HomeMy WebLinkAbout1095 Carolan Avenue - Staff Report1
s, PROJECT APPLICATION ���"TM °� 1095 CAROLAN AVENUE
` b� CEQA ASSESSMENT BURUNc�E project address
��, ,. � �AR WASH RFMODFI �AI TFRATTf1NS
9_29_87 �.�,_�w��,,• project name - if any
Application received ( )
Staff review/acceptance ( 10-13-87 )
i. APPLICANT Wi 11 i am A Storum 415/321-9876
name telephone no.
932 Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite D, Menlo Park, CA 94025
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
same as above
contact person, if different telephone no.
3
4
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Specia.l Perrnit () Variance* () Ccnc+ominium Pernit (X) Oth�rAmend. of Spec. Permt
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AMENDP�IENT OF NOVEMBER 6, 1984 SPECIAL PERMIT for car wash operation
on propertv zoned unclassified in order to remodel car wash to
provide full service attendant car washin , including cleanin of
car interiors. Proposed changes include increasing number o�
emp oyees, re uc�ng num er o par ing spaces, inc ng r�taiY—s�rYes
in operation, relocating required an scaping an cons ruc ing a
1,410 SF buildinq to provide customer waiting area and employee
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) o u ng e.
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.12.041 )( ��SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR
MORE DETAILED PROJECT
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION. �
( unclassified ) ( 22,200 )
zoning district land area, square feet PdCI'f1C Gateway;Bldg
Southern Pacific 201 Mission Street, Ste 300
land owner's name address
San Francisco, CA 94105
Reauired Date received city zip code
� (no) ( ) Proof of ownership
(yes) � (8_24_g], ) Owner's consent to a�plication
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Existing car wash with self-serve vacuums and gasoline pumps on a
portion o t e ou ern aci ic rig -o -way on e sou wes
corner of Broadway and Carolan Avenue.
Required Date received
(yes) (rre} ( ��-�-$� ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all str�ctures and improvements;
paved on-site parking; landscaping.
(yes) (no.� ( �Q-�-$] ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of us�`on each floor plan.
(yes) (rw} ( �Q-j-87 ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
-(�e�) (no) ( ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
(otner) ( 9_2g_g� I PttPr �f Explanation
� � � � � � � Acrea e City of Burlingar�e
APN lot no. block no. subdivisio� name
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PRQPOSAL N2W �,410 SF bui 1 di ng
Proposed consi:ruction, Qelov� orade ( SF) Second floor ( SF)
grocs floor area First floor (�,4�Q SF) Third floor ( S`)
Project Code
Pr000sal Requirement
Front setback
Side setback
Si de yard
Rear yarci
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
Lot covera;e
P,uildi�e height
Lar.dscaoed area
�n•site pkg.space�
�
1095 North Carolan Avenue Amendment of Special Permit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
1. Increase in employees between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. from
5 full time and 2 part time employees to 8 full time and 2 part time,
and after 5:00 P.M. from 2 full time and 2 part time employees to
3 full time and 2 part time.
2. Relocate and reduce number of parking spaces from 7 shown on approved
plans for this site to 6 parking spaces.
3. Reduce operating hours from 8:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M..
4. Replace most of chain link fencing with a 6'- 10' high split face block wall.
5. Construct a 1,410 SF building to include customer waiting area, retail
section for snacks and greeting cards, etc., employee lounge, cashier,
storage room and manager's office.
6. Relocate driveways.
7. Conveyor to be lengthened by 20 feet for towel drying the exterior of cars•
Wash equipment to stay where presently located.
8. Move vacuum area from south end of the lot to the north end. Vacuums to
be contained in existing office building and a trellis to be built over
vacuum area.
9. Relocate landscaping by removing a 3'x 43' (129 SF) portion of the
required landscaping at the north end of the lot and replace it with
77 feet of new plantings along the rear property line; widening of streetside
planter to the south of the new drive from 3' to 7'; and adding new planters
to the north end of the first driveway, in the gas island area,and north of
the second driveway.
6. PROJECT PR�POSAL (continued)
Full time employees on site
Part ti�e employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from sit��_91
Peak hour trip ends* �
(3-6)
Trucks/service vehicles
EXISTING IP! 2 YEARS
after � after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
5 2
2 2
150 48
180 12 1
0 0
156 52
2 6
��Wk �
IN 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Northpark Apts and retail uses to the north; train tracks to the
south and east; this use conforms to t e enera an.
Required
(�+e�) (no)
(yer) (no)
Date received
( ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
( ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 �CX) Other application type, fee $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 (X )
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 (X )
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ()
TOTAL FEES $ � 50 . �� RECEI PT N0. � 9896 Recei ved by �. Krd tS kJ/
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the be of my knowledge and belief.
Signature Date
ppl cant
STAFF USE OP1LY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
19 ,
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Cateqorically exempt; reference code section 15301,
existinq facilities.
Signature of Processino Official Title Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the da.te posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATIQN OF POSTING Dai:e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjiary that I ar� City Clerk o�f the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Neoa.ti�re Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th�a Council Chambers.
Executed at Qurlingame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P;o
19
JUb fH . M�LFATTI, CITY CLERK, CITI' f'� BURLINGAPIE
STAFF REUI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer (10-1Q-87 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( �� �� ) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( " " ) (yes) (no)
Park Departrr�ent ( ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( ) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOPI MEASURES
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
Concerns Mitigation Measures
Does the project comply with all Request comments from the Fire
Fire and Bldg Code requirements? P�arshal and Chief Building Inspe
Will 6 parking spaces be suffici nt Review site; discuss with
for a total of 10 employees? applicant.
Are retail sales of snacks, Review site and other car
greeting cards, etc. an wash/gas station operations.
appropriate use for this site?
3.
CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review?
No. Categorically Exempt
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comoleted ( ) Study by P.C. � )
Decision to prepare EIR ( ) Review period ends ( )
Notices of preparation mailed ( ) Public hearing by P.C. ( )
!2FP to consultants ( ) Final EIR received by P.C. ( )
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR accepted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
) Certification by Council
) Decision on project
) Notice of Determination
)
� )
� )
� )
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( g��g�87 )
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to applicant advising info. required ( 8� 2 0� g �)
Yes( ) date P.C. study (�� )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( )
Date staff report mailed to aoplicant ( ) Date Corr�nission hearing ( )
Application approved ( ) Den`iad ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no)
Date Council hearing ( ) Application aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
signed date
to
SeptemL�er 25, 1987
Planning Staff
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010
��� � 91987
RE: REMODEL CAR WASH AT 1095 CAROLAN AVENUE, B?TRLINGAME
FRESENT SITUATION
The subject car wash is iocated at the intersection of Broadway
and Carolan. It runs 600 feet south from Broadway and is 37 feet
deep.
It is improvzd with concrete drives and paving, two 37 foot long
gasoline islands, a 9 by 7 foot ofiice, a conveyorized car wash
and a vacuum (4 vacuums)/detail area on the southerly 160 feet of
the property. A 6 foot high chain link fence encioses the vacuum
area and runs along the rear property line to trie exit end of the
wash tunnel. A 4 foot high chain link fence runs from the er�t�:ance
end of the car wash tunnel along the rear property line north to
Broadway.
An exte�i�r car wash is offered to customers - the customer stays
in the car while it is conveyed through the wash. Vacuums are �elf
service.
PURFUSE OF REMODEL
Through the proposed changes we will achieve the following:
. Offer the customer the option af a �u.11 service car wash as well
as an exterior wash. The f ull .�ervice wash includes cleaning the
interior of the car - vacuuming, dustir�g and windaw cle�aning - as
well as the exterior. In our prEsent operaticn interior cle�ning
is done by the customer either in our vacuum a�ea or elsewt�:ere.
The ARCO car was�l across the street, or� the co�ner of. Br.�oadwa�T a�d
Rollin�, offers only exterior car washing. In the i�imediate area
full service car washing is not available, Over the years u
substantial number of customers nave asked us to provide full
service car washing. Daily customers drive out when they learn we
dan't clean the inside of the car. The upscale dt�rnogr�phics of t_he
area strongly favor full service car washing. For these reasons we
plan on adding the full service car wash option.
W� could off er the full service wash option with aur ��resent
facilities by using the existing vacuums and praviding chairs for
customers while they c�ait. By so doing, h.owever, we end up with a
second class operation that no one is very proud of. i would
�
prefer to make the nzcessary expenditure to do the job right and
end up with a facility that, hopef ully, the community would be
proud of .
. t�r�eatly imprave the appearance of the site by adding land-
scaped areas, updating the appearance of existing structures,
adding attractive new structures, and replacing most of the chain
link fencing with block walls.
. Provide an attractive customer waiting area.
. Move the vacuum area from the south end of the lot to the north
end of trie car wash away from the apartment complex.
. Give our employees nicer f acilities and working space.
. Improve the parking arrangements. Currently we have roam to park
3 to 4 cars up against the fence. The proposed parking for 6 cars
is much better situated and out of the way of operations. When
considering customer parking f or this type of operation, remember,
the entire site practically is a customer parking lot ie. at the
gas pumps, in line for the vacuums, and placed for final detailing
at the ex•it driveways.
. Operating hours
with the relocation
apartment occupants.
PP,OPOSED CHANGES
will be reduced from 8pm to 7 pm. 'I'�iis, along
of the vacuums, will be appreciated by the
The proposed changes are shown on the accompanying site plan. In
thE l�wer right hand corner of the plan is a KEY PLUT FLAN which
s�lows haw the site has been divided into two sections due to its
le:zqth - Fortion A is the northern half and Portion B the
sauthern.
DR I VF��IAYS
l. :=:�TTRANCE DRIVEWAY (Closest to Broadway). Move this drive 10
feet south.
As cars enter• the lot now they are torced to drive past our
emnloyees' cars - 2 to 3 cars - which are parked against the fence
cpposite this drive and to the south of it. Relocating this diive
mak:es it possible to pr•ovide three parking spaces completely out
af the flow of traffic. It also moves the rlrive further away from
the Broadway/Carolan intersectian.
.�
2. GASOLINE EXIT DRIVEWAY (2ND DRIVEWAY SOUTH). This driveway is
now used for gasoline-only customers exiting the station and car
wash-only customers entering the wash. At times it becomes a
traffic problem.
We propose chaining this driveway off and using it�only in
emergencies. We no longer will provide gas-only service; so this
use is eliminated. We no longer will use it as an entrance to the
wash. Occassionally a vehicle will not fit through the wash -
vehicle too high, tires too wide or car has been lowered tao far.
In these instances the vehicle will be let out the emerqency
drive.
3. GAR WASH EXIT DRIVEWAY (3RD DRIVEWAY SOUTH?. No change.
4. NEW DRIVEWAY. A new 43 foot driveway is proposed beginning 10
feet south of the 3rd driveway.
As cars exit the wash they will be moved to one of six driveway
positions where the final detailing is performed - windows washed
inside, dash dusted and the exterior given a final check (the
exterior is dried while the car is still on the conveyor). A
minimum of six driveway positions are necessary due to the shallow
depth of the lot and to prevent bottlenecking in case one car
needs more attention than another.
5. SOUTH DRIVEWAY. No change.
FUMFBLOCKS
Both af the existing pumpblocks are being removed. The inside
pumpblock will be replaced with a new planter of about half the
length to channel traffic. The outside pumpblock will be replaced
with a short (9 foot) gas pump island, an island for the existing
light standard and a combination gas pump island/planter.
GAS TANKS
The three existing I0,000 gallon tanks will be replaced with new
double-walled tanks and lines.
VACUUM AP,EA
The vacuum area is being relocated from the south end of the lot
to the area between the gas islands and the 2nd driveway. This
will move a noise source further from the apartment complex across
the street from the south end of our lat. The vacuum will be
contained in the existing office building. A trellis will be bui],t
over the vacuum area to provide shade for workers and waiting
customers.
CAR WASH
A walkway is proposed for the west side of the wash to give
customers passage from the vacuum area, through the wash to the
south end of the lot where the customer waiting area/cashier is
located.
The.canv�yor is to be lengthened 20 feet. Wash equipment will stay
where it is presently located. The extra 20 feet is f or towel
drying the exterior of the car while it is still on the conveyor.
Even though the equipment is not being relocated, the east wall of
the wash will be extended to the end of the conveyor.
� glu-lam fascia will cover the existing mansard roof and tie this .:
building architecturally with the trellis over the vacuums,
covered walkways and the customer/cashier building at the south
end of the lot.
BLOCK WALL
It is proposed to replace the existing chain link fence with a 6
foot splitface block wall along the rear property line beginr�ing
142 feet from the Broadway property line and running south to the
entrance of the car wash (a distance of about 132 feet). From.this
point the wall would continue south but at about 10 feet high
until it meets the customer/cashier building. There would be a
trellis over most of the walkway.
CUSTOMER/CASHIER BUILDING
This is a new 1,410 square f oot building containing the cashier's
position, indoor waiting area, free refreshment area for
customers, retail section with impulse merchandise such as
greeting cards, packaged snacks, etc., public restrooms, storage
room for store, manager's office, employees' room (for rest
breaks, training sessions �nd meetings), employees' restroom and
supply room.
Customers will enter the public room to pay the cashier. While
waiting for their car they can enjoy free seasonal drinks, browse
in the retail store or sit inside or outside. Public restroams and
telephone will be available.
LANDSCAFING
Some landscaping is lost to the three parking spaces a� the north
end of the lot. However, this is compensated for by the 77 feet of
new planter along the rear pro�erty line, where there will be 10
trees , and by the new planter at the north end of the lst
driveway,which will also contain a tree.
There will be planters, one with a tr�e, in the gas island area
where there were none before.
There will be a new streetside planter north of the 2nd driveway
and directly opposite at the rear property line. There will be a
tree in the streetside planter in addition to shrubbery.
At the location of the new drive 43 feet of planter, by 3 feet
wide, i.� lost. However , tl�e str��etside pl.�nter to the south of tr�e
new drive is widened from 3 to 7 feet except in the area of the
ernployeP patio.
If there are any question, pleas� cal.l. me at 321-9�?76.
Si.n er-t 1 ,
. A . , u �� d�
1531 Parkmoor Avenue
San Jose, Calilomia 95128
August 201, 1987
<� fiy C�� � � l� 1'=L11J �i —�'cl�t1 !-G
_ ` __..__..__ i� _..__._ ,_._ . _ ..
R�C�IV�D
AUG 2 419�7
Mr. W. A. Storum
Storum Associates, Inc.
932 Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite D
Menlo Park, CA 944l25
RE: F.U.E. ENCROACHMFNT
Dear Mr. Storum:
PACIFIC��yBELL..
A Pecilic Telesis Company
CITY OF BURLINGAME
P! ..�!NING DE?T.
This is in response to your .7uly 24, 1987 letter. Pacific Bell
as user of the Public Utilities Easement delineated on Exhibit
"A" along Carolan Avenue, City of Burlingame, County of San
Mateo, has no objections to your encroachment in the manner
specified in your letter subject to the following conditions.
l.
2.
No permanent structures to be built other than the
trellis and glu-lam beam as delineated in Exhibit "A".
Pacific Bell will not be responsible for any damage to
said trellis or beam during construction or repair of
its facilities.
,, This permission does not relieve you or your assigns•from
��� liability in case of damage to our facilities.
This approval becomes effective upon receipt from you of the
..� ` � si5ned c:uplicate cogy of this l�tter.
��'� If you should have any questions on this matter, please contact
me at (408) 491-712P1.
Sincerely,
J, J ,.,
� ' � �%,� �� � /• �
S. J. Petrocchi
Public Works Coordinator
Attachment
File: 143-87.VAC
�t��
torum Associates, Inc.
13y: W. A. Storum
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission yinutes October ?.2, 1984
Staff comment: location of signs on a site is a matter between th��
land�lord and the tenants; if the application is not approved, we could
reCeive another application from the remaining two tenants �t,1881
Rollins Road; the sign must be changed in any event to the�'12 SF
approved in`'`A1,981. --�
...,.. ..-....�•_
,, �r�...•� -
Further Commission���c �mment: only the chai,�.� �-Y�nk fence is obstructing
the sign, as one enter"5�;t.he alley shru,b�"have been removed and the
sign is visible; a solution�m�gh_t,,,.� for all tenants and the landlord
to come in with a total sig�p��k�ac�e for the site; support previous
comments, intent of delis,-in the M-1�`�io.�e was to serve local people in
that area, see no r�a�ofi� Eor �ny sign��ge; �do not Ee�l a business can
operate wi th no id.ert�i f ication . ��..,,
�''
y�w`\..�
C. Schwalm_moved to grant this sig.n exception. Motion`"di.�d for lack
of a �s�d .
C. Taylor moved that this sign exception be rejected; second C. Giomi.
Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting, C.
Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. AMENDMENT OF THE 3/20/72 SPECIAL PERMIT TO CHANGE THE OPERATING
HOURS FOR 'I'HE CAR WASH AT 1095 CAROLAN AVENUE, BY WILLIAM STOR�JM
WITH SOUTHERN_PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
CP Monr.oe reviewed this request to change the hours oE this service
station and, car wash business. Reference staff report, 10/22/84;
Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 9/11/84; staff review:
Fire Marshal (9/12/84), Chief Building Inspector (9/17/84), City
Engineer (10/2/84); Coleman letter to the applicant (8/31/84); City
Council minutes, March 20, 1972; aPplicant's letter, 9/8/84; study
meeting minutes, 10/9/84; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed
10/12/84. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, CA's
letter regarding use permit amendment and noise complaints,
applicant's reasons for the request and discussion of his business.
Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. CP advised notices were mailed to all property owners within
300 feet of the site and posted on utility Poles near the Northpark
Apartments across the street.
Comment: would suggest a thir�3 condition be added to require review in
six months; CA a3vised he had not received any complaints since his
letter in August, 1984. CP r�lated her telephone conversation with
the manager's off_ice of North�ark asking for permission to post
notices in the lobbies at this complex. She was advised any notice
regarding Northpark p.roperty could be posted but none for other
properties.
Chm. Graham opened the public hea.ring. William Storum, applicant,
discussed a traffic survey he conducted on Tu�sday, October 16, which
indicated people are out and on the road early in the morning with
peak car counts b�tween 8:00 and 9:00 A.M.; with the 8:00 A.M. to
8:00 P.M. hours he would be open during the busier hours of the day
. -.
.
�:, :
Page 5
Bur.tingame P1_anning Commissic�n Mi.niites Octob�r. 22, 1984
when people are more apt to want the services h� offers; his studies �
have shown thPre seems to be no seasonal variation.
'There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition. Theodora Schrader, 1045 Cadillac Way: live across the
street; this operation is noisy, not only the car wash but vacuuming�..
with radios turned on full blast; this noise affects almost two dozen
apartments across the street, opening at 8:00 A.M. would be worse; if
applicant is concerned about his clientele there are other car washes
nearby which do not face residential facilities. Elaine Cadmore, 1080
Carolan Avenue, property manager for Northpark Apartments: have
received many complaints about the car wash and there is a large
turnover of those units which are affected; it is particularly bad in
the warm months when windows are open.
Mr. Storum spoke in rebuttal: have been here since November, 1981;
when I am notified of a problem I do correct it, the leaf blower was
removed after complaints were received; have posted my phone number on
the site and would be happy to work with anyone to try to resolve any
problems. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission/staff discussion: Northpark was built to code at the time
of construction, probably today they would be required to have a much
higher level of insulation for sound; would like to include a
condition requiring review in six months or on a complaint basis; car
wash service seems to be desired by Burlingame residents at an early
hour but wou13 prefer an opening time of 10:00 A.M. on Sunday; concern
about the noise created by dropping the pit covers, applicant advised
he could find a better time than Sunday for cleaning the pits;
regarding radio noise at the drying station, this could be mitigated
by posting notices or telling customers verbally to turn off their
radios; responding to Commission question, the property manager of
Northpark advised she testified this evening in her capacity as
Pr.op�r.ty m�nng�r, kh�iY_ she hnd not cc�nk��ci:e+d r.h� r��piic�nr. rc��nr.ding
noise complaints and she was not aware of the city's request to.post
notices about this hearing.
C. Giomi moved to grant this special permit amendment with the
following conditions: (1) that the hours of ooeration be changed to
8:00 A.M. - 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and 10:00 A.M, to
6:00 P.M. Sunday; (2) that all five of the other conditions of the
March 20, 1972 use permit sha11 be in effect and complied with:
(a) the use to be restricted to an area 600' in length south from
Broadway and west from Carolan Avenue; (b) Southern Pacific Company to
pay the city a sum of $6,000 for its share of street improvements on
Carolan Avenue; (c) 40' of the Carolan Avenue Frontage, measurec� from
Broadway, to be landscaped to conform to Park Department requirements.
and to be maintained; the driveway to be relocated south of the
Iandscaped strip; (3) improvements to conform to the plans stzbmitted;
(e) a fence 4' in height to be placed along the west property line;
and (3) that this permit be reviewed in six months time or upon
receipt of a complaint. Second.C. Taylor.
,. . . � : �;: �. . ....v_ W...W. :
� .���.��.:�;,�F�,�:��.,��::.�� :�. - .____
,.
_ ., •
, . . �,u:,k,.�::.,.�.�,�.u,..y.��,
�
Page 6
October 22, 1984
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ,
Comment on the motion: will vote no on the application because of �
noise generated in a residential area; would appliiicanteadvisedghe�
install a noise barrier around this operation; app
could not totally enclose the operation at this time but has been
installing low energy drying units when possible, he could do
something to mitigate the pit cover and radio noise; share
Commission's concerns but based on the testimony this evening and lack
of complaints received by the applicant from Northpark management will
vote to approve; applicant is under obligation to mitigate the noise,
there should be communication between the applican� and Northpark
management; feel applicant is dealing in good faith and the new hours
should be given a try for six months.
Motion approCPdJacobs4abse�tl cAppealtprocedureshwere a3aisQdham
dissenting,
4, AMENDMENT OF 7/5/83 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A��'IFAC HOTEL TO CO�iTYNUE
� TO USE A PO.RTION OF THE FUTURE ALAMO REN'r A CAR HEAI]QUARTERS SITE
T 778 BURLWAY ROAD BY ALAMO RENT A CAR WITH DKBERT ASSOCIATES
CP Monroe reviewec} this request to allow AmEac to conti.nue to lease
part of an existing warehouse building on the Alamo site in exchange
for leased,parking space on Amfac's supplemental lot. ReE�e�'ence staff
report, 10/2•2/84; Project Application & CEQA Ass�ssment�"�eceived
9/7/84; Salisb�ry lett�r to Konroe, 9/7/84; staff r v�ew: Chief
Building Inspec^�or (9/17/84), City Engineer (9/17 4), Fire Marshal
(9/18/84); study\�neeting minutes, 10/9/84; Mon e letter of action to
National Car Renta System, 40 Edwards Cour Planning Commission
minutes, National C Rental app
lication, /9 and 7/23/84; Commission
minutes, Alamo Rent A ar application, 13/83; aerial photograph;.
notice of hearing maile 10/12/84; a p
lans date stamped September 17
and October 9, 1984. CP 'scussed etails of the request, staff
review, applicant's letter d r erenced study meeting questions
reviewed in the staff report. o conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public ea 'ng.
r
Commission discussion/co�a�t�nent: separ tion between the LPG tank and
parked cars meets Fire,��`Department requiticements; feel that public
access to the bay an�l' Amfac surplus parki�q are related, where is the
25' public access �rip behind Amfac, belie�.when theaneCommissionl
was approved for;�this site a 25 strip was reqi�+�red;
deny Alamo's r �uest in order to gain something �rom Amfac; think this
matter should.�be studied further to see if parkinq �"x,equirements can be
met and proy'�de th� 25' strip; need history and/or mi�utes covering
the original permit; if this is required ot- every othe project along
the baysh'ore, why not this one; possibility of acquiring he strip by
eminen ��'�domain (staff advised it has not been city policy
� acquire
thes strips because then the city would have to plan, impro and
mai ain them).
The Chair continued this item to the meeting of November 13, 1984;
staff will research the original permit.