The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1153 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report— r. � --- _; . �' . TO DATE: ` CITY 4� O'� BURLINGAME /� /� ^ ^ e `J.�'� _ V�/ 1�� ' ��■ �■ a� ��... CITY COUNCIL suE 8Y JANUARY 10, 1983 FROM: CITY PLANNER AP BY A G E N O A S � ITEM k MTG. �/7�/8^J DATE 1 J SUBJECT: - APPEAL OF FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN 8'-3" FENCE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: Council hold a public hearing and make a determination on the appeal. If approved the decision should include findings. At the public hearing the Council should consider the three staff recorrenended conditions: _. __--- -- _ 1. that gates which meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector be installed in the existing fence at the existing driveway; 2. that the 8'-3" fence be built to UBC standards for such a structure; and 3. that the r.econversion of the garage be completed before final inspection and c,ity approval of the fence. BACKGROUND: At their meeting on December 13, 1982 the Planning Commission voted 3-3 (Commissioner Graham absent) on Dr. Parkansky's request for an 8'-3" fence at his home at 1153 Bernal • Avenue. Tie votes of the Planning Commission are considered denials of the application. On December 21, 1982 Dr. Parkansky requested an appeal hearing. The heari,ng was scheduled for January 17, 1983. The portion of his fence which Dr. Parkansky is requesting a fence exception for is built along the rear property line which separates his property from a 10' alley (see aerial photograph). Since Dr. Parkansky has a swimming pool and has experienced some littering from the alley into his pool (Parkansky letter of August 12, 1982) he feels that the 8'-3" height is justified. In their review the Planning Commission expressed a number of concerns (minutes December 13, 1982 meeting) including that there are many alleys in the residential area and that this 8' fence adjacent to a swimming pool would be setting a precedent, that the alleys are an attractive gathering place for children, that rocks and bottles can be thrown over both 6' and 8' fences, that this particular fence was built without a building permit, and that the easement is not a utility easement but a city alley. No special maintenance is provided in this alley. As can be noted in the Corronission motion, Code Sec. 25.78.050 requires that in order to grant a fence exception findings must be made relating to: - 1. exceptional circumstances; 2. public hazard; 3. damage to neighboring properties; 4. causing unnecessary hardship.� .�, . � . ff'� The Commission's motion pointed out the exceptional circumstances were the presence of the alley and the potential of damage to the property from the alley; the fence provided no public hazard because it was along the alley; the neighboring properties would not be affected since they were sufficiently far away; and the absence of the fence would create unnecessary hardship for the applicant since a 6' fence is not high enough to provide adequate security and to keep things from being thrown into the swimming pool. EXHIBITS: - December 13, 1982 Planning Commission Minutes - Aerial photograph of the site - Parkansky letter of August 12, 1982 - 12/13/82 Planning Commission staff report with attachments MM/s cc: City Clerk City Attorney Dr. Michael Parkansky Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1982 comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Harvey then moved that this variance be granted subject to the following conditions: (1) that the project as-built be consistent with the plans date stamped November 8, 1982; (2) that the conditions in the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 24, 1982 be met; and (3) that no sewer or water lines be added. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO EXCEED THE h1AXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED BY CODE AT 1153 BERNAL � AVENUE, BY MICHAEL PARKANSKY CP Monroe reviewed this application for an 8'-3" fence along a portion of the rear property line at 1153 Bernal Avenue. Reference staff report dated 12/3/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/12/82; aerial photograph; applicant's letter of justification dated August 12, 1982; drawing of the proposed project; staff comments (Fire Marshal, November 29, 1982; City Engineer, November 22, 1982; Chief Building Inspector, November 23, 1982). CP discussed the existi�g fences, staff review, applicant's justification for his request, off-street parking requirements and findings necessary to grant a fence exception. If approved, three conditions were suggested in the staff report. Michael Parkansky, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: maximum fence height allowed by code is 6'; there are quite a few.alleys in this area, no objection to 8' fence; physical appearance of the fence from the street, more presentable if painted to match existing fence; this might set precedent for 8' fence for all swir�ning pools which abut alleys, don't find exceptional circumstances to this property; this 10' wide alley could be attractive gathering place for children, an exceptional circumstance that not every pool in Burlingame would have; 8' fence would provide seclusion for the property owner; rocks could be thrown over an 8' fence as easily as a 6' fence; fence was put up without a permit; the alley is city owned� but not maintained by city, it is not a public utility easement. C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in that the rear property line abuts an alley and the need to prevent damage to this property; that there was no public hazard; that neighboring properties would not be materially damaged since they are sufficiently set apart; and that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner as stated in his letter of justification. C. Giomi then moved to grant this fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that gates which meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector be installed in the existing fence at the existing driveway; (2) that the 8'-3" fence be built to UBC standards for such a structure; and (3) that the reconversion of the garage be completed before final inspection and city approval of the fence. Second C. Cistulli; motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Leahy and Mink dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF A TRAINING FACILITY AT 1799 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE CP Monroe reviewed this application. In the absence of the applicant and property owner the item was moved to the end of agenda, and then continued to the meeting of January 10, 1982. 4. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SNACK BAR IN�THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 875 MAHLER ROAD, BY S. T. TENG CP Monroe reviewed this request for minor revisions to conditions of the original use permit. Reference staff report dated 12/3/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman P•link on Monday, December 13, 1982 at 7:32 P.h1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Harvey, Leahy, Mink Graham (arrived 9:10 P.M.) Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 22, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FOR A GARDEN ROOM ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 1137 CORTEZ AVENUE, BY MIRO�J AND ANASTASIA SKY CP Monroe reviewed this request for a sideyard setback variance in order to add a garden room to the existing home. Reference staff report dated 12/3/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/8/82; aerial photograph; November 8, 1982 letter from the applicant, Anastasia Sky; plans of the proposal date stamped November 8, 1982; "no comments/objections" memos from the City Engineer (November 9, 1982) and Fire Marshal (November 15, 1982); and November 24, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector. CP discussed code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification for variance, and noted the sideyard nonconformity was an existing condition which would not be increased by the proposed project. Staff recommended approval with two c�nditions as listed in the staff report. Anastasia Sky, the applicant, was present and advised the size of the proposed addition was 12' x 16'. Chairman Mink referred to the requirements for variance approval: that there were �xceptional circumstances in that this house was built too close to a property line based on today's standards and that the addition is necessary for the present needs of the family. The Chair then opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: before a building permit is issued plans must be consistent with the building code including drainage; no additional sewer or water lines are shown on the plans; total lot coverage would be belotiv ihe 40 percent maximum allowed. C. Harvey found there were exceptional circumstances in the originaT footprint of this house which could not be changed without �xtreme expense; that the variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owners in their need for additional space; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners; and it would not adversely affect the `�' .g . �u . �. s . � . - ��. � r t W¢� i � "� � � � �, � �� "� � ., a � �"�, n �.- >. ,�� s -��; $; . �R �� ,� ��' � �� :� , � ; �A � , . r _. � , . �. �} . � ,�,, - . �� j � �� °��'[' �, ` "w � ,�' `, ,. ""., •_ ,' � . �e` �� =�s . � ;��" � s ., � . . � �"' , ° '�a',�� , .� . � �. , �,, . � � i � . � n , , . . .�� - � � . s � ' �.�. , ' " b m., ,� :` °r+ � �°� , ' -� � x � �j, � � Y „}r_. ?� ✓p � .,o� i � . � , ' ; � � x� � � , � .,, �„ r �,�" �r/ �:a `�. ��,;.F �� . �, :. � - :' � � „< , �� .. �. .�� . . „ - �' . „ �' • � _, p .: �• � ' : $ "�,� .r _ . ; . . . � e w .. A. ., . � r`>, ,: �•�.y , . ... Wf . ` ' ' �" ' r'` . � � � �. . . ' . � � ' ''m � . � �'' � . � . . , �.. � - . � � r , a. �, a�Y ,e" . A6 �.dc � � t. e g, W s < � .. e��s yp � 1 ' . � <, - .. (', . , sri . i . �� _ , . ��-� V .��,'.:'�t �. _. ,v�lf 4.. _^ " ,�.� a� :.�, n �y � �. � ri � ...- . �.. , � ,�.: et � - � �x � � �`: . �� M , �4-� a � , '� . r� o � . w� . . Y��e Y..�.' . ^ � , � • � '�� , � . ` • , � ,k,,. � ' J � � � �.� � .� r„ . . ' . .. . � � _•�. _� ` � '' $ a �' r / .. _ , � ; � �� -�,< �� ' r�` � . �. � �^� .� �� q� ��.fh�" .. .� . { :�. „ , � .. , � .�� . {. ,# a � s p � , , � ., 4 r , '�f•� `� y+P 1: ^�e , '�. " �Sr 4s ,,.'A V a . _ � . . . - .F ,: ' �. �„.,�. �. _, ' . a, ,`h � ; d� fPs f - w . .. - , . -. , . �, _ r . � ,' , R �. �, �g��. �< y, � t � . .� "�"yit . y : a , � -� �� , � w . ,_ �, �. '�y, t � , � . . u � =,a- � 'e , " � '°' ��, - � s''� - - i �, .,� ... ,. .. � � . � �3,� • �. _ , 3 �3:�,�r � �-_ ' � � a �. � ��sa .i`. �� . � � � . , �' : ` s . � �.. �. . `' s y " �f" - � � ..� � � ' � « . . -, _�,r;.` . . `'{* ` . . ' _ . �r � � - , � .� a j .r ' R-r � `�? � r � � � � �' � , �, �4 � • �� . ,� � , . . . . . . �. , � "-.: - � , • . � �' ;�a r .. ��a . . � f �� # ,* . , . .. �� , � �.. s. � � ;;. �� t� . � � �. � . �� s ��J\ , . �e � � '' �, , � � � '�Y� ` � � �� w . r " f ~ . t �� - : � 4� � . , w . ' , _ �✓'_ _ � - � y — � • '� � ��. �� R. ,. Y } . . . , ,� ? . �g-� � y �\ � �y. Jr^ �� .. Y� � D ° i �. � � �� /,.' f d � "- . i�� \ Y . � e 3 \ r r � �\ -.r`. Y. e sa . . . � � �=,'�""�" u , x�'� t��V ._ ,>S;" �:� � ��' •, ��:y'' � ,� �� . , � i � } '��,, tx > . . � � 4�� a o� � � � � � � � � � J� ` � �� ,. � �� { �� i'�„ �3� � �, �.a` � � � � `�� : ' � � � t w r l g a�� . �#� � �t"�� ; � �� .� �.r, t v � �n , �� . ��J�� n�� =� , .. _,. �.. �: , � � o �� •• ��a � r � . � �� : ti .� , r ' j •� � ,. �: �.�: p � ,�,. ' \ � '� / < �� _ �/ '� ,� � . "`�*�p, �; �f� �*�� , , � , ., _ u . � � - . � . k .� � � � �., � . � � ' � � JQ- • �� ' " � � _ .� �� ,e� �� . W N ;w � : . -�,� , , � � ti � r;. �.�� z�. � � � � " . � -. �. �, , � _ � ,, , , - . �'�. � ` ; � �' � � � � � , x .. - ,� �a0 /� �� ' `fi �. +� �w' ��z ��9 �5` -,. . ' � ' . � . . `C � �� '. � "`'�� ,� �� A »� � ' .4 ,. , �,�. , � � �� . � � .� � � � � � � � � _- . � � � , ' � � ` ; �,,,� . � � � . , ' � � . ,. ' � � ., r � �: ti z � �;. � � .. w �t a'�' � • � . `a - "� � s'�� . Y .X� „ , y �" '� ' � �' "',,, ,� ,�a ,�, ,��,� `��. � �; , . s � � - - „ r� � � � � �. � A. � �(b, - �� ;, � � � �� , �, , , � �. r. �,,, �:� �.r � � � : a �� <. � � � ��. � � � r r , �, � � ,. � f �� ! �� ry � . �.,- � t `� !� �f� , o � .._ �� a � � e� � ��'�� . , a � ;�"�,. � ,, '�� _ � ��a� � �� . _ � � , t. ,� � , , �.� w� �, �� ; � � ,� �� . � , � ,. � � �t <`�, � ,� � �' �.� i �, .. s�� w � � � � a . � � � �� t. , � ` -� , . � � a � � r �� : �� , �` � ° � � � . ,� �.ti , �; � ,� v `� � ` . o. .,� � , �� ., � e . .,� r� � <, " . � � � _� .� �,��3a,� , �, �r �� m � ;,� ; � �. � y � ^ ' • 2 • .�, . �� e,E � .- � , _ �.. .x, . v�a . <�- `;:, ' ' d� '��, . �a qe ;, ,+ ,&: �._ . .,. ,., ,. - s . ,. �., . . m *. . t �' - �� , . �, ' , , � � � ' , . ��` . � ' ' ,� � » ` � ' ° � a �" ` �r t � �� . � � : .� �° � � � - � _ . , �,/ . � � �/' � � S��' � *�,, t .: � y �3' a�"'t � y u4 , ,�p�, � S �¢ ilF . � ' R, , t , 'k �y } $a �� p � � 4 �t �' �,. �� .,� � �.. � 'i �Af�� , `' �- �� ;`e*�s �. # +�, . . Yo�� . , � 9e'` � i:: �i � � �G x � .. .. . ♦ � � Y�' � � � � � t � � F . � � ,. ` � � . ,.. :,. " � �{ U � ' � . , .� � . . „ . ,. - . . tr` . . +Yv� �' �� . � ` � EX - 'd y^� �y �- � � 3� �� _ . r� q J� � F c l.�F . : � �� t�, .. 1 ' �. ..� ipi . K "` 1_. . $�q„` �'A' �� .. . /�. �_.. � Aw, . � ` � � . :. '�y-„ .. .. , ,.. . + � •r -. T THE C I TY OF BURL I hIGAME PLANhI I NG DE�AFtTMEhIT G I TY HALL — 5t} 1�Ff I MROSE ROAD H�URLINGAME,CA 94G1U AUGU5T 12,1982 DEAR GENTLEMEN: I WOULD L I KE YDUF� COhIS I DERAT I ON I hl DHTA I N I NG A VAR I ANCE TO BU I LD A FEI►ICE ON MY BACI�YAFiD AT A HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET. THE EX I ST I PJG FEMCE I S NOT H I GH EIVQUGH TO RROV I DE ADE[�UATE SECUF� I TY THE FENGE I S FAC I IVG AN ALLEY F.�ETWEEN gLOCKS OF HOUSES AIVD I T WAS CLIMHED SEVERAL TIWIES ITY TEENAGE KID5.BOTTLES AND TEIVNIS BALLS ARE THROWh! IN MY POOL. BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF A FENCE THERE IS NQ PUB�LIC HA2ARD THAT I GOULD P05SIHLY FORSEE.ALSO THE COIVSTRUCTIDN OF A NEW FENCE WILL BE VERY STROMG AND STURDY SIIVCE THE FEhICE IS FACING AN ALLEY HETWEEEN RF�OP'ERTIES AND WILL HE ATTACHED TO MY GARAGE,THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL NDT BE MATE— RIALLY Of� OTHERWISE DAMAGED. THE EXISTING FcEGULATIONS DO CAUSE UNIVEGESSARY HARDSHIP UPOM ME HECAUSE OF REASDIVS EXPLAIIVED AB�OVE. THEREFORE I WOULD APP'REC I ATE I T UEFtY 1"IUCH I F YOU COULD G I VE ME FAVORA&LE DECI5IOIV IN THIS MATTER. THANIC YOU � SINCEFtELY ; / � I � 11� , � A / EL I}ARIf,d�NSiGY DDS, RhD B�ERIVAL AVEMUE� L I NGAME CA 94t71 O . 347-97�17 MI�/JM MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION FOR 8'-3" FENCE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE 12/13/82 I tem #2 The applicant, Michael Parkansky, is requesting a fence exception for an 8'-3" fence along a portion of his rear property line at 1153 Bernal Avenue. The rear property line of his home abuts a 10' alley, and is part of the fence exclosure for the swimming pool in his backyard. The remaining portion of the fence enclosing the pool area is 6'-8". Although this is a corner lot, the existing 6'-8" fence is set back more than the required 15 feet from the corner of Bernal and Broadway. Staff has reviewed the request for fence exception. The Fire Marshal (memo November 29, 1982) and City Engineer (memo November 22, 1982) had no comments. The Chief Building Inspector (memo November 23, 1982) notes the need to install gates in the existing fence large enough for a car to pass through at the driveway on the Broadway side of the property. In his letter (August 12, 1982) Dr. Parkansky outlines his reasons for requesting a fence exception: a 6' fence did not provide enough security, teenagers climbed it and threw bottles over it. The fence at the alley does not cause a public hazard and is well built. Since the fence is attached to the garage on the Parkansky property and faces the alley it does not affect any neighbor's property. Planning staff have reviewed the request. The 8'-3" fence has been built. Currently the gate in the 6'-8" fence parallel to Broadway will not accommodate a car, thus the required off-street parking is inaccessible. Prior to his ownership of the house the garage was converted to a pool house. Dr. Parkansky has agreed to reconvert it back to a garage so that it provides the required off-street parking. The new gates would be a necessary step in this reconversion to a useable garage. To grant a fence exception the Commission must find the petitioner has sufficiently shown the following (Code Sec. 25.78.050): 1. that there are exceptional circumstances; 2. that there is no public hazard; � that the neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; 4. that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing which should include consideration of the following conditions: 1. that gates which meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector be installed in the existing fence at the existing driveway; and 2. that the 8'-3" fence be built to UBC standards for such a structure, and 3. that the reconversion of the garage be completed before final inspection and city approval of the fence. Failure to grant a fence exception would mean the applicant would have to reduce the 8'-3" fence to 6' and provide gates to the standards established by the Chief Building Inspector in the existing 6'-8" fence. i�1.��r��ny> Margaret Monroe City Planner cc: Michael Parkansky MM/s (12/3/82) . , r. � , _ —°-� --+- --- _ _. _ __ 'l PR(�JECT APPLICATION ��"T" �� 1153 sERN�� avENUE � CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLINGAME iproject address -� ��;;��,�'� project name - if any Application received ( 8/12/82 ) Staff review/acceptance ( ) i. APPLICANT Michael Parkansky 347-9777 name telephone no. 1153 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame, CA. 94010 appl�cant s address: street, city, zip code contact person, if differen 347-9777 (Home) 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION �408�te].e��or�g8�q, �BUS.� L / U tS Special Perr^it () Variance* () Ccndominittm Pernit () Oth�r Fence Exception *Attach latter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. � 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION FENCE EXCEPTION to allow an 8'-3" fence addition along a portion of the rear lot line (6'-0" heiqht is allowed by Code Sec. 25. 78.030). An existing 6'-8" high section along the side lot line _w�s constructed previouslv which also exceeds the code limit of 6'. Michael Parkansky � 1153 Bernal Avenue land owner's name addres Bur-�l i ngame�CA.-9401� _ Reouired Date received city zip code �yes) (no) ( - ) Proof of ownership =(3�2�) (no) ( - ) Owner's consent to application 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Existinq single family dwelling. (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s): (Chap.25.78 ) ( ) 4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ( 026-183-010 )( 1 )( 37 )( Easton Addition No. 2 ) APN lot no. block no. subdivision name ( R-1 ) ( 6,000 SF j zoning district land area, square feet Required Date received (Yes) z��) (8/12/82 ) �� (no) ( - ) (o��ther) (n�, ( 8/ 12/82 ) Site plan shooiing: property lines; public sidewalks and curbs; all str�ctures and improvements; paved on-site parking; landscaping. Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area by type of us�'on each floor lan. Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant�. Site cross section(s) (if relevant). _L�tter of explanation *Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT PP,�POSAL Proposed construction, Below grade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF) gross floor area First floor ( - SF) Third floor ( - SF) Project Code Project Code Fence height Pr000sal RPquirement Proposal Requirement �X1dr�C9��X.d(c ' 3"/6'8" 6' I11dX Lot coverage Side setback Buildina height N.A. Side yard • Landscaoed area Rear yard On-site pkg.spaces � � 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) EXISTING IPl 2 YEARS IPl 5 YEARS after after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM � 0 Full tir�e employees on site Part tir�e emoloyees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Tri� ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles "`Show calculations on reverse side or attach separate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAfJD USES Other sinqle familv dwellinqs on all adiacent sites. Required �) (no) (�es) (no) Date received ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties. � 11.d . ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. firr�s ( ) no. er�ployees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. company vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, i'ee �.1 5. (X ) Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 () Varia.nce/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 () Condominium Permit $ 50 O EIR/City & consuitant fees $ ( TOTAL fEES $ 15.�� RECEIPT N0. 5H33 Received bv H. Towber I hereby true anc� Signa un d pen�ty to �heibe•t, �. Aaalican ry that the information given herein is ledge nd belief. Date ��2�� STAFF USE ODILY File No. ND-328P NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on December 9 , 19�, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (X ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( X) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for- a co�c�us;o�: The proposed fence will not have any adverse environmental effects on any adjacent sites nor on the applicant's site. 11��i1� � c� �, �►� lzl � ��_ Sign ture of Process�no Official itle Daie Signed Unless ap�ealed within 10 days hereof the d�te posted, th deterr�ination shall be final. DECLARATION Of POSTI"1G Date Posted: /{�,�� ` / O�- I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I oosted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Nall of said City near the doors to th� Council Chambers. � Executed at Burlingame, California on v—�� , 19 O� Apoealed: ( )Yes ( P!o �_ � - ELYP� H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CIT F BURLINGAME -� , . --_.-- -- ---- � STAFF REUI EVII 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply received City Engineer ( 11/18/82 ) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( !' ) (yes) (no) Fire Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) Park Department ( _ ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no) memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (;�es) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERN$/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASUP,ES Concerns Does the application satisfy the four findings of Code Sec. 25.78.050? Mitigation Measures Review application; make findings. Do the plans meet all Fire and Request comments from the Chief! Building Code requirements? Fire and Chief Building j Inspectors. � Will the increased fence height Review application and aerial. adversely affect any adjacent Make determination. site? �1 3. CEQA REQUIREMEPITS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: Is the project subject to CEQA review? IF AP� EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study cor�pleted Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed RFP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR acce�ted by staff Circulation to other agencies Study by P.C. • Review period ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � � � � � i � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4. APPLICATIOP� STATUS Date first received ��12�$2 ) Accepted as complete: no( X)�er to aoplicant advising info. required (8/ 2 3/8 2 ) Yes(,�' date P.C. study ( ) Is apj�lication ready for a public hearing? (no) Recommended date (/s-�i3/Sy) Date staff report mailed to aoplicant (/� /�Z) Date Commission hearing (/,t� ?�gy ) Application approved ( ) Denied ( � Appeal to Council (yes �(no) Date Council hearing ( l�/ 7/ $,3 ) Apolication approved Denied ( ) signed � � a e � ., � : .- � November 18, 1982 0 �4EM0 T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR INSPECTOR FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION, 1153 BERNAL AVENUE .:: Please review the attached application for a fence exception on this site. We will schedule it for the 12/13/82 Planning Commission agenda if staff is able to review it by 11/29/82�. Thank you. �� Helen Towber Planner � att. � ��-Zq 1 � S Oe{� �� rie,� ( n�e� ��1 S i� I��S 1-��S 1V0. �Qv �-� (�1. � o �i S �_� p. 0 _<' , . November 18, 1982 �4EM0 T0: � TY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR CHIEF FIRE INSPECTOR FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION, 1153 BERNAL AVENUE Please review the attached application for a fence exception on this site. We will schedule it for the 12/13/82 Planning Commission agenda if staff is able to review it by 11/29/82. Thank you. �� Helen Towber Planner _ att. r ; �� %�� j G'� i��7� �� ` d�� ^ ,f�>''lG.��e� � ��e� , �d�? : � � ��' e ! ( _ _ „ f,� , � � � �m�%7ifi' t!//l��'i�iC�� , ^ �1�/r�l��/"/i2 ��'� l/ z� �-�_ f �� •s . . .. w : r � November 18, 1982 �4EM0 T0: CITY ENGINEER NSPECTOR CHIEF FIRE INSPECTOR FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION, 1153 BERNAL AVENUE Please review the attached application for a fence exception on this site. We will schedule it for the 12/13/82 Planning Commission agenda if staff is able to review it by 11/29/82. Thank you. / //- at 3 - fr2 ' /� �� '!i a kfi� �� a � 6/G d �/or+ ,�! �' � iQo vtJ /�G - ` , � � �� /�t�/s k, Hel en Towber �u ��,��„ ,t%�r �d td •+ /PE Go �isrti �'.•o�r �`�£ i'a % � P1 anner . �� ,/ �� / `OH � / a H .G /� d ,.� ��d,� � o ,� � ,e, � att. � � � � i/,� � � � /• ifl'd- E' s f � a d .t �� .C, v E W�► i9 �E �l- o .� ��E �,eo a .�� '-�i %`Q a //o �.�► ,¢ctss Ta %�E ��% u i �� O /`/" �S/ �Pi'� � C'o' vC/�arif" �d /� /� / K '� ` / . �