page 3 of ETR-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 fui:ure buildings (a deeper westerly side yard), and restrictions on access from E1 Camino Real. It �•�as noted Commission action this evening ��;ould result in preparation by staff of a reso7ution with findings to be adopted April 10 and fora;arded to Council. Commissioner Sine felt that since there is no indication the applicant has any intention of changing the present improvements on ihe property, he �,�ould be aqainst any limitation thai� may only h,:��e effect in 20 or 30 years. He felt the 35 foot height limii controlled through the special permit process ti�ras adequai.e control. Josepn Karp, the applicant, agreed ��ith this point, stating he has no intent�ior� at this time to do anythiny to the present structures and he is currently improving them. Chairperson Jacobs then opened the public hearing. Angela Johnson, 152S f:alstnn Avenue, addressed Co��mission and suqgested several conditions.fo� approval of iii2 rezone: tnat no additional R-1 land be added to this parcel by a future parcel ��ap; that any future consi;ruction be limited to 35 feet in heiyht; ard �.hat ti-�e exi�ting 11 foot t��ide side yard be preserved along the t�res�erly properi:y line. She sta��d there �•�as concern that this rezoning ��ould enco«rage others, which ��rould con�:inue up the bloc{: into the R-1 ar�ea. Comissioners Sine and Cistulli discussed these conditions �•rith P1s. Johnson. Con,inissioner Sine felt such restrictions ��ould landlock �;he parcel forever and explained Conimission f1dS a mandate to maintain the R-1 zoning and further that the existing buildings �•rould not be per��itted if constructed under curr�nt codes. fie also explained that uny future development over 35 feet in height �-Jould be subject to special permit �•�hich ��ould include Commission consideration and then conditiens could be made as to building specifics. Chairperson Jacobs added that �ny future rezoning �•�ould require noticed hearing. There being no further discussion or correspondence, the hearing �vas closed. Commission discussed i:he application LV1tIl staff and I�ir. Karp. P•1r. Yost confirn;ed that if the existing improvements ��ere destroyed or dainaged in excess of 100; of assessed value, the property would have to be bi•ought up to current code standards. P1r. Karp explained that he is only interested in this property, notin� he had o�vned 1508 Burlingame /Ivenue but sold it so that it would not appear he planncd to continue the R-3 rezoning up the block. The Conrnission discussed the E1 Camino R�al access; Mr. Yost stated that a condominium permit requires design revie�� and this access could be controlled. lio�vever, if the property ��e�e developed with an apartment, then there may be no control over future ingress/egress from El Camino. Corranissioner Sine felt that restrictions of tnis type when Commission does not know 4vhat is going to happen are restrictive, and noted that t�rhile he does not like E1 Camino Real acess, this �•�ould come before the Commission through other future application, i.e., condominium or special permit. Cf�airperson Jacobs reminded Commission that, ti•�ith present zoning regulations, if the project meets code and is under the 35 foot height, a near apartment could be constructed�.�ithout further Con�iission review. City Attorney Coler�an advised that an access condition would be more appr•opriate on the parcel map, rather than the reclassification. It was decided this �vould be resolved after action on the reclassification. Car�nissioner Y.indig found the proposed reclassification i:o be in accordance �vith the adopted General Plan and the comprehe��sive zoning plan of the City; also that the reclassification would noi: be detr�imental to the immediate neigh�orhood; th,at tl�e 20 foot setback from El Camino Real ��ould be a hardship to Lot 2 at such time that ii; was redeveloped; and that the preseni; use of the property is multi-family and therefore non-conforming. He therefore moved the reclassification of Lot 3 from the �-1 to R-3 district be approved. Con�missioner Sine seconded the motion and upon roll call the inotion carried 5-0. Chairperson Jacobs s�:ated she arished the minutes to sho�� thit she �•�ould not vote on any fui:ure rezoning which was on �y supported by a three year old environmental im��act report. EX. Cc."/"�=' � Y7^r.'Yl % �s'-��:' ,E/�'-,�.;; !r' Ce rf�'r� �a'� ��i � ��.�/, �':':':� f� /5� Co�r�c. � % ��so/uf��; �t/a. ,?,�.. �.5- � Two new apartment buil.dir.gs are possible secorldary effect�. They would not rcquire cnvironmental impact reports. Only projec�s of modest size could be consi:r_ucted. rt � �o�/d /e5vit ir. 1. The im:nediate impact from the groposed project � phy�ical chanyc. Gou�v b� 2. The incremenz of change that would be permitted by rezoning--�� consic�ered sia,niiicant. , \ �. �` \ 3. There are no mitiyation measures; reclass?fication of property is not subjert. �o conditions for approvaL. 4. Altern�xtives to the propos�d project: a. No chanae. b. Dele �e one or :no•re of fi:ne 10 lots . c. Cha.nae Easa�� Eurlir�ga*ne �oning district from R-3 to R-3A. < <,.,,:, > ; �, . ; 5. There ::�:--�1�� ap��reciable di�ference bG�ween short term ancl lo�g ter_m ttse oi private �roper � y ii7 zhe pr�o j ect area . '��: ��,,..r� e�e f 6. T��re a.�e--� irreversiblz �nvironmenta7_ c'nz.nges from this project. m iyl � /'Y'tl�j� .,_ 7 o The�c�ic�a'�h�-:�i�ducing impact �rom the projec � caould b� 1-i:mi-�ed �o . future ho�si.ng for 30 tc 40 peopie. ' %%:P /;:ln/Jf^ •/7;_^:7 5!/ri-:-.i��Ci. 7 8. ^_��.��-��--� the tti�o lots wnic?� might be redevelopea �aot�=' c� �. he sigiii�zc«n-tly afiected by the pro�ose actior. _, � l�i � ° � _ � - �e,� , a. { �, �� .� w _ _�. .__ . J �. _ _.� �� . � CONC?�JSIOi�S � . , .,� � �. _�_ . `� � Pursuarit to recc:.nt pub].ic meetinas ronccrning d�creasing the residential ,; dens�_i��' 1.?1 Burlingar<« P�z_:}: and Ec�Si: t�i11"� �_il�atilG, COriS�21SL1S Ylc"�S �C'2ri -�' reached by tlie Cii:y Planning Conuni_ssion a.7� th�a City Counci? or_ i.h� proposed r.eclassif�cation of c4rtai� parceis. It is cor.sidered advis:,�b1e to Yeclassif_y i��iese parcels fo�- several r_easoris : Tt�ey m�ay havc oi:� � ot � - �._.�.__��___.�__�._._._._.._ ._.._..�_.._._ .�_�� _� �n one zane ar.0 t.ze rest or i::h��U4.rccJ_ iri another zoriL� t'�ey Tnay holdy��^ � L::1S �::11�C�' ;.1VI7^'C:O::.;=U1"ii1171� }�1;? �.ClJ_17 j S O�_' idil��. 115�5 � ii?7�. '�t2E.'* W1.�.1 pl"OV?_de � ; zonizg dis�ricL bo.indary consi�-�e:�t witii ti�ie Ger.eral Pinn. , � - (\ � The pass :�hle increas` i.n population will �,e mirior. Tt is unlikely t�71at �� th: pra��os��d reclassifi.cati.on ��ill have significani e�iect upon �he I�r.al environr��en�. ':��:iere ��ill be little or no �_mmedi�lte change to triE pr.oject area or its 1JT1111E'ctiate neighi�orhood. This repori� is sub:littecl. pv.rsua:�� to Lhe California Env:�rci:menLal ;�t�.ulity Act r�f 1970 ar:d n�so_�ution \o. 2G-73 adopted r.przl 4, 1973 by the CiL-y Cour.cil of the City oi Bur�inc�ame. Da t-.,�d� / ��r��( %Yrc/ :�7; %%'�Jr � -3-- Rc�por�t sub��lii:�:.�c1 by : � �. 1 ��, �� .�, r. � J _ Wayiic~��I .- :�wayl , (; :�. i..y i.�..aiincr czTy c�1� :3v�:r�sr�r��.:��r: n ., � ITc/�-i /t��o. �Y_" �' , �'C. ;/s/�� KC�r��f �'Ort1 liUi�"ih� !';;; �� C.ilt �JUi;t',•� /�✓)�i'lv��5 �'�/�/\�] P /� �J � / /� / V � I`�� // �'" �/�� /L C� / �,� : /i'�� /"'/C%/ �/ / Q�� . � ) / /!�E.` /C/N�i,C_ ,�/iP_- �,�%� �G��.:..�SS/�-/CAl�/ON Ol= i'c'.% ..%.G>73 F.vaM .�J-/ o ,<=-_." CounGilman I-Iar.ri:-�on st��ated t:hat the Ci�y Cauncil has beforc> it an EIR to be cer_tzfic::c�. Ife as}:ed ii th� Counci.l c��.i: delet:c Gn�� of the eig}it poini.s men-L-ioncd on P�.ge 3. The City Attorne,,� r_esponcicd f:hat the Cour�cil can ma}�e mcda.iic�.t � oiis in th� � i_R ba�;ed upo7� ies 4i.i;�o��r h�a�d �h� � �ven � r�q . Counczlr,:��z H�:r.r.�.�on adv�_sect he has circicc� poin.ts �,2,5,6,7. I3e as�c�c� what the ef�:cu� waua_c b^ if thase �•rer.� d�leted. `I'he City P.ttornc.�,• advi�e� tiiac. tii� City Councz� cann.^i� del�f:.e. '1'hosc are �hc� elc�ment�� to i�c GOlr:??."E':1 b,7� the EIR. Covncx.�Tnan J.i�z�.-r_ison thcn U=�a.�.E�d hn qu��s�.;_��n.s rJC111i.:S _�. �%� J f 6 �7. `1'P�'. �:]_t}' �;i=.'COi1�F'lr c�C��T? ��G�? t!iG� Cc;:1 ;;1L' 1�1UC�1,�_'].t?:1 J_f th�.t is the ��:�zsh of t_he majazi.t.�� oi thc C�_i:y Counc�..:l.. COLiPC_,.lIilc;r, Caszck as}cec; that noini 8 be mc;�zi i.c.d L�y ci�� ti.:�c� "O:�) y r�r�perL?es ne;.t to th� t�ao lots" and �ubsi�.it�tir�� "1'he izeicsi�bori�oo��s 5U2'Y'OU7'iC�'.i�C� i��1C'. t��.0 ZOt.S . �� Cou?.cil.�ri�n 1i4r.r�son reac� the modific�{t�_ons he d� �ired. Coui:ciln?an f�i4nc�a.ni stated he t,Tou7.�1 be s�tisf_ieci w�t�-x Ll-ie FIR ei.ther_ as prescnted o: with modifications. Later ir� th� ra{��ing ��hen thi_s s�.ate�- I11�1�t �4c35 ciia�.7.enqed fY'�Iil �rl�' ��OGi � C:Ol1i7C�.�Ailc;1 "�I�.rigini �YTJ��1J-IlE� ;�i;�1� the Ci.�.y Cou�zcil is J_egaJ.ly l�ound to ma;:e an EIrt �or this rec�as��_Ya- cati.on pre-i cc* . The Co�unczl has no al tez �:ative . That ��as the rea �on �:�q bellind nis ea�lier st�t�ment. RESOLUTIUN N0. 23--75 "Certifying Envi�-or�r.�ental Impact P.eport Fo� Reclassiiicatic�zz Of Ten Lots P�or<< R-1 '!'o R--3 ; Loi�s 3 And 6, I31ac}: 2, Lots 5 A;id G, Blocti 3, Anci Lots 3, 4 And �� , I31o��}: 4, I�11 Of �urlinc;a��1e �'ar',� No. 2; And Lots 11�3, 21A Anu 22, Blo;�.�: 22, 'I'o;,,n Oi I3urli.ngamc - LI12 32P" was ini.roduced Uy Coui�cilman llal'r_ison, second by Council- man Cusic;t . Points 1,2,5,6,7, modifieci by Council.n�ar� Harrison to read: 1. The immedi�te impact from the proposed project coulci result in physical changc. 2. `i'}�e incremeni: oF change that would be permitted by r�zoniiig cotilc� bc consider.ecl signi�:icant_, 5. Theze c�ulci be an a��Z�reci�ibl_e di�fereiice bet�.��en short tc�rm aria lonc, term t�se of ��rivate property in ti�e pr.ojeci_ area. G. Therc could be irz��.�r�rsible environntent��l ch��ne�es from this project. 7. '1'he IlllI11r1L'l:i :�rowth-illc�l2(:it�g i.mpact from thc px'oject wou].c� bc f:ut�urc housiilc� i�i 30 to 4U Z�«�}�le. 8. (AFodifieci !��r Cot�nci?.nla�i CL1S1C}C� The nei.cJliborho�cls �ur.rot�nc�i.ncf t.)le i:wo lots w,�icl� itl].CJ;1� bc� rec3evelopeci woulci be signif_icantly ��ffecte�l l�y ttle proposc:d act:�.on: . '1'hc ItcsOtl��lUll witli tlie moaii� cat.ions w��s un�:i�i.��lously acic�i�tc�r1 oi1 roll. ca7.1. � <; . ,