HomeMy WebLinkAbout1080 Carolan Avenue - ApplicationR�
_ r1l
� � r
H Tin
F1
U-, _ �,
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND CITY COUNCIL OF' THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME
Applicant
Name --)u C' Gt W� a c c 0•� _�
Addre s s ��� ` g,,
Property
Address
Application ,'
Date Received
Hearing
Date
Telephone 34
Lot Block Subdivision Zone
Description
Improvements
Existing
Proposed
Reclassification applied for, from iZ •- `� District, toCo-j-District
Exhibits (see instructions)
Map or diagram
Property Owners
Other data
Fee, Forty Dollars, Payable to the City of Burlingame
Application:
I, the undersigned owner of the property described herein do
hereby make application for a Reclassification of the nature
set forth above, in accordance with the provisions of the
ordinances of the City of Burlingame, and I hereby certify that
the information given herein is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Date L
If there is more than one applicant, sign hereon or to attached sheet.
September 6, 1966
Mr. Harry M. Somers
Citadel Properties Co.
1849 Bayshore Highway
Burlingame, California 94010
Dear Mr. Somers:
IRVING 1). SHAPIRO & ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
Architecture, Planning
Urban Land Economics
7033 Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Tel. H011ywood G-9301
We are most complimented that you would ask us for an economic
evaluation of your proposed shopping center to be located on Carolan
Avenue just easterly of Broadway in the city of Burlingame. We do
feel well qualified to provide you i.:ith such an economic evaluation,
having created MacArthur/Broadv..ay Center in Oakland, California, and
having a well grounded backgrour_c in architecture, urban land economics,
and real estate development.
For the record, we have personally- inspected the project site and its
environs and can make a judgment on what we have seen.
There is no question in our mines that a "MacArthur/Broadway Center"
type development would be successful at the project site if properly
designed and properly leased. From a locational point of view, it is one
Of the finest for such a land use.
My personal inspection of the existing Burlingame commercial areas
strongly suggest that a significant ootential for commercial business at
your projected site exists. Moreover, it is also evident to us that much
commercial business is leaving the City of Burlingame because of the
inadequacies of its existing commercial areas and that this business can
only be brought back to the City as a result of one of two possible alter-
natives --a substantial upgrading of the existing commercial areas or the
creation of your shopping center. Inasmuch as we believe that the former
would prove to be far more expensive than the latter, the creation of your
shopping center should be the much more economical of the two alternatives.
As a point of dictum, we would recommend that the City of Burlingame
cooperate with you to the fullest extent possible. Cities today are very
much like companies competing :::thin the same; industry because of
various factors, shoppers and merchants, industrial firms and other
economic establishments are "footloose" and their favor is constantly
being vied for by various public authorities. This being the case, they
I ' V I N(, D. SHAPIRO & ASSOCIATE.',. :�•LA.
September 6, 1966
Mr. Harry M. Somers
usually tend to go where the economic enviroument is most favorable.
Consequently, the timid cities are economically ravished by the aggressive
ones and the blind communities are consistently "topped" by the seeing.
I believe that the City of Burlingame is now in a position where its decisions
vis-a-vis your development will be critical to its economic well being for
years to come.
Sincerely yours,
IRVING D. SHAPIRO & ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
Irving D. Shapiro
IDS: s s
2.
,To L L. ",7orrill
5�5 Costa Mica .Avenue
C�
Q U
r 0-
\
U-�c
to
0
UW
_,
Burlingame Planning Commission
City Hall
Rurlingame, California
Gentlemen:
San Mateo, California
Sept. 14, 1966
From an article in the Advance — Star, on September 14, I
note that the Commission is considering a zoning variance to
allow a large shopping center at the foot of Broadway. "'s a
Broadway property owner, I wish to add my protest to that of
the Broadway Merchants Association.
Although it appears to me that the proposed location for
such a center would be very unfavorable, if it should have any
success at all it would have to be at the expense of the merchants
now doing business on Broadway. There is only so much business
in any neighborhood, and the new center would be sure to draw
some business away from those now in business. Very little new
business would develop, so Mr. TITcMillan's statement that the
center wouldmean more tax dollars to the city is not true.
In addition, severe harm would be done to the merchants
who have developed Broadway as an attractive and handy shopping
area. I feel it is very unjust t6 sacrifice these merchants,
and the property owners as well, to some Johnny —come —lately
who comes up with a scheme which will help no one but himself.
After all, zoning restrictions are made to protest the citizens
and business men of the community, and unless there is an un—
questionable need for a variance, to prov&de services which are
needed but not available, it should be the duty of any govern—
ment agency to uphold those zoning laws. It should not be
possible to win a variance merely to make a larger profit for
an individual, at the expense of those already living in the
area, and do'n g business according to the zoning code.
I trust my feelings in this matter will have some weight,
*nd help convince you that the requested variance should be
denied.
Very truly ours,
C
Jo L. 7'orrill
cc: ,Jr. Don T?ahrwold
1212 Broadway
0* .
APPLICATION OF BURLINGAME SHCRE LAND CO.
The matter now before the Commission is an application to reclassify land now
zoned R-4 to C-1, Retail Commercial. Since rezoning is a complete legislative
action, it is not and cannot be conditional. (The existing agreement will be
discussed below.) In order that the Commission can recommend rezoning, it must
make findings to support this position and these findings must present conclu-
sions that the present zone is improper or incorrect and that the proposed new
classification will correct this error. Since the entire city is divided into
planning districts, the evidence can relate to the effect on all the city.
The subject application has been made by the landowner and the burden is on
him to offer proof that the zoning is incorrect and should be changed.
Evidence
In any application for reclassification, eitl;ar by _ property-orzner or on the
initiative of the Coriiidssion, it is ne �ssar-,, to show that the change is advan-
tageous and not harmful to the genera's _clan of the city or that the advantages
outweigh the disabilities. -Cities are constantly changing, if for no other
reason than age, and changing conditions must be recognized. However, changes
in land -use patterns must be logical and evolutionary and not at the whim of a
landamner or for his personal economic gain.
The Commission �;an a:zd should consider questions as to the need for more comm-
ercial zoning, zha effect of more such zoning on the areas now so classified
'Broaduay, Plaza, Burlingame Ave.), reasons why apartment zoning for the area
is not proper or impossible to effectuate, .differences in amount of traffic
and ability of surrounding streets to absorb such traffic.
k
r.
The drawings which have been submitted may be discussed to demonstrate what
might be built but they have no further relevancy to the application. ante
the rezoning is effective, any construction and uses which meet the C-1 reg-
ulations would be allowed. However, one point might be made which does relate
to the proposal-- the rentable floor area shown in the drawings is very nearly
the same as all the rentable area in the Broadway shopping district.
Existing Contract
An existing agreement, properly executed and recorded, is in effect on the
use of the subject property. The land was once classified M-1 and the owner
wished to construct a complex of apartments which required a number of variances.
Since no residential uses can be placed on industrial land, the zone was changed
to R-4. Fo;l.owing this, the Council entered into an agreement to allow the
building cr nine apartment buildings and the applicant agreed to improve certain streets
and utilities. The street work has been done but the applicant now says that
he finds it impossible to construct the apartments.
The question of whether the property can be used for other purposes sc long as
the agreement is in force can only be answered by the attorneys with the consent
of the Council.
It would seem that the rezoning could be done without affecting the agreement
since the agreement includes all the terms and conditions of a variance, appli-
cable equally to land zoned C-1. Residential uses can be made of C-1 property
but is prohibited on M-1 property. Whether or not this is wise or whether the
Council would agree is a matter of policy, not law.
k
One thing that is certain is that the agreement is still in force and comm—
ercial use cannot be made of the property, no matter how zoned, until some
disposition is made of the contract.
Procedure
There is no reason why the Commission should not proceed with hearings on the
matter; since the owner has made an application, the Commission has no choice.
However., to insure that the decision of the Commission does not produce a
futile gesture, it would seem that no conclusion should be reached until the
City Council indicates that it would be willing to allow cancellation of the
agreement. The Council would not have to agree to do so but that it would be
willing to consider the matter. In the latter case, the recommendations of
the Commission would be of some value. If it appears to be advisable to extend
and continue the hearing, this should be done.
August 12,1966
George A. ".,�. n
City Planner
CAVL TO nRnFP
The meeting was recorvened at In : nS r.,n. 1)v "javnr reorge.
HEARTNr.
1. BIMUNCAMF S1TORF LAND rMfPANY RErLASSIFTCATint' R-4 Til C,1. (cor.tint�ecl
wgayor reorge Rnnounced that this was the time and glace scheduled rurNklant
to published notice to conduct a public hearing on the application of
Rurlingame Shore. land Company, 1025 Cadillac Way, Burlingame, to reclassi fv
a 13.2 acre parcel of acreage from P-4 (rourth Residential, "+uiti._rari ivi
to r-1 (Retail Commercial) Pistrict.
flavor George identified the site, bounded by Cadillac way, Carolan Avenue
and Bayshore, Boulevard, explaining that there is on file a lenvthy metes
and hounds description designated "Exhibit A".
The Manning Commission's RF.SOl.l1TTON "In. 366 ""nprmnirNIi Tr TIM AT)()PTI0\''
nF AN nrn1MANCF AP'FNnTNr, SFCTInN 25.12. RlP Or. THr R1 V11J,TNrA"!F ".'1TMTCTr'AT.
f nPF AND T11F. ZnNXNr. "IAT' TNCORPORATr7n TH1'RFIN RY RFrFPFNCF BY RFrLASSirYT�Ir
CFRTAIN LANivS nF T11F BURLTVr.A"tF SHORF LAND COMPANY f Row., A mIRT11 RCSt-
PFNTIAL (MULTI -FAMILY) (R-4) nTSTRTCT TO A RFTATL C. AA" IFRCIAL (r. -1) PVT TrTCT"y
"adopted on October In, 1966, was read in its entirety, as well as the
Commission's Findings, designated Fxhibit "R"; acknowled-menu wns made of
the minutes of the hearings before the Planning Commission.
%Invor reorge referred to an agreement dated September 16, 1963, executed
between the city and the applicant, renuiring certain public imnrove*rments
to he constructed and requested a progress report from the City 4'ngineer.
The City Fng,ineer reported that all of the public work4 recited in the
agreement And shown on the Wilsey, Elam F, Blair map marked fxhihit "A•" have
been completed and accepted by the Oita Council; the apartment construction
was never started.
rounc.ilman niederichsen commented that the contract related to a reclassifi-
cation to R-4 and variances for apartment buildings; his innuiry concerr:inn
its status was answered by the City Attorney who advised there is an
existing; valid agreement recorded In the nffice of the County Recorder.
rround rules declared by the Chair, reauired speakers from the audience to
address the Chair, stating nave and address; provided for proponents to
sreak first, opponents to follow and, lastly, Council discussiOn.
The Ci.ty clerk, in reply to the Chair, rerrrted no cnyrespcnd4-nre nn. file.
P170ponents were accorded the Privilege of the floor,
"r. Cyrus .1. 'f&fillan, Attorney, 14SO Chapin Avenue„ represented the appli-
cants,, Burlingame Shore Land Company and FTr. nonald 11. Stoneson.
Mr. "I&Iillan referred to the Planning Commission Resolution and Findings,
react at the onset or the hearing, stating that the Commission conducted a
icix and fair hearing,, requesting ad
.,dit,ion,pj press coverage to alert as
manv residents as possible to the 'r,as by and voted five to one favoring
the application. "ir. McMillan pointed o t that at a subsequent meeting of
the Commission the Resolution and Findings were adopted unanimously.
-7-
,r
gars *Vc'4111an reviewed certain arguments which were resented 1-,,efore th1=.
Comirission to support the application for reclassification to allow a
shopping center'
Access ibil.ity of the Drovert°d: Close to and visible from.. Rayshore Freeway,
U acei t ro an Avenues which carries increasingly h+eav;► traffic loads';
proximity to other commercial uses, particularly the pending Cadillac
Apency, the C'enoral Tire plant and the Broadway shopping area, He noted
the lack of R- 1 lunar use adjoining the property, pointing out that the
zoning to the south is Light Industrial,
Fro_nomic Factors: Financing cannot he obtained -for high-rise construction.
on a as opposed to comments during the discussions on the
apartment construction that city .services would be burdened and the
school tax increased, the present proposal will create a more c ouitable
tax base in the land and building values and merchants' inventory values„
Mr. "101illan .;tated that a sales tax revenue of a1_W*000,:00 per year was
rojec:te:cl, based on Urban Land Institute averages for commercial estah-
ishments the applicants contend that benefit will deTiVe to the city
by a.ttTaCting and holding the .local shoppers, with a resultant: increase
In revenue to the Broadway area. lie cited an example whereby Sari
Ocean Avenue shoppinf, district -prosperred from the Stonestown a. eveYcapmr-nt.
and advised that a local merchant with shops in .;urlinpamea and 'lillbraes
stated before the Planninp Commission that his 11 1lhrae operation was,
helped her the activity in Richmond Square.
Feasibility',., 'Jr,, 14c1filla a stated that �Iro Donald If,, Stonesons, a party to
i Epp - tion, qualiffes as an expe-,t in the Field of shoo -ping center
developments because of his associa.ti.cn with the Stonestown Corporation,
Ile stated that Mr,, Swon4:son, pr IOT to Joining with Burlingame .Shore Land
Company, consulted with Irving, n. Shapiro,, A,T,A., designer of the
MacArthur Boulevard/Broadway center in nakland; it was Mr, Shapiro"s
deterrination that the site is satisfactory for a shopping center, or
Integrated shopping complex..
Mr. "1chlillan advised that the applicants were informed bxf `?rban Land
Tn:stitute o-f the factors constituting a successful center --access 'to a
maior Artery, and r-roximity to a prime marketinp area, The site meets
both regvllrement%;:
^°r, 'arc"'i. lI an stated there is proposed a completely enclosed, air-conditioned,
r,,al.l-tape complex, with a total rentable® floor area of 240,11nO square feet,.
Tn conclrasionb �.rro 'Ic'fi llan stated that 11r, Oscar Person, property owner,
and ''ro Donald `� ne%on, were in attendance; he submitted that the action
of the C'I -nning f`ortmi:ssion was correct: and justified, renuestin„ rouncil9s
endorsement
ro nf.-,ili+ian rrosby. questioned !.tr.. "'c"ti 11an concerning the projectod stales
taA reve.ave, whether the t140,nOMIC; was int,; ended tnc represent additional.
revenue to the city. Tl�e latter rerorteil t3-it it would be Mi ricu, L to
tit ma0)Pss a icall� pre:ci,.,o- however, than "proponents conten a tp?nt rf. turns
Frorl the exisc-ir►p shorO., areas will not �Iirirish,
Tn reply to rounci loran niederlchyen, Mr. Marry gOMey!rs, 1849 R rvshtsre Hlprh-
way, stated that total square footage, including rentable area, parking
and the mall approximates 302,000 square feet, or total land coverage,,
8
with the exception of 15 feet of setback around the perimeter.
Councilman Martin pointed out that approval of the application as sub-
mitted will allow the applicants any C- 1 use provided by code.
sir, "c"i I lan explained that he interpreted the code, and in view of the
existing contract, that any new proposal for the3 property would require
a reclassification action by the city; he stated that sander no circum-
stances did the applicants expect an unconditional reclassification,
that they hope to hove the existing contrast amended, or cancelled and
a new contract executed, to relate to the cormercial project„
councilman "artin thereupon stated that as one member of Council he
will insist on plans and a full presentation of what is proposed to to
constructed.
"Aro "c"Illan informed Council that there are drawings on :File with the
City Planner,
In reply to mayor Ceor°ge, the City Planner reported that the „ is a.r
architect's sketch in his office which cannot be considerR99 �'RY
sense He stated that the Planning Commission was Astructh ra dis-
regard the agreement since this was a matter to be determined only
between the City Council and the applicant and that plans were not
presented in evidence as the only matter before the Commission was that
of reclassification,,
In reply to Councilman Di.ederichsenos i.nnuiry whether the commercial
use will requires public improvements in addition to those completed by
the property owner, the City Engineer replied in the negative, with the
exception of a request from Fire Chief ytoorby, fog an increaser in fire
flow to 6000 gallons per minute; the residential requirement was 4000
gallons per minute,
Reference was made to traffic flow studies prepared by Wilsey, Nam and
Blair in connection with the apartment complex,
The City Attorney, in reply to Councilman Crosby, advised that Council
may follows one of two courses: Act solely on an application for rezoninF
disregarding they use that the proponents state they will make of the:
property; approval will allow anv use permitted in the C-1 zone, or,
Council may deny unconditionally, As an alternative, Council rav agree
to the rezoning provided the applicants consent to amend the existing,
contract and to comply with conditions imposed by Council.
The Chair recognized Q. Oscar Person, 1301 P'aloamea Avenue, the property
owner, who assured Council that the apartment buildings faileO to
materialize solely because of ebange?s in the Mancini market, not because
of neglect nor lack of interest on his part,,
He stated that there was no question but that council would require they
commearcia.l zoning; to he attached to a specific plan; Yurthermore, the
proponents are: not interested in out ,aright reclassification to C-
The Chair invited opponents to speak.
Mr Charles Wroerer, merchant, 1.210 Burlingame A4 envao advOed 7havn
9
the most recent meeting or the Downtown Merchants' Association, merr-
bens were unanimously opposed to a rezoning permitting a shopping
district, for the following reasons: Pack of area for population
expansion —recent population figures show an increase in the past three
years of approximately 6000--indicating that the three existing shopping
areas are adequate to serve the city's needs; recently a considerable
sum has been invested by property owners, merchants and the city to
create a parking district, improve .street lighting and to refurbish the
downtown area generally; a substantial portion of the suggested sales
tax revenue from the project undoubtedly will result from shoppers
ignoring the established shops to patronize the new; fast traffic will
not pull off the freeway to shop; congestion at Broadway remains
uncorrected and both Carolan Avenue: and Bayshore Boulevard carry heavy
traffic loads. It is the Association's position that another shopping
area will be detrimental to all of the merchants.
Mr. Albert Kaufmann, 2615 Easton Drive, in business on Broadway„ stated
that he favored the original proposal for apartments since it would
bring new residents and shoppers; the proposed 240,000 square feet of
rentable area greater than all of the Broadway shopping, district;
the local market cannot support a large retail commercial complex.
111r. Howard Cundersen, 60 Clark Drive, San Mateo, Manager of Levy Bros.
Burlingame, reported that business regressed noticeably when Macy°s
and The Emporium located in Hillsdale; however, conditions have
improved and competition, admittedly, is an incentive for improving
shops and merchandising methods but, in his opinion, their@, is not
the potential here to support a large shopping complex; local con-
ditions cannot be compared with Hillsdale with its large population
center
Mayor reorge commented on the many hours of study and discussion
devoted to the apartment complex, stating that in voting approval he
dial so believing that new dwelltig units in the location would be an
asset to the entire community.. Ile referred to programs undertaken by
the city to assist the merchants in improving existing commercial
areas, stating that he is primarily concerned whether the proposed
project will benefit all of the city or just the owners and developers
In reply to Councilman Diederichsenos inquiry on existing undeveloped
commercially zoned lands, the City Planner referred to Park Road,
Chapin Avenue and Howard Avenue, stating that the latter street has
never been developed to its full potential. Fie stated tliat presumably
the Mills Estate will continue to develop in office buildings..
Councilman Johnson stated that the rezoning and the project must be con=
sidered simultaneously, thereafter recommending a continuance to the
next regular meeting for the applicants to submit representative plans„
Upon MT,, M&Iillanas statement that plans would be prepared, and with
Council concurringo the Chair declared the hearing con`-inued to the
meeting of necembe:r S, 1966,,
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Hgrber K� White
C .7 t.". V1 C Y,