Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.01.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, January 27, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Giomi Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the January 13, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 130 SF GARAGE ADDITION AT 1452 VANCOUVER AVENUE WHICH WILL EXTEND THE PRESENT 0' SIDE YARD OF THE PRESENT GARAGE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, letter from applicants' architect in justifi- cation of the variance request, staff review. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: a site inspection indicated the addition has been built; staff explained this request is before Commission because the existing garage is not in the rear 30% of the lot, is built to the side lot line and the proposed addition would extend the nonconforming side yard; garage and addition would be required to have one hour walls. Paul Rush, architect representing the applicants, stated the garage is approximately 4' from the house, the garage and addition will meet the one hour wall requirement of the building code, roof drainage will be away from the property line. Responding to Commissioner question, Mr. Rush advised the addition has been built and he will certify it does conform to the code. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Leahy found there were exceptional circumstances in this older garage which cannot accommodate a current vehicle without an extension, that the garage was already placed on the property line, and since a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes - Page 2 - January 27, 1986 covered parking space is required by code the variance action would have no effect on the zoning plan of the city. C. Leahy moved for approval of this variance with the following conditions: (1) that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector (January 3, 1986 memo) be met; and (2) that no portion of the structure will extend over a property line and all drainage shall meet the requirements of the Public Works Department. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 693 SF 3 -CAR GARAGE/CARPORT AT 1320 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED 9-1 Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, study meeting questions, staff review. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Ralph Button, building designer, represented the applicants. His comments: with regard to the turning radius for the carport, only a travel trailer will be kept there, it will be backed in and moved by hand; the property owners will have the lot surveyed for depth in order to stay back from the city's 10' easement; no part of the structure would be closer than 25' to the nearest neighbors, it is in the middle of the lot; the neighbors have not expressed any objection. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. With the statement this request complies with all zoning code requirements except overall area of the structure, C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector (12/16/85 memo) shall be met; (2) that this structure shall be used only for parking and storage uses unless a special permit is obtained; and (3) that no portion of the structure shall cross a property line and all drainage shall meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Second C. Taylor. Comment on the motion: this is an unusually large lot and the proposal is acceptable since it will not affect the neighbors. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE AND SIZE OF LETTERING FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN AT 1609 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3 Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the application, staff review, applicant's justification for this request, study meeting questions, table comparing 4" high letters (code requirement) to 7-1/2" letters (this request); reason for the 4" high limit for sign lettering in C-3 (professional office) district. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Tom Donoghue, Advertising Products, Inc., represented the property owner, Hillhaven Corporation. His comments: no objection to the requirement of the City Engineer, believe the proposal is consistent with the length of the building, the present signs placed on the wall will be removed. He distributed photographs of signage in the Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 immediate area and stated he felt this proposal would be consistent with other signs in the area, reducing lettering to 4" would be difficult to read and less than what is presently on site, Hillhaven would like to develop a uniform sign for all its facilities, 7-1/2" letters are smaller than those used in many of their other locations, regarding overall dimensions they could accept 2' x 81. Mr. Donoghue stated they are not requesting an illuminated sign at this time but might consider indirect lighting. Staff pointed out that if indirect lighting is desired at a later time it would require amendment of the sign exception. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: believe 7-1/2" letters are needed for identification at this intersection on a fast moving street; this is a large sign, from photographs of signs distributed this evening it appears the letters may be the same but all are smaller in overall size, might not object to 7-1/2" letters if size of the sign were reduced, am not impressed by Hillhaven's attempt to develop a uniform signage program nor their need to make the sign visible, only families of patients in the convalescent home need to know where it is; this is one more attempt to expand objectionable signage, the city adopted the sign ordinance limiting size of signs for this very purpose, the C-3 district is adjacent to a residential area. C. Graham found there were special circumstances applicable to this property in that it is across the street from C-1 where larger signage is allowed and where there are a great number of larger signs. C. Graham then moved for approval of this sign exception. Second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: am not impressed with the idea of uniformity of convalescent hospital signage, the city is trying to keep down the size of signs, this is a good place to do it; cannot tell actual sign dimensions from the photographs and how they compare to this proposal; in scaling down the proposed sign to 4" lettering it would be shorter in length but still over 25 SF in area. Motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor and Garcia dissenting, C. Giomi absent. C. Taylor moved for denial of the sign exception, second C. Schwalm. C. Taylor stated he objected to the size of the sign and to the size of the lettering. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A 321 ROOM HOTEL AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, BY WINDMARK CORPORATION Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow construction of a hotel which exceeds 50' in Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 height. She discussed details of this application, staff review, BCDC review, portion of the site owned by the State Lands Commission, environmental review, study meeting questions/concerns. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: Condition #8 and the requirement to surround the construction area with a solid wooden fence for noise protection; staff commented a wooden fence would be a good mitigation for low level noise; pile driver noise would generate from the top of the driver above the fence; limiting use of the pool and health club to hotel guests only was included as a condition to mitigate parking impact; limitation on hours of construction was written to allow the city to set its own standard; would like confirmation on height, that is, where is top of parapet, are structures enclosing rooftop equipment included; exchange of leasehold of the State Lands portion of this site (now leased to Granada Royale Hometels) will not take away from the area upon which Granada's approval was based. Allan Tebbetts, attorney representing the Windmark Corporation, addressed Commission: referring to page 2 of the staff report he stated the property is now owned in fee simple by Ms. Hilda Lai, the applicant is in escrow to buy; regarding Condition #3, he noted changes in the construction schedule; he felt a solid fence surrounding the construction area would be very expensive and asked for some flexibility; he was doubtful on-site parking could be provided for construction workers; Windmark is negotiating with Granada Royale for the State Lands portion of the site, this has resulted in a change in the time line. Peter Mason, architect, discussed the project: they have tried to preserve views from 101 and Airport Boulevard as much as possible and to compress the tower portion of the structure so that it does not take up the entire allowable width, it is less than the Holiday Inn next door, 50' height limit would result in a much wider building. He commented on their efforts to integrate elevator towers, mechanical penthouse, exit stairs, etc. with an architectural enclosure; the height of the building exclusive of these structures would be 61'; they have raised the ceiling of the suites to tie in with and mask the stair shafts at either end of the building; a great deal of the parking has been put underground. It was his feeling that pile driving would be the biggest noise issue, it can be mitigated by installing portable shrouds. The main level of this hotel will be one to two feet lower than the Holiday Inn. Commission/staff discussion: the city has required a solid wooden fence on a number of sites in noise sensitive areas; a fence will help mitigate ground level noise but cannot understand how it will help with pile drivers; hotels in the area are much higher, what we are trying to protect is over 20' off the ground; think all development in that area is noise conscious because of airport noise; solid wooden fence would cost approximately $15.00 per lineal foot. Commission discussion continued regarding off-street parking for construction workers. Architect stated there would be a problem in Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 27, 1986 providing on-site parking during initial construction work, for a period of time there would be no place for any parking. Commissioners suggested Airport Parking lots, possible use of a shuttle, vacant lot across the street. It was suggested Condition #8 be amended to require off-street parking be provided for construction workers. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. ' C. Taylor stated he did not find the 60' height request to be unreasonable in light of all the favorable aspects of this proposal, that this height is necessary to get the appropriate density, that apparent width guidelines have been more than met, there is an adequate landscape plan and the proposal meets all the city's hotel objectives except for height. C. Taylor then moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's November 15, 1985 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 14, 1985 memo, the City Engineer's January 13, 1986 memo and the Director of Parks' August 5, 1985 memo shall be met; 2. that the final plans and construction of the project shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 1, 1985 and that there shall be no occupied areas of the hotel below elevation 9' MSL; 3. that the applicant shall abide by the construction schedule including receiving BCDC approval by April, 1986; the schedule includes benchmarks of submitting final foundation plans July, 1986, picking up foundation permit September, 1986, submit structural final plans October, 1986, pick up final building permit December, 1986, final foundation March, 1987, final framing September, 1987 and occupancy April, 1988; 4. have title to use the entire site as shown on the project plans dated October 1, 1985; 5. obtain permits from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and other State and Federal agencies as required; 6. pay Bayfront Development fee, provide shuttle service for hotel patrons to San Francisco International Airport, manage project access/egress onto Airport Boulevard and on-site circulation as approved by the City Engineer, provide employees and guests with regional transportation information, car pool and van matching, provide directional signs and on-site information to guests and other motorists to encourage them to get on 101 southbound at Broadway interchange instead of through the City of San Mateo; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 27, 1986 7. provide access to regional transit modes, schedule work shifts so that they do not occur at peak hour traffic times, give priority in employment to closer residents; 8. conform to limitations on hours of construction established by the City of Burlingame, comply with Title 25, install portable shrouds around pile drivers and off-street parking be provided for construction workers; 9. undertake a detailed soil investigation including evaluation of perimeter dike, implement measures identified in preliminary soils report, properly engineer placement of fill, use pipe with greatest resistance to corrosion, install flexible joints on all utilities to accommodate differential settlement, avoid placing water and sewer lines below non pile supported slabs, design lines to be freestanding if hung from pipe supported slabs, provide positive drainage to avoid standing water and pump water from lower elevations on site into storm drains; 10. that a private security patrol shall be provided to police the project and its public access areas; 11. pay all required city fees including sewer connection fee, install on-site sewage pretreatment facilities for sewage from food preparation areas, to the standards set by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 12. that during construction measures will be followed to protect the adjacent lagoon from siltation, landscaped areas will be designed to prevent runoff water from entering the Anza Lagoon, hardy plants shall be used which require a minimum of fertilization and pest and weed control; 13. develop a final landscape plan which meets BCDC and State Lands Commission requirements for public access including public access walkways and landscaping compatible with those existing in the area and final plans to be approved by the Burlingame Parks Department prior to issuance of a building permit and all public access improvements to be installed and maintained by the developer/ property owner; 14. that no room in the hotel shall be rented or leased to a single person or corporate entity for more than 29 days and the rooms and buildings shall not be used for permanent residential purposes; 15. that use of the swimming pool and health club facilities be limited to the use of registered hotel guests only and not made available to the public through membership or other devices; 16. that the number of keyed doors for guest rooms in the hotel be limited to 321; and Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 17. that the wall be opened on the ramp to the lower parking garage to increase sight lines into the garage for cars descending the ramp. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 880 STANTON ROAD (LOTS 14, 15, 16 AND 17, BLOCK 4, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 2) Reference City Engineer's agenda memo with attachments. CE Erbacher advised this is a simple lot combination; the site is used as one lot presently. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. He recommended the map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Graham moved that this tentative and final parcel map be recommended to City Council for approval with the following conditions: (1) a 5' sidewalk adjacent to curb be installed by the applicant, providing at least 4' clearance of any obstructions in walkway; and (2) any curb and gutter shall be replaced if damaged or displaced. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE FOR TACO BELL AT 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB -AREA A Due to conflict of interest C. Taylor disqualified himself from participating in this matter and left the podium. CP advised the applicant that four affirmative votes are necessary for Commission action (five members remained on the podium). Applicant and Commission agreed to hold the public hearing this evening with action to be taken at the next Commission meeting, February 10, 1986. Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments and January 23, 1986 letter from Architectural Dimensions, Walnut Creek, California with attached Analysis of Projected Trip Generation, Taco Bell -Burlingame (received after preparation of staff report). CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comments/concerns, applicant's letter, Commission questions at study. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted the following letters in opposition (received after preparation of staff report): January 24, 1986 from Carol A. Tanza, 274 Lorton Avenue; January 27, 1986 from "A Small Business Owner"; January 27, 1986 from Mel K. Dollinger, Franciscan Builders, Inc., 306 Lorton Avenue; Raymond M. Phillips, The Quartermaster, 304 Lorton Avenue; Helen C. Trueblood, Watermasters, 306 Lorton Avenue. Discussion: restaurant regulation on Burlingame Avenue; staff advised applicant has stated the major part of their business is take-out; number of employees and number of seats, suggested conditions would limit employees to 50 full and part time and 74 seats (the number of Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 seats in the existing restaurant); how was the figure of 350 customers daily at the existing restaurant arrived at? Allan Palmer, Architectural Dimensions, designer of the project, directed attention to a perspective and elevations of the proposed building, it is not a typical Taco Bell image but one aimed at blending into the community; drawings of projects installed in other cities in the area were also displayed. His comments: the existing use is a restaurant which does have take-out service; parking is an issue, their traffic study addresses this. He noted several corrections to previous information and to the traffic study which included: more realistic figures for projected customers daily would be 550 weekdays, 650 weekends; they wished to revise the fixed seating figure to 86 seats; the beauty shop which they are taking over is required for kitchen area and will not be used to increase the seating area; in some of the tables in the traffic study time is listed in thousands (military time) instead of standard time; on page 11 of the study the title should read "Evening Peak Hour Trip Data", not "Reviewing . . ."; on page 12, #2, third item, the ITE should read "High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant". He addressed the suggested conditions: #1 was acceptable, #2 was acceptable, he would request increased seating to 86 seats in Condition #3. Nick Bevilacqua, traffic engineer, Architectural Dimensions, discussed his traffic survey and projected traffic generation report: traditional sources were not adequate, a field survey was conducted in Burlingame at several restaurants in order to obtain the data needed during the hours of 11:00 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.; people were counted in 15 minute quarters, lunch time peak and afternoon peak were calculated, the surveyors counted personal trips; selected interviews were conducted to determine those who came to the area solely to eat and if they drove. It was determined peak hour for these restaurants is midday, 15-25% drove to eat only. With a formula created for this study the following was determined: average group size was 1.6 which would be 8.4 people at peak hour, this is 8.4 trip ends, in and out it would be 16 trips. Their conclusion: Taco Bell would generate approximately 16 trip ends or 32 vehicle trips (one every two minutes), parking spaces needed during peak hour for Taco Bell would be 16 spaces. There is some correlation between number of seats and traffic generated, with more seating there would be fewer trips. Take-out service is not expected to be much over 20%; take-out occurs up and down Burlingame Avenue, some restaurants do have rear exits with parking in back. Mr. Bevilacqua stated he did not notice double parking on Burlingame Avenue the day the survey was taken and he was able to find parking; he looked at the parking lots, many of the employees interviewed parked there. Responding to Commissioner question, he confirmed he was on Architectural Dimensions' staff and this was not an independent study. Commission/applicant discussion: regarding San Diego data in the report, these are isolated restaurants surrounded by their own parking, they would generate more customers from the traffic flow; Burlingame's Taco Bell would not generate as much; patronage by high school Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 students would not be at peak hour; the restaurant will open at 10:30 A.M.; the formula used to arrive at 32 peak hour vehicle trips for Taco Bell would apply to all restaurants surveyed on Burlingame Avenue; CE commented such a study gives an idea on the order of magnitude of vehicle trips in a sample business district; availability and proximity of parking determines the success of a business district; the over- whelming problem in this area now is parking. Brent DeMasquita, Operations, Calny, Inc., stated they hire locally, employees average 35-50 in total, 15 employees at any given shift (lunch or dinner), they have many part time employees, full time are much less than other businesses; at the San Francisco Taco Bell parking is difficult and businesses in the area use this restaurant for lunch; in Burlingame high school students would generate a peak at 3:00 P.M ; the more seating a restaurant has the more people will stop by and eat on site; average eating time is 10-12 minutes. With regard to the double parking problem they would be happy to have an employee outside asking people not to double park, they have done this in some locations. Full time maintenance service is provided. Tytus Boleslawski, Architectural Dimensions, reiterated Taco Bell will generate 16-32 trips; with maximum capacity only so many cars can stop and working people nearby will return; 16-32 trips is not that staggering, any business at that location would impact parking and generate trips; the city will be getting a new member of the community wishing to help; this is no different than what exists on the site now, traffic impact would not be much greater. Commission comment: restaurants generate a different type of traffic, the area is impacted the greatest at noontime; existing restaurant has slow, sit down business, Taco Bell is geared to high turnover. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Gordon Hosking, 1461 Bernal Avenue; Joseph Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue; Tony Taylor, 1406 Burlingame Avenue; Bill Smith, 1110 Burlingame Avenue; June Hoffman, 1116 Burlingame Avenue; Edith May, 1348 Drake Avenue; Isabel de Paz (owner of store on Primrose Road). Their concerns: traffic and parking impacts, litter/garbage, loitering. Comments included: Burlingame Avenue is a 'special' street; the nature of a fast food restaurant is not compatible with the Avenue, presently there are special restaurants with their own ambience, bringing in a 'plastic' type restaurant would not be in keeping with this street; if Taco Bell is allowed, what next; the numbers presented cannot be correct, believe many more meals will be served than what was indicated; if the existing restaurant were serving 350 meals a day they would not be leaving; La Pinata serves 350 dinners an evening with 175 seats. Audience comments continued: the restaurant ordinance does not preclude expansion of restaurants but the reason Taco Bell needs the extra space is to accommodate a kitchen facility for take-out food; would not object to a regular sit down restaurant at this location; there is Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 not enough parking for a take-out restaurant in this city, a severe parking problem exists now; difficult to find one parking space presently, there will not be 16 available; the new gym on Donnelly will have a more difficult time finding parking for its patrons, there is no long term parking, where will employees park; can live with one fast food operation, but no more; doubt the validity of their study, one day is not enough; if Taco Bell's business is dependent on people who must park there aren't any places; there is no parking on Primrose at 7:00 A.M. now; a restaurant needs an enclosed garbage area; that block has trash problems now because of its proximity to the high school; concern about impact on other businesses on Lorton, often sweep the sidewalk myself; food from existing take-out restaurants goes home or back to an office, Taco Bell would not be the same. Mr. Palmer spoke in rebuttal: can understand the community's concern; this is not a take-out facility, it is a restaurant with take-out service; will keep the block clean, it is one of the conditions of approval; have no comment on youth, we all were teenagers at one time; there is a trash area in the building with four walls but no roof, it is totally isolated; parking is the major issue, area is impacted now and probably will not be more impacted by Taco Bell; if 16 spaces are not available there will be 16 less people who visit the restaurant; Taco Bell is basically a service for the office area nearby and shoppers, they are not trying to bring traffic into the area. Responding to Commissioner question, Mr. Palmer stated garbage will be brought to the street in the morning for collection, Taco Bell's staff will clean up whatever is left at 10:30 A.M. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: this is not a change of use, it is an intensification of use; these 16 customers will take parking from retail customers in the area; there are no figures for trip ends which include employees per shift. There was no further Commission discussion and Chm. Garcia continued this item for action on February 10, 1986. Recess 10:55 P.M.; reconvene 11:00 P.M. 7. THREE VARIANCES FOR AN OFFICE ADDITION AT THE 1361 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE CORPORATION YARD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request for three variances: to extend the addition up to the front property line, to allow the addition without providing any additional on-site parking and to allow less than 10% landscaping. She discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter and justification for the variances, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 Commission discussion/comment: possibility of moving the gates farther out to the left and right in order to provide room at the side for the expansion; CE stated this would be a problem as visitors and city cars and trucks park there during the day and night, need space for access to the repair bay and maneuvering space on the side; possibility of adding a loft; CE did not think this would be practical; have not voted for any front setback infringement in this area, would rather see cars parked in the front setback than a fence; CE advised there is a 2-1/2' rise and parking cannot be located there; perhaps the city should set a better example. CE commented they had studied the situation thoroughly with the hope of putting the addition somewhere else; one big problem was that the office area needs to be close to the telemetering equipment for frequent access. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. Tom Heaton, 1906 Easton Drive spoke in opposition: this is an older area with structures built to the sidewalk; think it is a poor plan for the city to add to the problem. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Stating he thought there were other ways to handle this addition, C. Graham moved for denial of the variances. Second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: this whole area is built out to the curb, don't believe the city should suffer with disruption of its whole operation; if City Council decides it is a problem for the city they can make the decision. On roll call motion received a 3-3 vote, Cers Schwalm, Taylor, Garcia dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Application effectively denied. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEMS FOR STUDY 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA FOR A PROPOSED AUTO SALES/SERVICE FACILITY AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHICH WILL CAUSE BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 35', PROPERTY ZONED C-2 9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (PTN. LOT 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 13, SUPP. TO TOWN OF BURLINGAME Staff had two concerns: a clarification of the height of the building from top of curb to top of parapet and how the parking plan will work for employee spaces is unclear. Employee spaces should be designated and cannot be placed in a tandem configuration. This could lead to a redesign of the structure. Applicant should clarify. Items set for hearing February 10, 1986. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 20, 1986 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary