The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About770 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 11.10.1997, �l � - �_ ..i .� . r� v- �� 1 ' ' � ;� Bayside �� Plaza November 4, 1997 Ms. Margaret Monroe Department of City Planning 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 RE: The Purdy Building (770 Airport Boulevard) Dear Ms. Monroe: q--G�� c�1-...�i,y��j'l � �i� G ��y� 700 Airport Bivd. Burlingame California 94010 Tel: 415/579-2956 Fax: 41 5/579-4779 CUMMUNICaTiv� � f;�CElV£f� �FTER PREPkRATIOiJ � - ; :. � �F �►`AFF R�P�ft�' This letter is written in support of the proposed project at 770 Airport Boulevard. I am the owner of Bayside Plaza, which owns the adjacent property immediately to the south of the Purdy Building. The Gymboree Corporation has informed me that they have submitted drawings to the Planning Department that will require a special Permit and a Parking Variance. They have asked if I would be willing to support their application. Based on the previous tenant improvements that Gymboree has completed at the Purdy Building, there is no question that they are strongly committed to an appropriate and high quality end result. I am fully behind the ef%rt of Gymboree and support this application. I have also had discussions with Gymboree regarding the potential use of the existing paved area on my property for future tandem spaces. I am in support of this effort and have signed an agreement dated October 30, 1997, to this ef�'ect, should these additional spaces be needed. Should you have any questions, please feel free to ca11. ��e,�� tr,.:ly y�e�urs, � � � G� , �� Max C. Woo, Owner Bayside Plaza cc: Alan Katz Gymboree Corporation ��# �__,,,,_. NOV fl 5 1997 cirY oF au�! ir�.,�r;...._ PLANNING pE�7. �.a � City of Burlingame Special Permits & Parking Variance Address: 770 Airport Boulevard ITEM #4 Meeting Date: 11/10/97 Request: Special Permit for office area in excess of 20 % of the structure area. and for exception to the design guideline landscape requirements for Bayfront Development; and for a Parking Variance for dimension (unistall) at 770 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4 (C.S. 25.41.025(a), 25.41.025(fj, 25.070.020(a)(1)). Applicant: Owner: Alan M. Katz The Gymboree Corporation Mr. Martin Lin Burlingame Shore Investments Lot Area: 56, 850 SF APN: 026-342-270 General Plan: Office Use Zoning: C-4 Adjacent Development: Office, Hotel, Restaurant CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, and Class 1(c), Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities except where the activity will involve removal of a scenic resource including a stand of trees, a rock outcropping, or an historic building. Summary: The applicant, The Gymboree Corporation, is requesting a special permit to a11ow a structure with more than 20% ofiice area and for exception to the design guideline landscape requirements for Bayfront Development; and for a Parking Variance for dimension (unistall - 8'-6"W x 19'-0"L where 9'-0"W x 20'-0"L is required) for the conversion of an existing warehouse space to office use located at 770 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4. The existing 37,050 SF structure at 770 Airport Boulevard is two stories and contains office, warehouse and storage space. The front portion of the two story building contains two floors of office area which has already been remodeled. No work is proposed in this area. The rear portion of the building contains office and warehouse space on the first floor and storage and mechanical space on the second floor. The applicant is also proposing to remove a second floor steel framed storage area (4,653.5 SF) above the warehouse area which was installed without a building permit. After the removal of the storage area, the gross floor area of the building will be 32,296.5 SF. The applicant is proposing to remodel the office areas and convert the warehouse space (5,171.5 SF) into additional ofiice space. After the conversion and removal of the storage area, the total amount of office area in the structure will increase from 57.8% (21,367 SF) to 82% (26,538.5 SF where 20%, 6,479.3 SF is allowed). The C-4 zoning district requires that structures containing more than 20% office area obtain a special permit. There are 56 existing parking spaces on the site; the existing parking on the site is non- conforming. The conversion of 5,171.5 SF of warehouse area to office area requires an additional 13 parking spaces. The total parking requirement for the site is 69 spaces (56 existing + 13 spaces, ofiice conversion). � SpeCial Permits & Parking Variance i • I 770 Airport Boulevard The existing parking lot is proposed to be re-striped, and a total of 69 spaces will be provided (69 spaces required). There is a minimum 24'-5" back-up aisle proposed (24'-0" aisle required). All parking spaces except three disabled accessible spaces are proposed to be "unistall" parking spaces which measure 8'-6" x 19'-0" (9'-0" x 20'-0" standard space required). There is a recorded ingress/egress and parking easement on the right side of the property (adjacent to 700 Airport Boulevard) where 12 parking spaces are located. Parking is permitted in this easement. There is also an a'rea within the easement which is currently striped for tandem parking. The rear portion of the tandem parking spaces, only accessible through the parking spaces in front, is not included in the total number of spaces. The majority of changes are proposed to occur inside of the building. Proposed exterior changes include the removal of roll-up metal doors at the rear of the building which will be replaced by two banks of storefront windows. The windows will have black aluminum mullions and blue/grey reflective and frosted glass. New "punched" windows are proposed on the north side elevation. There are existing wall sconce light fixtures on the north and south side elevations which are not proposed to be altered. Other exterior changes include new air- handlers and skylights on the roof. For the proposed application, the parking layout does not affect existing landscaping. The height of the building is pxoposed to remain the same, however, the three new air handlers on the roof will extend approximately 6'-0" above the parapet (10'-0" above parapet allowed), and the five new skylights (6'-0" x 6'-0") will extend approximately 2'-0" above the top of the parapet (10'-0" above parapet allowed). As proposed, the air handlers and skylights will cover approximately 1.6%, 300 SF of the roof (5%, 934 SF allowed). The hours for the Gymboree Corporation are Monday - Friday, 7:00 am to 6:30 pm. The total number of present employees is 50 full-time. In the next 2-5 years the applicant anticipates 95 employees at this site (as a result of the remodel). It is anticipated that 5 employees will work after 5:00 pm, and approximately 10 people will work after 5:00 pm in the next 2-5 years. The applicant expects the number of visitors to double in the next 5 years from 5 to 10 per day. The applicant stated that when built out, a maximum of 75 people aze anticipated on the site at any one time, including visitors (69 parking spaces provided). The applicant indicated that the 75 employees is less than the maximum number of employees assigned to this location because of sick leave, travel, and partial telecommuting. Staff Comments: This application was reviewed by the Senior Engineer, Chief Building Ofiicial and the Fire Marshal. The .Chief Building Official and Senior Engineer noted in their September 29, 1997, memos that one of the three handicap parking spaces must be a van accessible space with an 8'-0" unloading space. The applicant has provided two handicap accessible spaces and one van accessible space as requested (plans date stamped October 14, 1997). The Fire Marshal indicated in his September 29, 1997 memo that an automatic fire sprinkler protection shall be modified to meet office design, and that all sprinkler work is to be done by a licensed sprinkler contractor. �J Speeial Permits & Parking Variance ,. a Planning staff would make several notes regarding this project application: 770 Airport Boulevard 1. After the study session, the applicant submitted three alternative parking layouts and indicated that the preferred layout is Alternate `1 which requires the reduction of 1,173 SF of landscaping and approval of 6 tandem parking spaces. 2. Staff has looked into what other cities have accepted proposals with unistall parking, and what their experience has been with the smaller sized spaces. Staff contacted the cities of Belmont, Menlo Park, Los Gatos, Sunnyvale, Redwood City and San Mateo. The cities of Belmont, Menlo Park, Los Gatos and San Mateo have adopted standards which allow 8'-6"W x 18'-0"L parking stalls as a standard size stall. Most of these cities adopted these standards between 1990 and 1996. None of the cities noted any problems or complaints associated with the reduced size of the space, however, since some of the regulations were adopted as late as 1996, some of the cities have not had projects built to the new standards. Sunnyvale has adopted a parking space standard of 8'-6"W x 18'-0"L for industrial development, but still requires 9'-0"W x 18'-0"L spaces for office and commercial development. Redwood City has approved several major office developments using the unistall design (8'-6"W x 19'-0"L), including the Oracle office development. Their experience has been that this concept has been successful for large office developments which have Transportation System Management (TSM) programs. Redwood City staff would not recommend the unistall standard for a commercial development with higher turnover such as retail use. One limitation of the unistall approach is that there is no room left for increasing the number of parking spaces by further reducing space size if there should be a problem or change of use in the future. 3. Staff would note that a parking usage survey was undertaken by the applicant at the site for the weeks of September 8-12 and September 15-19. The applicant indicated that these weeks were typical for the Gymboree Corporation. He also stated that at the present time, based on the current levels of staffing in the building (50 full-time employees), the maximum number of existing parking spaces used has varied on any given day between 21 and 30, out of a total available of 56 spaces. The time that the survey was performed each day was 11:00 am. 4. Staff would note that if Alternate 2 is selected as a preferred alternative (identified in the Korve Engineering memo, October 31, 1997) either a revised easement agreement is required to allow the applicant to park cars in the east easement (the easement recorded is an ingress/egress easement) or a variance is required for the total number of parking spaces for the site. � � Special Permits & Parking Variance . , • 1 ZONING REQUIREMENTS - 770 AIRPORT BOULEVARD 770 Airport Boulevard APPLICATION DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 14, 1997 PROP05ED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQUIRED ��:��c�E:;':;::;:::>::;:«;:>:<:<:::;:::<:'::;:;;:;:;::::;< ::::::::::::::;::::<::<:::�;�;>::>::>::::»»»::>�':::<:::>�:::>::»>::»>::::>�::»::»>; �:;;:>::::<:»»�:>:;::;<:»:::>::::::::>::::>::::::>::::>::::>:::<:>:<:>::::::::>::>::s::>:::;>s;:�::>:<:»::::::::::>:<:::>::::>'>::::::>::::»::»>::>::>:�<;<:>::>::>::>:<:»:<:>;:«<::::> � �T� .::.... . . ....: ::•:: . ....: �:: � :::::::: :�: :•:: :::::•::::. � ::.>��::.>;:.>:::.;:;:::• . O,�'f'ice *1 - 26,538.5 SF 21,367 SF Office - 6,479.3 SF 82 % 57.8 % 20 % Warehouse 0 SF 5,171.5 SF Storage 5,087 SF 9740.5 SF Tota1 5087 SF - 2nd Floor Storage 4653.5 SF (Steel framecl storage - 2nd floor) Mechanical 771 SF 771 SF Total Bldg 32,296.5 SF 37,050 SF _ ... .. ........... _........._...... ........ ............._.._..... _..._............._........ ...............__......... .... ................__................ .. ................................._ ............................................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................... ...................................................... .................................................................................................. ............................................................. ......................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ';:P;A;RKSNG<:::;::::«:;::>::::>:<::::<:::::::<:::>:> :;>::>`<:::::>::;:<:::>::::::>:::::::::«><:>::::»;::>::::>::::::>::::>:>::::::>:;:>::>:>::::>::::;:>::::>::>::::>::»::»»::»>::>::::>::::»::>;:>::>::»::»::»:::<:> :::::::::::::»�:::::>;::::;::::::»::::>::>::::::::>:::::<:;::>::<><<::>::::::::»::»::>::; ................................................................................................................ .............................. ............................................................. ................................................................................................... ..... .............................................................. ........................................................... Standard 0 44 55 9'-0 "W x 20'-0" Unistall *2- 66 0 0 8'-6"W x 19'-0 "L Compact 0 9 11 8'-0 "W x 17'-0 "L Handicap 3 3 3 Parking 1 of which must be van accessible Total Spaces 69 56 69 * 1 Special Permit required for a structure which contains more than 20 % office area, 82 % office area requested. *2 Variance required for parking dimension, unistall - 8'-6"W x 19'-0" spaces requested (9'-0"W x 20'- 0"L required) All other zoning requirements have been met. 4 � Special Pe»nits & Parking Variance 770 Airport Boulevard , Study Questions: This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 27, 1997. The Commission had questions regarding the proposed parking plan for the site. The applicant hired Korve Engineering (traffic) to address some of the Commission's concerns. A detailed report addressing the Commission's questions is attached which includes other parking alternatives for the site (Korve Engineering memo, October 31, 1997). Korve Engineering stated that by removing the roll-up doors at the rear of the building, two additional parking spaces can be provided along the edge of the building. Removing the roll- up doors would also allow angled parking in the east easement area. provided the easement agreement could be revised to allow it. The applicant stated that the building at 770 Airport Boulevard is proposed for office use only with a maximum of 95 employees on-site after the remodel. Because of vacation, absences, and business travel, the applicant anticipates a maximum of 75 people on the site at any one time. This figure includes both employees and visitors to the site. Korve Engineering stated that the ITE's Parking Generation Manuel has established a rate of 0.79 parking stalls for every employee at an office site. The studies performed by ITE included parking that would be required by both employees and visitors, however, the rate was established using only employees as the independent variable. Based on these rates, a site with 95 total employees should provide 75 parking spaces. The applicant performed a parking survey for the existing building (50 employees, 56 parking spaces) for the weeks of September 8-12 and September 15-19. Korve Engineering commented that the studies found between 21 and 30 parked vehicles in the lot during the peak morning parking accumulation period. In a lot with 56 spaces, these observations represent 38% and 54% occupation respectively. The existing number of employees on the site is approximately 50. Thirty occupied parking spaces for 50 employees is a parking ratio of 0.60 spaces per employee. The parking ratio is less than the 0.79 noted in ITE's Parking Genera.tion Manuel. Korve Engineering also commented that unlike the demand for other land-uses, office parking demand generally does not vary by the season of the year. Korve indicated that some studies have suggested a slightly higher rate of absenteeism during the summer and year-end holiday seasons. However, they noted that most work has found a relatively constant rate of parking throughout the year for ofiice land use. The applicant stated that the nature of the business in this particular building will be office use only. He indicated that the following uses are expected to occur in the remodeled office building: finance, construction, real estate, franchise play programs and mailroom use. The applicant indicated that a maximum of 10 visitors the entire day may visit the site. He stated that typically, a maximum of 2 or 3 visitors would be at the site at one time. The applicant also stated that no training or instructional classes will be held at this location. Currently there are no TDM programs on the site. Korve Engineering has suggested Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques which they think would work well at 770 Airport Boulevard such as encouraging carp000ling by employees, economic incentives, subsidizing transit fare, providing bicycle facilities on-site, and appointing a TDM coordinator � Speeial Pernuts & Parking Variance ,, . 770 Airport Boulevard for the site. They indicated that the TDM coordinator would coordinate the program for both the project site at 770 Airport Boulevard and for the approximately 175 employees at 700 Airport Boulevard. Korve stated that the larger the pool of employees in a TDM program, the better the chances of finding carpool matches to reduce parking and traffic. The TDM coordinator would work with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff to finalize the TDM plan. In addition to implementing a TDM program, the applicant is proposing to make use of the existing tandem parking spaces on the site. The tandem parking spaces are located in the south side easement where parking is a permitted use. Korve Engineering suggested that in order to facilitate the use of these spaces the applicant should provide a board inside the building where those who have parked in the outer tandem parking spaces could note their name. Thus, when an inner car vehicle need to leave, they would know who to contact to get the appropriate vehicle moved. Korve indicated that the parking spaces should be used by employees who know one another's schedules so that the spaces may be used in the most efficient manner. Korve Engineering has provided a chart which illustrates the weekday office parking accumulation (Table 1, Weekday Office Parking Accumulation). Korve stated that parking at offices generally peaks for two hours between 10:00 am and 12:00 noon. They stated that this two hour peak accumulation corresponds with the 11:00 am field survey conducted at the site. The survey was conducted to determine peak parking dernand for the existing use. The parking accumulation is generally greater than 90 % of the peak for the period between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm, coinciding with standard working hours. They stated that office parking lots are little used for the remainder of the day. Korve Engineering also provided a table which illustrates the weekday office trafiic flow (Table 2, Weekday Office Trafiic Flow, attached). Korve Engineering stated that the information provided in the table is typical for standard office use, and that Gymboree would be expected to exhibit the same characteristics. Korve stated that the percentage of vehicular trafiic which would occur for a typical office is characterized by peaks during the morning and evening commute periods. He stated that traffic flow throughout the day between peak periods is generally flat as individuals travel to and from the site on business and for lunch. The table provided indicates that the highest traffic flow occurs during am and pm peak hour periods, 13 % and 14 % respectively. For the hours adj acent to the pea.k, similar, but lower, percentages occur. At other hours of the day, the percentage of trafiic flow is relatively small, often less than 5 % . Korve Engineering provided three parking alternatives for the site. The plans are labeled Alternate l, Alternate 2, and Alternate 3. A summary of the three alternatives compared to the original submittal (plans date stamped October 14, 1997) and to parking requirements is provided in table format on the next page (Parking Alternatives, 770 Airport Boulevard). The applicant has provided a more detailed description of each item in the attached memo (Korve Engineering memo, October 31, 1997). 6 ' SpeCial Pe»nits & Parking Variance 770 Airport Boulevard ' PARKING ALTERNATIVES - 770 AIRPORT BOULEVARD :. »:::: :>::>::>::>:::::::::::>::::>::> ;;>:: :: � <:»<:<>::>:>;::>.::.:;<:: . T1s�'``:::::>>::>:>:;::»>::>::: `°:`:' Alternat�v� Z Alternat�ve� .A1ter.n�t�Ye.�.: .:� l��at�ett....: .R� u►r..edf `°:;::: yl��p . :::::. :::::::.....: :.. ... � ...........::::::.::.::.....:. i�? ii`>�I:l: ��:i1'�� :,�,:>�;;<.;;;,�;?�;;;.;;,:;;:;i:�i��;;+;i:i:ii:i;i;i:i;:i�'ii:iiii:i:iiii:i>!i;3�;i!i!'?i:'' �'ll :i:: i:iiii.:: • ; 'i':i:;i;:i:;:::i:i::':: � �� , ::: .. �.:> :::.:::: :. .::: ..:::. .::::::: .:: �..: .:::: :.::.::::::;::::::: : �.>: »�.::;>�.:�:;:.>:;.>: � �.. ,;�.>;: c;. r:;::.::::.»>:.:::. . ..: >:.j;iiiii:ii;ii;`�i i;i:iiiii:iiiii i:iii:iiiii;i:;ii;iiii.i:.iiiii;:i:iiii;iii:iiiii:i::;;ii ii: 'i:.;:i:;:i'rir'ri;iii;iiii::i:,::..:iii;'<:.'•ii ;:>::>;:>::. . .. . ...��...�/� . .::... :: : ... ...Q�i'��. ....... ....... .:::::::.. .. : . ": :... :... ::::; �,:.;:: ;: .:.:::.::: :::;:::::::::::::::: .::: PARKING Unistall 72 73 0 66 0 S'-6" X 19'-0" Standard 0 0 57 0 55 9'-0" x 20'-0" (based on 69 total spaces) Compact 0 0 13 0 11 (basecl on 69 8�-0 ° x 17' -0 ° total spaces) Tandem 6 6 6 0 0 Disabled 3(incl 1 van) 3(incl 1 van) 3(incl 1 van) 3(inci 1 van) 3(incl 1 van) ACCesSible (basecl on 69 total spaces) Total Parking 81 82 79 69 69 (75 - not incl. (76 - not incl. (73 - not incl. (no tandem) (no tandem) tandem) tandem) tandem) LANDSCAPING 8,756 SF 8,756 SF 8,756 SF 8,756 sF 8,528 sF (8,756 SF existing) -1.173 sF (No removal -1.268 SF (No removal 7,583 SF proposecl) 7,488 SF proposecl) SOUTH SIDE ' 12 Unistall 12 Unistall 12 Unistall 12 Unistall Parking is allowed EASEMENT 6 Tandem 6 Tandem 6 Tandem in this easement (Ingress/Egress, Parking) EAST REAR No parking 9 spaces No parking No parking Parking is not EASEMENT proposecl in this (anglecl spaces - proposecl in this proposecl in allowecl in this (Ingress/Egress) easement 45°) easement this easement easement This easement is for ingress/ egress only. COMMENTS 1. Parking 1. Parking 1. Special 1. Parking Variance for Variance for Pernut for less Variance for dimension dimension than 15 % dimension (unistall) (unistall) landscaping for (unistall) 2. Special 2. Parking the site � Permit for less variance for 2. than 15 % number of Encroachment landscaping for spaces (parking permit for the site not alloweci in parking spaces south easement) 38,39,40 Korve Engineering recommends that Alternative 1 providing 72 unistalls, 3 disabled accessible spaces, and 6 tandem spaces (81 total parking spaces) be implemented. However, they also recommend that the 6 spaces near Airport Boulevard in the existing landscaped area not be installed initially. Korve recommends that a monitoring program be undertaken to determine if these spaces are necessary. If these spaces are not installed, the total number of spaces for 7 ` SpeCial Permits & Parking Variance 770 Airport Boulevard ' Alternative 1 will be reduced to 75 spaces, 6 of which are in tandem configuration (69 spaces required) and a special permit will not be required for the reduction in site landscaping. Korve Engineering further recommends the use of the unistall parking space (8'-6" x 19'-0") and the TDM program outlined above. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for a structure containing more than 20 % office area and for exception to the design guideline landscape requirements for Bayfront Development the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a parking variance for dimension (unistall) the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hazdship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Afiirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested special permit for a structure containing more than 20 % office area, for exception to the design guideline landscape requirements for Bayfront Development (if Alternatives 1 or 3 are chosen); and a parking variance for dimension (unistall and tandem if Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 are chosen). The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 8 1. that the project sha11 be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 14, 1997, Sheet A0.1 (General Notes & Legends), Sheet A0.2 (Site Plan), Sheet A2.la (Building Floor Plans), and Sheet A5.2 (Exterior Elevations); 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Ofiicial and Senior Engineer, September 29, 1997 memos, (requiring that one of the three handicap parking spaces shall be a van accessible space with an 8'-0" unloading space) shall be met; and that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 29, 1997 memo (an automatic fire sprinkler protection shall be modified to meet office design and all fire sprinkler work shall be done by a licensed sprinkler contractor) sha11 be met; 3. that the TDM Management Strategies identified in the Korve Engineering Memo (October 31, 1997) shall be implemented at the site and also incorporate the Gymboree employees at 700 Airport Boulevard within 90 days of this project's approval, and an annual report on TDM progress sha11 be submitted by the TDM coordinator to the Planning Department by January 1 of each year; . 4. that no classes, workshops or training sessions sha11 occur at this location; 5. that the ofiice shall not be open for business except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p. m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum of 95 employees assigned to this site; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Kristin Johnson Planner c: Gymboree Corporation, Applicant 9 Ci�y'of Buriingdme Planning Commission Minutes APPLICA N FOR AN AMENDMENT TO S: AND TO ALL W A SNACK SHOP AT AN E ZONED C-2, ( L DESIGN GROUP, INC., October 27, 1997 PERMIT TO ADD 3 P NG SPACES GAS STATION AT 1101 OADWAY, CANT AND CHEVRON , INC., Requests: Parking space n ber 2 appears to be located whe the air pressure gage and radiat�r water are placed, will they be r ocated; does the proposed parkin ace number 3 work, would the licant please explain how; it is rd to see the location and sizes o the proposed parking spaces, wo d the applicant submit a new se f plans showing the proposed p ing spaces more clearly. There ere no other questions and the ite was set for the meeting of Nove er 10; 1997, providing the infor tion was available in time for pr ration of that packet. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE AREA IN EXCESS OF 20 % OF THE %� STRUCTURE AND A PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AT 770 AIRPORT BLVD., ZONED C-4, (THE GYMBOREE CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND BURLINGAME SHORE INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: the impact of removing the roll up doors on the parking layout and use should be evaluated and presented; usage of the on site parking is not clear, it will have a big impact given the request, a more thorough survey of user peaks, including seasonal differences in usage, should be completed and presented; what is the nature of the business, why will there be so many more visitors; the parking needs study presented was based on current use, no explanation of what they will do to compensate for the fact that they do not have one parking space on site for each employee, do they have TSM programs or some other method to reduce the need for on site parking; if there are going to be 75 employees there then they should have some kind of guesstimate for the arrivals and departures, flow of traffic, on and off the site; is the survey the extreme case; are there other alternatives to unistall dimensioning to meet parking needs on site, there appears to be some room next to the retaining wall of the building to the east, there is tandem parking on the site which might be incorporated into a solution. The applicant should discuss alternatives. There were no other questions and the item was set for hearing on November 10, 1997, providing the information was available in time for preparation of that packet. ACTION ITEMS ROADC ZONE F RR1,� (JAMES CHUD APPL SANT AND JOHNCD.AAN 33 DEBORAH M Reference staff report, .27.97, with attachments. C Monroe discussed the reques , reviewed criteria, Planning Departm t comments, and study mee ' g questions. Two conditio s were commended for consideratio Is the deck shown at the rear f the property 3 feet off the g und, st indicated that the applicant ould be able to respond. Chair opened the public hearing. John and Deborah Pivirotto p erty owners and Ferdinand DeVera f James Chu Design and En ' eering office, presented the p'ect. The applicant noted -2- /4r� CiT Ow ' BURLJN('AMC CITY OF BURLINGAME �! ~- � APPLICATION TO TI� PLANI�TING CONIlVIISSION ��:: Type of Application: � Special Permit '✓ Variance Other Project Address: �� -(t2P�!'Z� (�c'vt�, Assessor's Parcel Number(s): �2� � 3�f 2- 27n APPLICANT � PROPERTY OWNER /kG/� � M, K�4 i�- 8v�.�� w� �►,�.� s(+�►� tNv�s7r11� wT� . Name: TH7'� �r�'try► �i-FF GorzpovL/+'T � o t� Name: M R-. 1Z� A-r�-T � iJ L1 tJ Address: � a 8 lkl 12�0 (z-T F3 t,vU - City/State/Zip:__pvvc2(.�rv�,i�+'►`tr;�G�I-� R�6�o x�;,r�� (w}: 6Sbj646-74L7� , Address:__21 �1 //? ✓/ruc, ST, �/7� Zo! City/State/Zip:_ �Y� Ff��t�� `� �fl2z Ph�,;�e (-w) : �f � S/ S6 h— 3 Z3 "� �h�: , fax: 6 5a/G �G - 7�52 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER J, �t��-FFYL. ��'N�vIE, Jn-- A IA Name: � F Nbv 1�-i- M� i� i� Address: 31 S I�IvLI�+o p/�lv� City/State/Zip: SA-r� �n�uS-u� , Gea� , �jy�/2� Phone (w):_-__�/S 33�- 66�3 (h): N /� ' � �� a�T 0 2 1997 fax: �iIS�337- 60�.1. ciT� o� Bu��v�ar,�� PLANfVI�G DEF'T. PROJECT DESCRIP'rION: T�W/d-tiU? !1`-'iP(1vv�f24�w j S Ti� �� ('��s7'�uc�5 I3utc�u�iw'C�J )n�Gt-ubiru� A��G�s s,F. �k+�-w�� o� r�sr— �-ow�. w,� I-�vs� 7� o�c.� �7p I�� .%(+L 1/4//!�6?_lL ( dUGt�ulOtzS �— S TVLI ►n1 �i Tli-�.. !� AiZk-i t+�1� j=oV+-. Tff-Iz G(kG4-W�i fi 0� US�, AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (.rr�-� � q Z 3 9 Applicant's Signature ate I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. � _ %-2s�—i% Property Owner's Signature Date ---------------------------------------------- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------------------ Date Filed• Fee: rn>: - fax: �I S/Sb 6 - 7655 � Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: re �r� °* ' 01JRIJNQI.M[ COIVIlVI�RCIAL APPLICATIONS ��..:.,�.•�'' PLAI�TNING COMIVIISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMF.NTAL FORM 1. 2. 3. 4. Proposed use of the site. �40 M I N t ST(L�1-T l Ur, c5 ��i c�— Days and hours of operation. M o r� �aY — Fl�� e/��{ � 7: Do A rvl �tv 6: 3 o n Y�1 Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). 57��A-�Q or—r�� Lof��iw�, /vn� c.dPr�o � v�G Cunent and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of 7:oaAM- After AM- After AM- After Operation 6��PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays Full-time 5�� 50� 5� � 5 � o o— q S q S /0 4 S Part-time -- — — — — — Weekends Full-time 5 p 14 p /� O Part-time — — — � -- — 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays 5 � 1� U l� v Weekends _ -- — — — — 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): SF F— /�"j-T��-k+E� 7. : � Where do/will the owner & employees pazk? �7 E?� t S T l�� f',4u-� v� �� i Where do/will customers/visitors park? �.c� E!�-w �� I,�b �7F 1Uz) C,c�sTowt �►'LS u► S I 7 o Vz� w i w p l� �z 1�N G� u.� F�A-t� s T r�-t�.-s Present or most recent use of site. � D M 11� �S1 �A-1 � v� o�G � L� 10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if necessary). Now�� 5�w� -r-�w/�w j , " � . . COMMERCIAL APPLICATION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM Item #6 � � When built out; a maximum of 75 people on site are expected at any given time. This includes visitors. This is less than the maximum number of employees at this location � due to vacation, sick leave, travel, and partial telecommuting. . ' At the present time, the maximum number of existing parking spaces utilized has varied on any given day between 21 and 30, out of a total available of 56 spaces. This is based ' , �, on a survey completed over the weeks of September 8-12 and September 15-19. These � weeks are typical for The Gyinboree Corporation. The time that this survey was performed was at 11:00 each day. . � ` J � � c�Tv �r o� BURLINGAME . � � 1 �:ITY (i)F E�U�LIf��(��f�./IE ��Er.��,� PEr,r�niT ��c�T��•�� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or. lnjurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or con venience. SEE ATTACHED 2. 3. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT , s�ss ep.frm 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious`to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or conven/ence. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighborinp properties or structures on those properties7 If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping suniight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why wili the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare7 Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbaqe), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storape of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl �II alarm systems or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly �atherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). �eneral welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and developmentl Is there a social benefit7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT . Ask the Planning Department for the �eneral plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would "fit" accordingly. 3. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aestheiics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing neighborhood and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinity7 How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If chan�es to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighbo�hood7 If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existinp and potential uses in the peneral vicinity? Compare you� project with existin� uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,srez .P.r� n � CITY OF BURLINGAME � � SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. � - (see Variance Application--item "c") . . 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? � � The existing building is located in a C-4 zone, requiring a conditional use permit for office use. The proposal is to change the use of 5,675 S.F. from warehouse to office space: Office space is consistent with the land uses conditionally permitted within the Anza Area of the Speci�c Area Plan for the Burlingame Bayfront. Per the Specific Area Plan, "A balance of public and private uses of the area . would be ensured by developing a mix of hotels, restaurants, entertainment centers, office uses, and public parks." The conversion of warehouse to office would be consistent with this general intent. , ' As the building is existing, no changes to lot coverage, setbacks, public access, - � view corridors, or landscaping will occur. - _ - � . , � Additional off-street parking spaces will be provided on site at a standard parking . ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet that Gymboree is converting to office space. ' At the same time, we are subtracting parking spaces for the warehouse that we are eliminating at a standard ratio of 1 space per�1000 square feet. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass ,bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? . • (see Variance Application--item "d") �� SEP 2 41997 � ClTY OF QURLIf�,'GA;�IE PLANNING DEPT. �� CITY 0�. 6URLJNGAME � ' <� �°� i , n CIT1' OF EUFLING/�ME VA�IANCE ,�PPLIC�TIONS The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptiona! o� extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. SEE ATTACHED b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t f�om the denia/ of the application. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or con venience. ,'� How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinity? 12/92 var.frm a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to yo'vr property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. � , � Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area7 For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures7 How is this p�operty different from others in the neighborhood7 b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception7 li.e., having as much on-site parking or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site fo� the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property7 c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties7 If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installedl Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal►. _General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped7 d. Ho w wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, � bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood7 Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be mo�e traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. �zres,,.,.rr,,, CITY OF BURLINGAME � � VARIANCE APPLICATION � � . . �� , � . . , _ , . , �. , .� a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this,area. � ': , ' . . � , , - � ., . This p'roperty was existing at the time the 5pecific Area Plan was prepared in,1981. It �. ,,. was therefore grandfathered-in as office/warehouse, although the Specific Area Plan ' , designates the intended use for this site as office. The building itself presently includes � _ , 20,500 s.f. of office"space, 5675. s.f. of warehouse space and 6,200 s.f. of ' . � r�echanical/storage space., - • - � , � � � - , � - With the conversion of this spaee.to office, the entire building.F.A.R is ,56. Office .� construction in the Anza Area is designated to receive an allowable F.A.R, of .9. , ' �In addition to converting 5575 s:f. of warehouse to office, if should also be noted that as " , • part of the proposed w`ork; we ar.e permanently removing approximately 4,500 s,f. of � existing.metal flooring at the warehouse area. (See drawings for location of inetal deck to � , _be removed.) . . - . _ � � Also, this site is unusual in that we need only,to restripe the existing parking area to ,-• � � accommodate the required number of parking spaces for the change of use. - This work �' � � � will not require any additional paving and will leave the existing landscaping as it . � • presently is. , . , . - _ � - b. �xplain why the variance request is necessar,y for the preservation and enjoyment . of a substantial proper, ty right and what unreasonable property �oss or � ' �. � unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. , � The parking and trip generation requirements would appear to place an unreasonable . : . limitation on the development of this property. Under the present zoning, the owner of " . the property would be conditionally permitted to demolish tfie existing building and buil'd •' � ,�_ up to approximately 48,000 s.f. of office space witli assoc2ated,parking. This new . ' �, construction would be an increase of 28;500 s.f. over the existing. amount of office space� on the site. . � , , � , _ . � . , The present request, is to increase the office space by only 5,,575 s.f:, with associated � parking. It would appear unreasonabie to conditionally permit the site to be built-out to . -, - its maximum development potential, while not permitting.the property to be partially �, built-out through tenant improvements. . � � The assumptions in thetraffic analyzer were established as best guesses, but donot � necessarily reflect the actual conditions. It would be possible for the existing warehouse � � •.� portion of this building to have the same or higher per square foot occupancy density as general office ift�e warehouse was used to sort, pick and pack or assemble merchandise. _ � � . - _ � . . . - , . m The market doesn't support warehouse at this.location. It is virti�ally impossible to attract a tenant for approximately 5,700 square feet of warehouse in an area that is effectively (and by intent) surrounded by hotel, restaurant and office use. . ' We are also requesting that in lieu of a mix of full size and compact parking stalls, that the parking be restriped to allow for a unistall parking dimension. This modi�cation will permit--within the existing parking lot--the addition of 13 additional parking stalls associated with the conversion of warehouse to office. The proposed unistall size is 8'-6" x 19'-0". These proposed dimensions correspond to sizes typical of unistall parking spaces, and reflecf the parking habits of a typical driver. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will•not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. , Gymboree has held discussions with building owners at the properties contiguous with � the proposed project. Owners of both buildings, 111 Anza and 700 Airport Blvd. are supportive of these efforts, and take no exception to the proposed use or required parking variance. The proposed use will not be detrimental as it is consistent with the intended use of the property per the Specific Area Plan and is compatible with the surrounding buildings. Although we feel it.will not result in any noticeable change, it could be said that the drive area at the rear of the property is marginally safer, as there will be "eyes" looking out onto this "no man's zone". , - � . Parking spaces are being provided'at a parking ratio consistent with the proposed increase in office space. At this time, the building's parking spaces are typically only half used. With the increase"in parking spaces, we. will continue to have far more spaces than needed at this time. � d. How will tlte proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and � character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general ' vicinity? ' � Very little will change, as the work intended is primarily interior tenant improvements. , The intended changes to the exterior are documented on the drawings. The major change will be to eliminate two industrial roll up doors at the back of the building and replace them with glazing to match the black anodized mullions and reflective glass similar to the adjacent buildings. -Rooftop HVAC units will be provided and skylights will be introduced to allow light into the interior of the building. The exterior walls will not be changed. The existing landscaping will not be altered in the proposed scope of work. . � � -ro: �RQM' DA7�: sus��c�r: PROJCC'1' NO Introduction K�r�re �o ��:�`��i�'�C� OCT 3 �- 1997 �p�� CITY 0� BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. n��nc�R�Naunn Kristin Johnson, City of �urling�me f�lanning Department VIA �AX: 650-3�l2-8386 Dennis Struecker, PE Korve Engineering, inc_ October3l, 1997 Burlingame Use Permit - Parking Requiremenfs 4970H K4RV� Engineering, 1nc. {KQRV�) has assembled Ehe following infprmatlon to determine the par'king requirernents at 7717 Airport �oulevarti in the City of �urlingame. The information presented in this technical memarandum includes data on both the number of spaces required, and tl�e siall size of those spaces. The project p�oposes to convert 5,174 square feet of existing warehouse space into office space and use this office spaCe In ConjunCtion with the existing 2'1,367-square feet of office�space_-There areeurr�nt1y�56-parking�sp�ceson-th�site: Aspart of the proposed project, an additionaf 'i3 parking spaces h�ve been proposed, for a tota� of 69 spaces ot�-sit�. The City of Burlingame has suggested that a minimum of 75 parking spaces be provid�d. E�UStR�SS U3EDS After tl�e convetsion of warehduse space to offiice the following uses would be expected to occur on the site. No training or classes are inciuded in these us�s. � Finance (Existing Use) Construction (Proposed Use) REa1 �state (Proposed Use) Franchis� Play Programs (Pro�osed Use) Mailroom (P�oposed Use) A maximum af 10 visitors m�y occur thraugh an entire day. Typically, a maximum of two or three � l0 'd OL6Z86Z 80b 'ON Xd.� 950f NdS ��N� �I1�Ox OZ �£ i I�� l6-i E-,L�O Gymboree �ffice OGtob�r �1, 1997 Page 2 visitors would occur at ar�y one time. parkl�g Requiresne��ts Based on city requirements of one parking stal! for every 300 square feet of o�ee space and one parking stal[ for every 1,OpQ square feet of warehausing space, the proposed conversion should provide an additional 13 parKing s#a(Is, This calcul�tion is b��d on the requirements for the new o�c� sp�ce I�s� th� requir�m�t�ts forfh� exi�ting warehousing space ta b� repiac�d. 7h� 5,�'�1 square f�et of new office space wouid �equire 17,24 new parking st�lls�, however, the warehousing to 6e replaced required 5.'17 parking stalls, resulfing in the net addition of 12.07 or 13 new spaces wh�n rounded up. Standr�rd �ark3ng R�tes 7he City of Burtingame's parking requtrements are generally consist�nt with published national rates. The Institute of Transportation Engineer's Parking Genera�ion Manual, Second Edition suggests a rate of one parking stall for every 360 square feet of office space while the Urban �and (n5titute's Shared Parl�ing public�tion suggests a r2te of one parking stalf for every 300 square fe2# of office space. �or the warehousing land use, the ITE manual suggests a rate af one sp�ce for every 2,000 square feet. 8ased on the rates in eith�r Qf these publications, the additiona! parking proposed as part of the project app�ars to be adequate. It has becn established by Gymboree Carporation that a maxirnum of 95 employees will b� located at 770 Airport Boulevard. Because of vacation, absences, and business travel, a maximum of 75 people are exp�ected on-site at any one tim�. This figure Incfudes both employees and vlsitors to the site. The ITE's Parking �eneration Manual has established a rate of 0.79 parking stalls for every employee at an o�ce site. The studies performed by iTE included the parking that wauld be required by both employees and visitors, however, the rate was established using only employees as the independent variable. Based on these rates, a site with 95 tot�! employees should provide '�5 parking spaces. Site specific studies were performed on the existing parking lot's occupancy ciuring the weeks of September 8 through 12 and Septemb�r 15 through '19. These studies found between 2� and 30 parked vehlcles in the lot during the peak mprning parking accumulation period. In a lot with 56 spaces, these db$�rvations represent 38 and 54 percent occupatiQn respecti�ety. The existing riumber of employees on site is approximately 50. Thirty occupied p�rking spaces for 50 emptoyees is a parking ratio af 0.60 spaces per employee. This parking ratio is less than the O.i9 noted in I'I"�'s Parking Genelation Manual. � Daily and S�asonat ParkinfllTraffic Variation� Unlike the demand for most other land-uses, office parKing demand generally dQes not vary by the s�ason of the year. Some studies have suggested � 5lightiy higher rate of absenteeism during ZO'd OL6Z86� B0� 'ON Xd� �SOf NdS ��N� �t1�Ox OZ,£i I�� L6-i£-�L�O Gymboree Office Uctober 31, 1997 Pac�e 3 the sum�tter and ye�r-end holiday seasons. However, most work has found a relatively constant rate of parking throughput the year for the office land-use. Tab1e 1 presents a summary of the standard hourly parking accumulation as a percentage of the peak hour for the otfice land-use. Pa�king at offices generally peaks for the two hours between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon_ This two�hour peak accumulation period corresppnds with the 11:00 am fi�id survey conducted at the site. The survey was c4nducted to determine peak parking demand for the existing use_ The parking accumulation is g2neraliy greater than 90 percent of #he peak far the period between 8:00 a.m. �nd 4:00 p.m., Colnciding with standard working hours. Office parking lots are little used far the remainder of the day. Table 1 Veekday Office Parking Accumulation Haur of Day 6:00 a.m, 7:00 a.m. 8;00 a.m, 9:00 �.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:p0 noGn Porcentage of �e�k Parking Accumutatlon 3% . 20% 63% - ---- .. �_....�._. 93% '100% 1Q0% 90% 90% 97% 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 6:0o p.m. 7:00 p.m. S:oq p.m. 9:00 p.m. 90:00 p.m. 93% 77% 47% 23% 7% 7% 3% 3% Source: The Urban Land Institute, Shared Parking, 1983 £0 'd OL6z86Z 80ti 'ON Xd.� �SOf NdS ��N� �f1�Ox iZ;£j I�.� L6-i£-,L�O , Gymbore� Office October 31, 1997 Page 4 Tabie 2 illuskra►es a breakdown of dffice traffic flow by hour of the day. The percentage of v�I�i�liE�� t��c which would �C�ur f�r � typi��l affice is ct�ar�cte�iz�d by peaks during the moming and evening commute periods. 7raffic flow throughout the day between peak periods is generally flat as Individuais travel to and from the site on business and for lunch. The information contafned ir� Ta�l� � is typica( for standard dffice uses. 7he Gymboree project would b� expected to exhibit these sarne characteristics. The highest percentage of traffic flow occurs during the AM and 1'M p��k Nour p�riod�, i3 �nd ��4 p�t�ent, re�pectively. For the hours acl)ac��it t� ti�� p��k, s'rrnil�r, but lower, percentages occur. At othsr hours of the day, the percent�ge of traffic flow Is Yelatively smali, otten less than 5 percent. Table 2 We�kday C�ffice Traffic Hour of day fi:00 a,m. 7:00 a.m. 6:0o a.m. 9:00 a.m, 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:aQ noan 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p,m. 3:00 p.m. 4:40 p. m. 5:p0 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:OQ p.m. 90:00 p.m. TOTAL..,.....---.._... _.,._.._._. - �..-..,.,._._� _..,..,� 11% 7% 2% 2% 1 °/u 9 °/a 100% Source: The Institute of Transportation �ngineers, Trip Genet�fion Manua(, Fifth Ediflon, 1991 �0'd OL6Z86Z BOti 'ON Xb� �SOf NdS ��N� �/1�0�1 iZ,Ei I�.� L6-I£-,L�O P�resntage of To'�a) Qaily Traffic Ftow 1 °/u b% 13% �J% 6% 5% 7°10 6% ' 5°/a 5% 14% Gymboree Qffice Ocfiober 31, 1997 � Pa�e 5 Potentiai Transport�tion demand IVlanagement Strat�gies � To ensur� that the on-site parking that can be physically accammodated is adequate, the project should consider implementing some of the'fransportatian Demand M�nagement (7DM) measures described belaw. We have included a few of th� many TDM techniques that would seem to work best for the proposed si#e. ane of fhe recammendations noted below is appointing a TDM coordlnator for the project site. The TDM coordinator wou(d coordina�e the program for both this project site at 770 Airpart �oulevard, as well as the approximately 175 Gymboree employ�es at� 700 Airport Boulevard. The larger the paof of employees in a TDM program, the betfer the chances of finding c�tpool matches to reduce parking and tr��c. Th2 7DM coordinatar woufd work with the M�tropalitan Transportatian Commission (MTC) staff to �nalize the TDM plan. �rtCdur�g� �arpooling by Employees: i�he project should develop a program to encaurage carpor�ling by employ��s. 1'he progr�m would c�ansist of assistane� ii� d�v�inping carpaal matches via ernployee zip code tniormation. !n addition, an approp�iate number of the site's parking should be designated carpool parking. Those parking spaces located nearesE the building's entrances wou(d be striped "Carpool Parking" and be rese;ved for thase vehicles carrying two or m4re people. Economic incentives should be developed to encourage Carpooling by employees. For example, e�rlplGyees traveling from either the �ast Bay or North Bay could have their bridge tolls coverecf by th� G�mp�ny. Carpools cansisting of two individuals ar� easi�r ta form than three people. However, carpoois of two people do not qualify for f�ee brldge falls. For falm�ss to all employees, financiel incentives far employees not crossing the E�ay should alsa be developed. The TbM coordinatar will develop the incentive program. Subsidiae Transit Fare: 7o encourag� transit use, the company should subsidize trans;t fares, particulary Caltrain, Typica) subsidies range from 50 to 100 percent. As part of thls program, the TDM coordinator should provide statistics which illustr�te the aast of driving a car and the benefits . of transit use, particularly when a portion, if not all, of tha cost of transit Is paid by the campany. Pro►aide bicycls f�cili�ies on-sit�: Ta �r�c�ur�g� tha us� 4f �i��cles for commute trips this action consists of providing bicycle storage facilities on the p�oject site. With this measure we would sugg�st tf�at the project provlde five bike racks on-site, adjacent ta the building's entrance. Appoint a Travel Demand Management coor�inatorforfhe site: To coordinate the implementation df TDI1r1 n12��ures for the site, fhe project should appolnt � TDM GoO�dinator. The coordinator would be responsible for informing all of the site's empfoyees pf the �pp(icable TDM measures as wel! as evaluating and impl�menting any suggestions that emplayees may have. Among the many promotions the coordinator could consid�r are on-site rideshar� matching and zip code (uncheons. This would inc�ude the coordination of luncheons that would group emplayees by zip code to provide an opportunity for carpools to form. As notcd above, the TDM coord(nator would serve both #his s(te ancl 700 Airport �oulevard. 50'd 0l.6ZB6Z BOb 'ON Xd.� �SOf NdS ��N� �/1�071 ZZ�£i I�� 1.6-t£-,L�O C,ymbaree 4ffice Qctober 31, 1997 Page 6 Tande�n parking The City of Burlingame does not recognize tandem parkirig spaces as counting towards the city's requirements. Because af the specific physicat constraints of the project site, the project has identifiad several tandem park(ng spaces in the easement area on the south end of the sfte. To facilitate fhe use of these spaces the project should provide a board in5ide of the building where those who have parked in the outer tandem parking spaces couid note their name. Thus, when an inner v�hicle needed ta leave they would know wi�o to contact to get the appropriate vehicle moved. The tandem parking spaces shouid be used by employees who know one another's � sChedules so that the spaces may be used in the most efficient manner. Parking Lot Layouts KUF2VE has identified three altemative parking lot I�youts with var'ying number of parking spaces, alI greater than 69 stalls. The attach�d Illustrations show the altemativ� layouts. All af the layouts provide for three handicap parking spaces, two automobile stalls and on� van stall. In Alternative 1, the �asement area on the east end pf the site Wou1d tlot be used for parking. Under this altern2tive a tota! of 81 parking spaces would be pravided, of which six would be tandem spaces. This altemafive would use some of the landscaped area� off af the Airport Boulevard entrance as parking. Approximately 1,030 square feet of landscaping would be removed to provide the�� ix spa�2s. The spaces provid�� in thf� �It�rn�4iv� would b� unist�l! (8'6" x'19'}. The circulation aisl�s would exceed the City's requiremertt of 24 feet for 90 degree parking. The only drawback oi this parking layout is the loss of I�ndscaplhg aiong Airport Bouievard. !n Altemative 2, the easement area on the east end of the site would be used for parking. Under this alterrtative a total of 82 parking spaces would be provided of which six would be tandem spaces. This altemative would not use the landscaped area vfF of the Airport goulevard entrance as parking. The spaces provided in thfs alternative would be unistall (8'6" x 19') and the Ciroulatiotl aisles would be maintained at 24 feet. Although this al#ernativ� maint�ins the landscaping atang Airport Boulevard, it requires the project to keep the easetnent along the eastern property boundary. Maintaining this easement is not consider�d cfesirabfe by Gyrnboree Garporation. (n Alternativ� 3, the easement area on the east end of the site would not be used for parking. This altern�tiv� would not initialfy use the landscaped area off pf the Airport �oulev�rd �ntrance e�s parking. This area would be converted to parking i4 later dccupancy studi�s were to find it n�cess�ry. Under this altemative a total of 73 parking spaces would be provided of whlch s1x would be tandem spaces. If the landscaped area were cnnverted to parking a total af 79 stalls would ultimately be provided, of which six would be tandem spaces. (n thls alternative all of the full size spaces and the compacts spaces would be cansistent with city requirements, 9' x 20' and 8' x 17'_ This is an aption to the unistall spaces used in the previous a{femative. There are two drawbacks to #his alternative, the potentia) loss of landscaped are� and the provision of hoth compact and regular spaces. With a combination o# full-size and compac# spaces, compact vehicles arriving ear(y park in full-size spaces to avoid door dings. Gonsequently, full�sized 90'd OG6ZB6Z 80ti 'ON Xd� �SOf NdS ��N� �I1�0}I � zz�£i I�� L6=I£-,L�O Gymbaree Offfce October 31, 1997 Page 7 vehicles arriving later may qnly find compact spaces avaiiable. Parkin� Stall Sixe The City of Burlingame requires that regular parking spaces be nitte feet wide and twenty feet long and compact parking spaces to be eight feet wide and 17 feet Idng. The ptojeCt proposes to use a unistall space that wouid be eight fe�t six inches wide by nineteen feet iong. tJnistall spaces are b�1ng impl�mented in severa) jurisdiction rather than a combination of regular and compact spaces. The unista!! space serves the mid-size automobile which makes up a iarge part of the vehicle fl�et mix �nd does not require motorist to circulate through the !at in se�rch of ihe correct size space. VVith a cornbination o� regular and compact spaces, cities have found that compact vehicfes are p��king in the regular spaces because the large size provides added protection from daar dings. This then results in large vehicle forced to use the remaining compact spaces. The unistall dimension propbsed for the project would be in col'rlpliance with the guidelines of many Bay Area cities. Table 3 presents a summary of the guidelines of several Bay Area jurist{ictions. As noted in �'able �, the �ity o� �urlingame has on� ot th�� largest required parking sta(I widths and lengths. As presented in Table 3, fhe sta�l! sizes being prop�s�d by the project would be adequate in many other ��y Area citles. Table 3 Bav Area City Alameda gerkel�y Burlin9ame Daly City Mountain View Oakland San Francisco San Mateo South San FrencEsco Walnut Creek Stall Width (feet) 8.5 B 9 8.5 S.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Stall Length (teet) 18 m 18 20 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Removal of Roil-Up Doors The roll-up doors along the eastern side of the building wi(I be removed as part of this project. This r�moval provides for two parking spaces to be provided alon� the edge of the building if 1,0'd OL6Z86Z BOb 'ON Xd� �SOf NdS ��N� 9t1�Ox £Z�£i I�� L6-i£-,L�O r� Gymboree �ffice Octob�r �1, 1997 Pa�e 8 angied pa�lcing is not provide. These adciitlonal spaces will enable the projQct to meet its required numb�r df parking spaCes. i��comm�nciations The project currently being consideYed would replace 5,'t 71 sqUare feet af warehousing space with the same amaunt af a��iC� spac+e. KORVE would recommend that the City require Cymboree io implement Alternative 1 to serve the parking needs of the project. This recommendation is made for the following reasons. . A totat of 81 parking spaces could ultimately be provided if necessary. This exceeds the 75 spaces suggested by the City based on the maximum head count and �lso exceeds the B9 spaces required based on numerical calculations. The field surveys for the existing use suppart a reduc�d levef of parking. Although Alternativ� 1 includes six tandem spaces which the Clty does not officlally recognize, the small size of the project and the fact that it ls under a single use, will enable tandem parking to function effectively. KORVE fu�ther recommends that th� six parking spaces nea�r Airport 6oulevard which remove landscaping not be implemented initia[ly. A monitoring program should be undertaken to determine if these spaces are actu�lly needed. If so, the landscaping should be remov�d and the parking provided. If not needed, the landscaping shou{d remain. Based on existing parking usage measured for the projeot and n�tional parking rates per employ�e, we do not feel that these six spaces wil! eve� be �equir�d. Ta further reduce ira�c and parking requirements, we recomm�nd that the TDM program outlined in this technlcal memorandum be impiemented. KORVE recommends that the unistall space (8'6" X 19') be used for the proJEct. This stall size me�ts or exceeds the regufar stal( d+mensions of mos't cities in the Bay Area. Addi#ionally, a combination of regular and compact spaces I��ds to misus� of parking which doEs not achieve the desired r�sulfs. Wlth the above recommendation, KOftVE is confid�nt that all p�rking requlrements will be met �nc! exceeded. I will be happy to meet with City staff to discuss these fcndings and recommendations further. Additionally, I wi11 be available to present this information to the P�anning Commission. Attachmeitts 80 'd OL8Z86Z 80� 'ON Xb� �SOf NdS ��N� ��Ox �Z �£ I I�.� t6-i£-,L�O , From: J. E. Fennie Jr. To: Kristin Johnson .' 6 Q: � `h,.,,� � � � � � Date: 10/30197 Time: 4:47:02 PM Page 2 of 4 OG� 3 l 1997 t;ITY UF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. A��'� HzvD. 1-- . _._._ — � — . � ! � -� \ % I I70 I 71 Z4 � —3� 72 I73 ` 74 � 75 43 i ` 44 i 45 � S6 ' � i 55 76 ---- 47 � 5i 6 77 -- 48 29'-7n 57 78 49 . i i. SB 79 ---- 50 � 51 9 eo ---- Si � 60 Bl ---- 52 i i 61 ------ 53 ' � 6 5i i b[� -5" -=t—S~3- i 64 • 6i 5 . . I 6i 6 1 2 j 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 I4 is 16 i� � _ �.8 19 / 2a ai zz i � 6B 69 � ---- � — • — — • � PROPERTY LID7E . — i� �28 � �29 62'-3^ 0 � !31 24'-1" ie !9 0 g w c� � � � I,andscape Area: 2 Handicap (9` x 19'� � I 9,545 SF Existing 1 Van (9' x 19') <1,031 SF> Reduction 72 IIniatall (8'6" x 19'} 8,514 SF TOTAL 75 TOTAL $,475 $S RAcj'd. (+b TANDEM) 0' 20' �0' 81 �i]i� 2'OTI�►L Note: 2' overhang at nex atalls �,, '�' �� ,l� c�sor� co�o�a� �aasiori - �u� z - PFIASE 770 AIRPOFiT BLVD. ��"µ'�r�� '�� R�vised Oct. 30,1997 ALTERNATIVE ��. 1 � From: J. E. Fennie Jr. To: Kristin Johnson Date: 10/30/�J7 Time: 4:47:02 PM Page 3 of 4 �. �� OCT 311997 �--• -- ....�... �.�..��er ��n40RS SL�. a w UM W N I.i � M � � � �:C�.t,'� �� :: �`�� az c� �ara� ■ �� "( 6 '1'U'lAL (+6 TANDEM) ��pyf1� �.rlJil-lJ� 1J'�� GrIUK�MI � rN\OG Z �� o a�a�xr e�w. R�vis�d Oct. 30,1997 1-�\ �r% 0' �0' 40' ALTERNATIVE � , From: J. E. Fennie Jr. To: Kristin Johnson � �' � �� .�� , I _f � l Page 4 of 4 OCT 311997 CITI' OF BURLINGAf�IE AI�� $��. PLANNING DEPT. 7� 75 76 77 78 79 Date: 10130/�J7 Time: 4:47:02 PM f f � I i 68 i i i69 ---� I F70 ---� Z4' i 71 ---� I F72 ---� �------ � { i73 n �------� 55 ' 5fi � 57�� 42 G� 58 � � 43 C 59 c Zy._7e 44 60 . i i�qg C 6i ' '� i 47 � 62 � i 4B � 6� C 6� i ��C 64 � 50 � 62 � -9" �— i�2 � I I� a C 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 66 67� r i pRpPEIt17 LINE __- •�,� — • _ — '� — • — — ' _ j 22 i 23 i� i 25 � 26 � 2� t Z8 I 29 62 � -5" � Ii' 30 24'-1" � i 32 � 33 3� 4 i 35 � 36 � 97 i 38 i 3B 40 a w U V w � / 2 Handicap (9' x 19') 1 Van (9' x 19') I,andscape Area: 57 Regular (9' Y 20') 9,545 SF Exiating 13 Compact (8' x 17') <1,031 SF> iteduction 73 TOTAL 8,514 SF TOTAL {+6 TANDEM) 8,d75 Ss a....�'d. o� zo� ao� 79 '�,n31'�'.D RC3T7►L Note: 2' overhanq at regular stails � ;'�" E�� Tlo AI�RPoar BL�ND�AriuloN - PHASE 2 �a �:'�. E��'�� Reviaed Oct. 30,1997 ALTERNATIVE � n ROUTING FORM DATE: � f a4�� TO: CITY ENGINEER � CH1EF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR _��,`q_(,_ �,p,y}�,v , —� �� ^,, ,^l p %1 l:s� �.i� . 1'�/7 /1 � /AA /,11 1 I/� A/I /'i u /n tnl� c�„ _ 1� ,. _ . l. ' AT :• SCHEDULED PLANNING COMI��IISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW By MEETING ON MONDAY: THANKS, Maureen/Kristin/Ruben �� ate of Comments � °�,�_ �� '�� re � �j�ti�/,c:�� jG1��►�� ,S,r,�St �.s %►'1 1iS `% � � c'-�. if �� "� S�D'G e ;,c, I �i cS / v ✓1 �o ��(�i,�r s'�o� c_� . � `�!/ G��U, � 3 � ROUTING FORM DATE: �[�4�� TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIItE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR �'q� �,�y� , � n C'!L W�P Yi�in�iiee� �Pn,�i��,.,.� -�,. �_� �r�i�!�i SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: TIIANKS, Maureen/Kristin/Ruben ��Z�� Date of Comments � r ` -�� '� �-- � � � �� c��- �� . � � ., ROUTING FORM DATE: �/��_ � TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR . � FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITi� ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR '� �,pJyyu i'l'-� ^ - n , � � � . r, AT � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMI��IISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REV�W gy MEETING ON MONDAY: THANKS, Maureen/Kristin/Ruben � Date of Comments I . � �� . � r`e- � V�. k. � � s �� I� S�.�� , r�.ac� ��e.� � w�e e.� a-�� c� , �� . � -�� S r� �. �.�� . � C�. e. ��. I�c cp,��e,� S r i u�. �. f.�-� ��:� '� - �---- � e a 1 I � CITY OF BURLINGAME � BUR�- Irvcan�e PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' �501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (415) 696-7250 770 AIRPORT BOULEVARD APN:026-342 270 Apglication for a special pem�it for office area in excess of 20% of the structure arca and for exception to the design guideline landscape requirements for Bgysont navelopment, ana 8 parking variancc for dimcnsion (uaitstall) at 770 Aitport Boulevard, zoned C-4. The City of Burlingame Planniag Commission � aanounoes the following publia hearing on �.� November 10_ 1997 at 7;00 p,M. in the Clty Hsll Cwavil Chambor� looabod at 501 Primroao Road, Burlingame, Califomia (I��r�dAteY.��le) . r . _. . . . ;:�' i�C,:,,-/,i � PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the applicat�on:and plans for.this.project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the� Plamm�g Departrnent at �501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califorrua ��, � If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or;someone else raised at the public hearing, described in;the not�ce or;.m written correspondence �delivered to the city at or prior to the,�public`;tieaiingr; ,, � � r. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about ttus�inofice,`.�or additional mformation$ :please call (415) 696-7250 Thank�you � � � � a, � � � �; ` �� 2 � �� A: 4,' � � ��i�� } � a^"s � ;� � � � � � �, Mazgaret Monroe = �� , �' ' � -, � City Planner � � �,�y ;� ; ,�'`� �, � ., . �; PUBLIC �HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other sideJ � . � '�' � - ±� � � a.. .... � r � ,� � �� ? �'M�'� "� `"�,.,._..�...�L-- � ; �- "�' ,�U �'��-� ��'' ��ti ��. 6� , i � -'f , � F � :�� C.�. .s a�. .. � �� ` ' �' � , 150 � ��.� , �,�,� ' �, . � �y,�, -t' T� . *r � � 1 - •�1Wj•�' � .. "S '� � � :''c i� I �� _ w�ry I � . � :. ,. " . w ��s�_, . - �� „-. '` " G � � � " A�— r y � " � �r �..a . I v , �� :s' I� � �, � � �, . .. � � ' F , .. ,",... �� ti' , r^% .. � . ,, . ,. , Jv ��\` � ._,1Y*� .,� - ti �O � .� .. � . ,, : �� . � , ;- Q. � , �C .� � ., . ; . .9 � _ ;; - ' � ' y, : . R � . � :. . � s " �� . I d . �' � �� g, . .. . .�: .. � + � .+� �. . ,� . , . �\� ��P.. . r�„R ��s�►� -� . *.�� .� � �- _, � . P �� ,�` : . ' � m a ,�r � �, � � � ,.. � �.. _ �'`" �"} - !� � . � ` � �, � � ... � ��, , •�'• . 7 �e ,�.. ,;��.r'rr � ) � . �� , ;, o _ °°��.. •. .• � � ti �a� �:, �'g� � , � �� . � ,�' � : ) ,P � �� °a '� � �� > � a .� � � - � 4,. - .�t � � .�, �O O �'� ' , i. ,, . . . � � 4 � � .. . .. . _ � �� . ' : �d' . . M1 ,a� � � _ � �, w... ,__ � vL EV�4 IR p ;� � � �� " .%� - �'� 4 "T q �� ,. � f t , ��, '�.�„� . � - ��, �� '� � � 5 � � .� 1 �.� !� 4 9 � �� . � . ., i � �� :. � � . }: a: ;,'�` � ,- � � �1 � �� '� 3 �'4' '� - - � " _ � � � ' " -��'� �� x� ��; �� -� � ��? � `��i�� '��,�,- � � ��i,��'t� �. #. � � � � � ��, a .�. .� � .� � �r ,� ,..,r�x,�,��r.:,r:. . �r- �r�,. , h>»,..,.,�aicri+»ro `�vN:i�:�;�ii °tr�.-" +�°�.•n�..w�r....: . .... .,-.u�.�.. �, � i `y, ` � �'t" . ' � a � K � '�'�' ,� �,+�3�# ��n� `y y p � i�' =, ; '_ . a 7 J f' st�e��q� � +�.�'�� F�`` '�' 1 r �' ,, s' . . * '�,. _ 'w, �� `�` � . '�' . . . � . � ,. . . � � a.. `��` .� .. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SPECIAL PERMITS & ' � � PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Bu�lingame that: � •. � . �-- � .�. -� . � .�� . �-- .�- • �' '' u . •. • � • 1', • �' �. ,�� .� '� •� • i- �- •� • �- �- ,�� .�- -� -��-� • :, •� �- - •��-� � . ' , �• ,�,� • � n-� •� i 1 : ��•� :•. - , � •�-� � :'► 1 • � 1 :. i•.�i'. �� - i ��'� r �� ; 1 ,i ,i � : '� � ��-� ��l. - WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 10, 1997, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and a Categorical Exemption per Article 19, Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, and Class 1(c), Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities except where the activity will involve removal of a scenic resource including a stand of trees, a rock outcropping, or an historic building is hereby approved. Said Special Permits and Parking Variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for Special Permits and Parking Variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. It is further directed that a certifed copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, J� L. Deal, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 19�h day of November, 1997 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY � EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption, special permits and parking variance 770 AIItPORT BOULEVARD effective NOVEMBER 17, 1997 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 14, 1997, Sheet A0.1 (General Notes & Legends), Sheet A0.2 (Site Plan), Sheet A2.la (Building Floor Plans), and Sheet A5.2 (Exterior Elevations); 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official and Senior Engineer, September 29, 1997 memos, (requiring that one of the three handicap parking spaces shall be a van accessible space with an 8'-0" unloading space) shall be met; and that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 29, 1997 memo (an automatic fire sprinkler protection shall be modiiied to meet office design and all fire sprinkler work shall be done by a licensed sprinkler contractor) shall be met; 3. that the TDM Management Strategies identified in the Korve Engineering Memo (October 31, 1997) shall be implemented at the site and also incorporate the Gymboree employees at 700 Airport Boulevard within 90 days of this project's approval, and an annual report on TDM progress shall be submitted by the TDM coordinator to the Planning Department by January 1 of each year; 4. that no classes, workshops or training sessions shall occur at this location; 5. that the ofiice shall not be open for business except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum of 95 employees assigned to this site; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.