The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About800 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 6.19.1978June 14, MEMO T0: FROM: i � 1978� :City Caunci� City Planner '�.��w�.R� �S`��,.,_.'� . �� SUBJECT: Study Area Permil; and Appeal of Variance/Specia1 Permit for Four Seas Center, an Office/Restauran� Project at 800 Airport 6oulevard On May 22, 1978 the Planning Corrr�nnission considered the concurree�t app1ications for a variance to canstruct a building ��ith 2�,544 SF of offic� space and 17,200 SF of restaurant spac� wi �h 30 compact car spaces; and a special permit to cons�:ruct �:his building to more than 50 fee� in height. Restaurant floor space would be 36.8% of tf�e tota1 floor space in the Four Seas Cen�ter Office Bui7ding. The Commission i�ecommended approval of the variance by a 5--1 vote, Commissic�ner Sine dissenting, and ap�raval of �:he special permit by a 4-2 vote, Commissioners Fraricard . and Sine dissenting, for a building not over 60 feet in height in accordance with -�he plans and specificai;ions-received May 17, 1978. . Subsequently, on Jtane 12 the Planning Commission approved a parcel map to combine Lots 2 and 3, Block l, Anza Airport Park Unit No. 4 into one lot at 800 Airpert Blvd. The parking space requ7rements of Sec. 25..41.080 were adopted for specialty restaurants, self-contained single purpose "establishments for �:he sale�and consumption on the premises of bever�ges, food�and refreshments", not for hotels and office buildings which contain restaurants.. For� exam�le, we have Shipwreck Kelly's, Hugo`.s, the Aquari��m and Chez Bon a�t our hote7s; and The Eggplant, Les�Jon and Kee Joon's are existing restaurants in office buildings withir. the C-4 District. In contras�, Burlingame has seven specialty res�aurants; Sa7uto's, Casa ('Tia) Maria, Char7ey Brown`s, Benihana af Tokyo and The Fishermari in the C-4 District, and Gu7liver`s and Velvet Turtle in the M-1 District. I belieae the daytime requirement.of one parking space per 200 square feet o�f grass eating establishmeni� floor area to be adequate. If more parking�is needed there wi11 be up to.1600 parking spaces in a fee parking lot on the other side of Airpo wt Blvd. I think the variance to allow 30 compact car parking spaces is reasonable, realistic and appropriate �'or this mixed use project. Considerable background material from the Planning Department project file has been xeroxed for Council information and consideratian. ��` ��, �� 4�MS/s � Wayne M. Swan Attachments: . . - May 3, 1978 letter from Raiser Architectural Group to Planning Commission - Variance Application to r�duce parking requirem�nts - Special I'ermit �pplication and May 2, 19%f3 letter of explanation - Environmen�:al Assessment Form E2 and�Supplemerjtary Information submit�l;ed by applican� pagesl-7 incl. � - Nega�ive�Declaration, ND-159P posted May 12, 1978 - Staff Report to Planning Cor��iission - May 2?, 1978 - Minutes of h1ay 22, 1978 Planning Commission Meeting � June :L, 1978 Appeal by David H. Keyston cc: City Manager � . Ci ty Attorney � City Engineer Ci ty C� erk City Planner File 0 E�e41 sER �R�!-36TEGi'lJF3AL G6w�Ol..Ii� BOO SOUTH CLAREMONT STREET SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA'94402 4'15 342-90B1 May 3, 1�q78. . Planning Commission ' � C i ty of Buri i ngarne 501 Primrose Road Buri�ingame, CA 94010 Gentlemen: _ On behal�i� of our client, Mr. Stanley Lo, 828 California, we do hereby apply for a variance requirements for the attached project from a proposed 190 spaces. Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, to reduce the parking required 2%6 spaces to the We feet that this is a re�sonable request based on a number of sound principles which we shall attempt to explain. • Several years ago the parking requirements.for restaurants in the Waterfront Gommercial Dis�trict were changed from those that apply to the rest of the city. This change from requiring one space.for each 200 square feet to one space for each 91 square feet was made.because .it was found that the specialty restaurants along the 4laterfront had heavy usage on Friday and Saturday nights and the�par(cing based upon one sp�ce per 200 square feet was not ade- quate for this peak evening use. tt is my �ander,standing that at all other times the one space per 200 square feet was shown to be adequate. The proposed project can meet and exceed this stricter requirement on Friday and Saturday nig{�ts since the spaces allocated to office use will not be used on these evenings and can serve the restaurants. During the lunch hour our project provides enough parking�for full office use ancl enough restauran�t parking based on the figure of one space per each 200 square feet of restaurant,.as is used in dining establishments in the rest.of the city. Actually, during the lunch hour, many office workers will be leaving the building and others actually eating in the building facility so that the net demand on parking will b� further reduced. This fact can be ver.ified Uy looking at the s�ituation at the I<ee Joon building on Airport Blvd. which was constructed under the old requirement of one space per 200 square feet of restaurant. There is a.lways a large excess of parl<ing available during the lunch hour at this building due to the mixed usage of the facility. JOHN A. RAISER, F. ASCE PRESIDENT JOSEPH KENT, AIA V.P., DIRECTOFI OF AfaCH11'ECTUR[= ERIC L. COX, M. ASCE � V.P., DIfaECTOR QF ENGINEERIIVC � P'lanning Commission Page Two May 3> 197$ , , Our project intends this same usage and we feel that there is adequate justification based on the preceding analysis and the attached data sheet to grant this project the requested variance. Certainly, it would not . be in the project owner's interest to create a situation deficient in parking since it would mean failure for the entire enterprise. Our analysis and professional opinion leads us to the conviction that the proposed project will more than adequately han�le the parking demands under the severest of conditions. � . � . Very truly yours, c,.�..:� �L.�-'{ Joseph Kent, AIA e JK/sj . Enclosure � , �� ":t �� '�� t � �� -� ppl�cation to itx Council oi . APP�ICANT e .� _1. . [: ?� � €�r� � a : P_ � x„s:r, n,;•:`]�„ , �M.;;,;i,:�(Ii�--:rJ� oc ��q� �-�..../ �4 ti _�.....b /tATqD'JVHC �he.P�anning Cami�ission and � the City o� Burlingame r, � ,� �. Date iiled ' �� r°��i i��`��.a Study meeting ;.'� �; , (�� Pub]_ic hearing 7 � :c; Ac t i. on ,�'jJ�,�t c'� . S�� / ��.%i .. r} / � j 1 L•4�/J G�.� 4I r�� ' LL+1 V %��!"49��'. S� crs z�%,/`�; �z�i�-��:;, ��r : �- C��i�:i, Stc�d��:� . �• N�� RAISER ARCHITECiURAL GRaUP ' � B. Address - 800 South Claremont Street City San Mateo, CA Zip 94402 Telephozze 342-9061 PROPERTY • . A. Addres5 800 Ai rport Boulevard B. Legul Lo� 2 and 3 siock � � Descripi ion: Subdivisior� Anza Ai rport Park C. Asscssor � s parcel number (71PN) 026-342-�0��;� Zone Waterf ront Commercial D. Exa.stin� land use and improvements Flat, barren land . . VARIANCF RFQUESTED To reduce the parl<inq 'requirements-� '�G �� ?;� �Nu��: c�,(�� e� CtrrZpc;�+ �;,._ �,'�`"�� i��m�.. � � , �a�.� j j �,; . SITE PLAN Attach site plan, drawn to scale, showing.all existing and proposed major improvemen�Ls, located by dimension from pa:operty lines and adjacent struct�ures. Sidewalks and curbs (if any) on public right-of -��ay should also be shown. Tnclude building elevations, if rel.evant. ITEMS SUBMITTED WITIi APPLICATION: XX Authora.zation by property owner. �XX Titl� r�port showing proof of ownership (except.for R-1 & R-2 property) XX Affidavit ior Variance. • XX Site plans, �levata.ons and exhibits. ' XX Fee: ($40 for application on R-1 or R-2 prop�rty) ($75 �or other zoning districts) Rec�ipt No . '2�� . Received by ��w ? 1� . ' � � . �z 7 hereby cez-tify under�penalty of perjury that the in�oima�ion c�iven heLe:i�n is tr_ue and correct �.o the � • .• bes� of my knowl.edg� anc� belie� . Si natu�e 0�'-�Y�"� �--'`-^^-'i Date May 3, 1978 . � _ Joseph Kent, AI� 0 APPLTCANT'S AFFIDAVIT I'OR VARIANCE LL•'GAL ZrQUI�EMEIVTS FQR VARIANCE 0 .�. Has applicant read Chapter 25.54 0� the City'Ordin�anc� Code? Yes XX No B. Desc_r_ibe the exc�ptional.circumstancr�s or,conditions applicable to your property which do not generall.y �-�pply to othex properties �� in ,your area � ar��. the extent to whi<.h yotz may deserve special c:onsideration to �ahich your neighbors are�ne� entitled. Because of the special mixed use of the project (office and restaurant), the peak parking demands on each use occur at different� times. See attached letter.for further ciarification. � � C. Describ� why the variance is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the�property. In order to fullv uti•lize the site for days eveninqs, and weel<ends, a mixed. occupancy would be most desirable. This can only be achieved by the granting of a pa rk i nc� va r i ance.. • � U. What hardships would result if your request were denied? A.,�,�staurant coul d not be i ncorporated i n the pro iect: � IS�APPLICANT THL LEGAL OWNER OF' TH� PROP�RTY? Yes No XX IF NO, INCLUDE.TH� FOLLOWING: A. Owner's name Mr. Stanley Lo � B. Owner's address 82$ Ai rport E3oulevard,_Burl ingame CA C. Attach signed statemeni� from property owner d�claring knowledge of ' and agreement�to �his vaa:iance application. . . � . . ' � , . . r • � . � �� .�� ,�, ,, :, ; � . a� '� � �� : : ,�� . ��'�; �_r.�� A,� ��ATED JVNG Espplication to the Planning Commission and�� City Council of the City of Burlingame l. APPLTCANT A. Name RAISER ARCHITECTURAL GROUP � Date filed � r-a ��`� j` � Study meeting �'1,�u �� . �`�� Public hearing j�i .n.�.,� �,'�, Action /'��a,o.-��c� �-;Z ��r- ,� � / . P�l%'r+'!s' r1G'�' /�� r.^�l(��'c°C� (,�C� 3'"�'e•�' 7�sI��. B. Address $00 South Claremont Street � City San htateo CA � Zip g44Q2 Telephone 342-9061 2. PROPERTY A. Addr�ss 800 Airport Boulevard B. Legal Lot 2 and 3 Block 1 Description: Subd:i..vision Anza Ai rport Park . Waterfront �C . Assessor' s parcel number (APN) 026-342-200�� Zone Comrnerc � a i D. Existing land use and improvements Flat, barren land 3. SPECIAL PERP/iIT REQUESTED AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS To exceed the 50 foot•height limit with a structure that would be 58'-6" high to the � top of a para��.et. � 4. I'1'ENIS SUBMITTED V�ITH APPLICATION : XX Authorization by property owner; if applicant�is not owner, an authorization must be signed by property owner declaring knowl�dge of and'agreement to this application. X� Tit1e report showing proof of owner.ship (except for R-1 & R-2 property) XX Environmental Assessment Form and CEQA requirements. �XX Site plan, drawn to scale, showing all existing and proposed major improvements, locai.ed by dimension from property lines and adjacent structures. Sidewalks and curbs (if any) on public right-of-way _ should also be shown. Include building elevations, it relevant. x__Z__c Letter of explanation with stat�ment about why application shauld be approved. _ . �_ Fee: $75 for all zoning districts. � Receipt. No . `� �� Received • by W I � . ,. . \ _ I hereby certify under penalty of .perjury that the informatian given � herein is true and correct to the best of my knc�wledge and belief. Signature a �� • Date May.3, 197� Jasep f<ent, AIA FtA08E&� 8&RCH6TEC'Z'@JReRL GFlDLiP 800 SOUTH CLAREMONT STREET SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 54402 4'15 342-906'I May 2, i978 s�< Mr. Wayne Swan, Planner Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road �Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Swan: Re: Four Seas Center 800 Airport Boulevard We are submitting herewith our application for a Special Permit to exceed the 50 foot F�eight 1_imit in the Waterfront Commercial District. • Although the proposed project does not in itself generate large amounts of squaJ-e footage, the resta�arant usage oF the top floor imposes severe parking requirements which could anly be met by providing rec�uired parking on two levels beneath the building. The soil conditions did not permit putting this parking below grade. This forced the remaining three floors higher. In addition, restaurant•space requires a higher ceiting height than office space and this, along with a screening parapet for the mechanical equipment, forced a solution which exceeds the established he:ight limit by approximately 8 feet. � Since.visibility of-the bay is maintainecf at eye levei by being able to look "through"'the buitding, we feel that the relatively small overage af the allowable height is not a severe impact. Certainly the prospects of success for-a restaurant are increased as the view becomes more spectacular by Ueing as high as possible. We hope that yau will look favorably upon our application. Very truly yours, � � G��_ ' Joseph I<ent, AIA �,� J K/ s j Enclosure ' JOHN A. RAISER, F..4SCE PRE5IDENT JOSEPI—i I<ENT, AIA V.P., OIREC70R OF ARCHITECTURE ERIC L. COX, M. ASCE V.P., pII�EC70F7 OF ENG3iNL=CF7ING �; '° I. a. �3 ��,. �� t: C'�.�' Y � I 1 ( �'�.C� � 9 �� i �l �j� F� � /� f.,.�.�'.,A � . ��,vw Ml ��.I \� i E1 Li m� ��:�/ �. �...i L,. � �. 1_..,zr Ei 4,1 k; L,� w� 4.�+ /d-'"� 6.:M Pi,"y \�+ i f[�1 �.� 7�'-"14Rtl �°� � �. j,.� �� ,., f t`. q Vl �%2"' � � f � c�11 LT:')� va, r E�zu �x" �t�'� � i�d � E'rr.ta �..l ° al ..+�re ��b..' � •� ..;:r.o�� 4�.. ..I.�� Rn1�:o.rvN! 6�. pplicat�.on f_ar. a Planning D��artm�nt � � Da�e �i.7_ed r� �j �� ,(`� 7� _ �terrain�iti�n on the: Need fo�: a Project ET_R '�� orz� E2, Revisea Ju:Ly 1975 . Recommenda�ion entata.ve, cubjec� to Itevisian Date Posf.:ed Y� . PROJECT. Name Office/Restaurant Complex � CTQA File No.� � l�- j y;;�j=�' ._ Descr.�ipt.ion Off i ce and Restaurant fac i 1 i t i es over Park i ng �'yne of I�ermit Requirc�d�' f��tr'�/�� ' � `��c�: �k�-. -`�'�c:. ��Z �i�r �. . . I��T.,Trr,nT - . Nam� Ra i ser Arch i tectural Group Te1eL�h.one_�415) 342-g061 �+ Address 800 South Claremont Street�San _Mateo, CA _ 94402 �__�_r____ _ 0 PROPERTX . ' � � Own�r�'s i�Iame Stanley T. Lo Tel.ephone�415) 342-750o T� O�aner'�s Address 828 Ai rport Boulevard, Buri ingame, CA 94010 _� Legal Lo�:s 2 and 3 Bl.ock � � • �.. Descripi:ion: �ubdi.vision. Anza Ai rport Park APN �� `"��'�-7'" +��'��% � .__.___ L'and Ar_ea 7�,800 s u�re fee.t � Zone Waterfront q � C�pmma r.j�3_l_.__ (� j9,• UrJ �zi1�7- . E�SSTIPZG S7TE CONDZ`i'IONS' Ftat, barren land ____ �__ �_ . PP.OP05ED PROJECT Five story office, restaurant, and parking structure with additional parking provided on grade. . F�E : $25 � Receipt �io . `?i2..�..� -��- Received by � �'( ------- � ' . . � • I hereby certify under pena7_i�y of perjury that the � infarmatioi� ga.v�n h.erein is tr.ue and correct to tl��e best: of my ;cno�aledgca and be1�.e:E. . Sigriature �� Date March 27,• 1978 ____ �. � � t (1�� 1 can ) Joseph 1<ent, AIA . LVALUATION IIi' C7TY PLA.NN�R � ,�. / r�. �,/ �,� / � �':lll!/r'/�' ��%�t�!f�� L�:-�G��r"t?/��/7 �jr'•lcc ,� �G � • .G �! ��-iirl,id i!/t,� �1?? � J�"��SS 7F'"�c1�6+^ eG� �'! iS�t.'i�''.'1��/�G� / J�67 T Si.gi7a�Lur� Ft,�' �' C'i 7� i/!"7�'�-f`f i Cn i'" / � f' ��, 'S<C'�?d? //'1%,4�'tCLLrL'llJt')ji � ��(L:L �.�� I' 1t.111ric�r � {, % c� !'ci' C CY • �. r 6'�'y' ,. t}�" ��? . . ' � E ��r'�:s..a�wi a��;(,:p YL"' � .. i �. .'+;.._.., d'�° '�S ry �i�' �'!<.,�/1l__� Ga ��, Z"l� n_ �C _,r�,,lL,. ry¢�. S'y- 'r.� ,�"F'c�'/?7r1'>�T yl ,�Y� C'A�IC�l�� .% f, . �•�` ep - C �� ff' �`/✓'�:"�'-/1 �.��*� � la 4�. �: e �. ��..�,�. .�. � . D�TIISLED IN�'ORMAT7:ON 11BOUT P�ZOPC?SL'.n PROJ�CT 8. IMFACT OF PROPOSEU PROJECT What are the obj �etives af this proj ect? To provi de execut i ve off i ce space �for the world headquarters of Tradewinds Group, rental office space and restaurant _ �facil_ities on the top �Floor. � What alterna�::i.ves to thi� �ro�ject have been considered? A larqer, all _ office s,pace buildinq was considered. However, mixed use seemed a better and more �� flexible solution. How muc�i envi.rc�nmental �f fect wi11 th.is proj ect have? There wi l l, be some incre�.e_ iL�..�raffic alon Air ari_Boulevard. However, the mixed use of the project J y�.tl s��qger this impact. The existirg water, waste, and sewer mains-are more than � dequate for this, proje.ct.:..�..:. G7�.a�L are the adverse: �env?r.anmental efLec�.s whi_r_h cannot b� avoided if the projeet is implemeri�ea? An i ncrease i n traff i c. _ C�7hat mitigation measures are proposed to reduce these aciverse impacts:? It is felt that no measures are required since the traffic impact in relatioiiship to the existing traffic arteries does not pose any �roblems. 9. PROJECT DETAILS A. P.r_esent land uses,�project area: , 7�i�� Use 1(descri.be, azea •SI'} �;800 square feet of ba.rren, vacant land fi 11 . ,� Use 2 ( �� Use 3 ( �� . . }3. Pr_esent land uses, areas adjac�nt to the Project: To the east and south are existing vehicular roads. To ihe north is vacant, barren land and the bay. To the west stands an existing concrete tilt-up office and warehouse structure. C. E�f�ct on �L-opograph and n.afi,ural �f ea�ures : The s i te i s present 1� ba rren , �. _ 1 nd fill. � � ll. ��feC�. on .�:1: ees and vegetat�_on : �7he s i te i s p resent l y ba rren l and f i l l. ,' 0 E.� Propos�d construc�ion (Grass floor_ area, GTA, in square i�et, SF} � Be1o�a grade �-'��sc� 5'�2 J�g 12 �I Sc� _ 1 1, 800 (Pa rk i ng) � First Floor_ �« ��15�F� ��;t�'n y1,�800 (Parking) � �y,�'-,J �� D,d L` � % Second Floor ��,l�� ,�, ft l�. �� 2 _ 13, 100 (Off i ce) Thild & aJ:�ove � �� ? � �1 ,200 (Off i ce/Restaurant) ��>�� (14,500 •Office; 16,700 Restaurant) 12atSn . F. Lot cov�rage (area)11 ,800 S/F at rade ( � `�� '4 '� ��'� g ) 1 � fA G. Floor Area Rai:i.o (FTi�) .58 �l�I��n ' . ' H: � Building heigh� �SFi�-0" ( i ncl ud i ng parapet) r , I. Piopos�d materials concrete and t i nted bronze gl ass J. �stimatec? Flows in gallans per day . Wat�r consurnption (gPd) � Waste�,rater from si te (gpd) K. Estimated people at si�:e Number af residents Permanent e:�ployees � Visitors, custome�:s, �tc. to site (average at any t ime) L. Estimaf�ed parking required Autos all day parking Autos short term parking Trucics and aer•vice vehicles � _6900 5800 0 , _ 140 150 ._� 83 $5 2 E�.isting� In 2 Years zn 5 Years M. Esi�imat�d vehicle mavements � A . D7 . peak hour . � P.M. peak hour N. Landscaped Area '��5e� 4j'�/�/'�� . �' ( �i a 2 0 7d a-� s; �-� 0 ��. u � � �� .,/r�/7 �' .•�� :�i 0 140 150 :� : e .•�� :�� 0 140 150 � :� � to site 70 �'xom site 6 to sa.te 6 from sii:e 70 12,100 square feet 1�-- �� .----�? �'--� .. i e c v 2 tt. �. � � PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is proposed to construct on Lots 2 and 3 in Block 1 of "Anza Airport Park Unit i�o. 4'', Burlingame, California, a five-story office, restaurant, and p�rking complex. The office and restaurant facilities shall be located above two levels of parking .�ithin the structure; additional parking being o.n the surrounding site. _ The basic concept of the building is the stepping-out of each floor from the one beneath it. This serves several functions. It increases the floor area where it is most desirable� tnat being as one gets higher within the building. . The upperMost and consequently largest floor�is devoted to restaurant use which brir.gs a higher �retuxn"per square foot�than does the office space. In addi�ion; this type of scheme utilizes more efficiently those functions at ground level, such as park:ing and circulation, since buffers do not need to be created betwe�n these and occupiable orfice space. � . The first two lev�ls of the structure are devoted to parking. T�e lowest being depressed approximately two feet below existing grade. This lowest level of cars is screened from view by a landscaped berm. The second level of parking is above eye level and its cars are screened by a precast concrete parapet. Therefore, one can at rrade level virtually Iook "through" the building at tne bay and not be at al.l aware of the fact that the building sits above a parking structure. , . The freight elevator servicing the top floor is accessible from the lowest level.of parking. The second l.evel of parking-is reached by a ramp directly from Bayview Place. This reduces the circulation within the main parking lot and distributes the�ingress and egress among difFerent points. It is presently contemplated to have the main lobby�two stories hig�� adjacent to the exterior. The building is located on the site so as to provide maximum views of the bay while at the same time being oriented so that the building to the west is seen only in a fore-shortened perspective. 0 - � �. �'G �. V � t, . O ` q �' � �� 3 4 ° , �� _ �, �� , 56�i�1 � 0 , f !i �, C' "1 ! 3< � w-� ,! ,..�..' � � s ti f" - . � • ' j�' '�� ~� •'��'~ . . _ . ' ' . - . . �Y 'i :L�.� �L : . , % �3 � _. �. . -.}` 3 B Fi�AtolSiS�� e4Y Pi � �,�. ; � ��r.�..��=:., . x � , � ��:: '��a. _ - ��; � �Y • ��' ��y{��`r`?`�� : 4 -�: g J' f 1 {-�' �-� ��' `1C.,�* t_. Y�=�.' � _ :r. - ' r i�� $�. s��¢ . ^ ' ��. f ,'J+,�`.�'� �Gi�.'�+d� r �¢. . � � � �' p, ". .,.+�� N"�"�` y � � •� . '' l .t �'^."yr��H�'a\ ��``+,j °'� ~ �� .� i��, ♦r/" * '._," :-• 4 ��. .. \ J �i'�� 'X^i +)""! 4 . � �-`- � 1 ,�� ' � � . �,r:.�ia>:ia.�l.rc.auwr.�Yst-` � . � � ,� � ' ;�x�.'s,�-;�� `'"'', .�'.--._- �: "T�� S6T� ' 6 �. i � T�s:.,Z j � . :- �-:,� �'�'-�.� �, �. . . _ ..x �, : . �' � . � �I jI�'} � � ,� T� 1�`Ji� � � 6�> .. "�, �' ; ' ��III''I � ss v r {� �,� a ��.� •�` . : �� """ -}; j I' �z. -. i. � t � 'R/ Y+t.` �i'' q/ ,y, . � ^ �,.. �.�1 �� :.�' f � '�� ;�{ .+� _•.t`t' •. . �t -�.G�, . , � .t � « t .�,-`'$sa } � .} ' . f � • � . v ��Lr . � y,y.« ,..,, �y , v '� I tr: . ,� II "' N.`�i�.*� i-1 ' �.1. 0. r� �y , .� ' \ . � ''� �. i - .. i �`j ' �'� P 3`�'1 },� t:.fT',�:,'` ! ' .�s.�• :_ -:c. -a _y n Y . 3 � � } e�. t? { � � _ t � � � �?,; Y �' II) � A � �I '.� � 1 • ar1S • c'� j'. ✓• ' '* ` �i� �� in ,i � r' � '`�: i. �" ,�yy.-'^m, � _\ ...,. `� .. 1-_ - . 4.. � -�-� 1 # 5_� ;, � �� tt . ��'V '_2' . , ` � _ .; f: t�� l I � , � �. . � h • m�'� � �Rq, � • � � . �. `i,. +°. � ;,t��j�� I #�r� `G ,s-� � k .� �f �.? •� T.,�, — —� � '� 0 }�{i} � �:I PG �t �i; �y;t �; ��. � _ • � �` �.. .� ~ . Q .,v,. � �� ' � � � y ��e �,.F � �~ f�� . � •.:t �v�'�-, • � i . �'<� �I .S� „�b O '�a � prs:.��,�`��} ' ��. , •r-� � . � � o : � #. �. � s. � � � �� .��.� ��P.��.�: , =�>> �:..� � : �.�� . _ . . �o �P � � � �� _� �� r :� -� ; �,� ; . . :�. � �. ��' T .. � t' '� • -/a: ` ~C�j�{'. , � \t `� \ �. � ' i �!• �.'�•� � �;,. �,.: '� Q� ��`"" � � ��,� ' `� ' . % �� ,,,, � !; ti- �'�.' • �``; � 3 � � � ' -�=-:; ;.�. � ``� - • . s�;�� 000�o �� :,� � ,� �: �'_� � ._. _.._-- -- --�� ,' ._ � . J� ' � �l��v��. � ----_...._ ---��.� 4.� d�'Jt � �, � ..� 't V �� r�; ��`�'� �.��`�'�� :� �f ..,z � � � �� . � � � � � � � �� ,� �,._ �.. .,....,�....��,..._,..,_.....�_.�,.,,....�..,�„�,.�-,..-��.....,.T,..,_.-, ,—.,.,.. ._.:�_ _..,..,..�......�._.�. �..-- ` ,: `s` � k� ..,_.._.._ .__�._.._�_�_�__._....T..,...�. , , -�--�—�- -� • --^, � ,..�.:,.� r �. , . < - _;. .',; +•. ' . i h' r Y ; + � .`., r . . 41 ` y ' - _ 2' , '.f.' jti 't't. < � ',� � . F `� �' J ' C: � ; � , C` `' ' _l -t `. � � L, � s s� tec . i�� .• t � t . � .'i. y/ . t i r . � . j ��.� ; ,�.,� Y� . T.' . L``.' > _ ��f-��.i,,. .�i�v� '�.;.s,.�. -.. .,1 ' ' r �. ' �„1. ; k" YtJt A4 � � ✓'L,�j „ ' ! t". �. ':.'�� t... ' � �.i.�.if .. � �.'.:� )^� . . .r � � ' . � � i � '/�� i I i; �� `i "a' � i �f I i ! `�_ . ; t � � I i i� , �},I �, f � � '. { 1 � 1 F f . � .� . : } � �.� i ' � `'� � . �� ` i t � f .•�� . � .. ' ... _ : (:�� i �' , ',;:i1 i,�: � . � .�;- _ :� ! � �,;',i I i , ; --�---_ � �' - �, � ' !' i { :� ,� ' ' i i I j - ' "i: �`�� ;.'` ! (1�� f — � , �i �e � � { � i — 1 � �- i ' _' _ � _ ; i . . .. � , 1.1 _ T ' � � � .l �. . . . _ . 1 _l_. ih$f � .., �..�c.�. F 1 _ I . . . I '.. . . � i w. � ' ' : _ v `, { � : � ' � 1; i � i ; v; � ( __' - �.-`�--j- j �` � ? t; y ti^ . i � � . ; �`_ ,.w .�i 'l . � � � (: �.. Yi...h ,( . .. .. ..;.:'_._ . ._.,,. ..._. -.. .. .... '_ i �. __. _ _ � � � , `^: y a y;T fy- ... i "" - _ �.. . _ . '� ' - _ � '4C.» i � /' � �. , � t � - . r .:y � , .,. � � -� " '� ar 'r . , � � •�..� ., �. ?'. ,;, i .. �.c p� � ia: - ' � : ' !'�, � . ... .^ �, _ `.. . � � - .. .. ... I _.I. ,. .� �; k ... . .. ..z - �� , �-� � � ,' �'F�. � ';�� ''�� s3:'�ian.c.,.�+^�' . ' ' �., + ' � � � �, ��- �r � ."� � � � . � �. ��' __- .�� .` `� .. � �_ . � . � d � � � � ' �_. t.. . . i �_ � . . . � - S.l � _ , �� r r=Ta 4, - -�..r� t t� � �'Y �-.... S � �`�'1.' 4� .aN.r...�i:-'�. � '^ d . !� ? - ��.,a, ' 1 . Y .� � ,fn j .1 v�p�.. . �b+:+ki � � ,( !�� .. 'b� �y'��f� i =-�.�..�fi gn�,. . .. . �..a �Ze-..',%'.,`'c�...�.. ... � . . ka.:.Yf� .�?� J �. s .f �'r a zc . �Y 's '� �.r � . � �s::. -,. .: ' � � � .. . . -...,. _.. , .., , , . �.�ie.s.au...:.. � � . . ,....._:: -'- Y '� i J t ......., ._...� _ ... �.�... ..� . ... . .. ..�... _�..+.s_».rta�...�..�.._.,..� � '�.u�a.� �"'"4p�YSf'.w.1~'�`'.a2�iL}a�a�/.Fiil�/� �e ' r�..�,. � F 4- ! : .� J 1 ` t , ,.. Y. '� •V ' ' � � 3 l `" {.1 - . . � 1 � � � '�:: � r :, R> :. ,' � M . I ;-_._ f ��f' ' I "'� i.l b S�+ �� Li �1 l l�'?'i � 11� ��„tr s� � . � x„ , .�. 1 i .1 �.�f r .a r :Y � ':r � ' ` ,. I ; � � �x � �i �, ,' A £� �<_ I� i I ' � � * .:,� - ��. r�. i . �,a �,,. �� . 7� � . � . i � � � _:__' i � ._;� ,r c, i� .}� : . � M1. - - i :i '. f�. , '�tM :§`' �\.` -.f`.i `" j ; i. . '^' . � r +• � �'" � ' ,e�. � Y �' .. �� ; .� £ h � � � � ' p � — ; '. ' z., . i � ;�,n ..� � �t� , '��. C ��*w. .:.F iii� 'i �..L.�� r.t.�x::�: �. � u.i,w � i.k� �� r �' . ,� y:� i T C � ,W .. s �� :l" � a _.,.,. a:.-.� ss--- ..i,. � �, � s`�S P :.z" ..t+��' � " .. }� �� i.� � � � . . .�J� c��,•.�.%` t_i 1.••-""1 Y '4' �'.y:'�'. � - �. 4 . r5 V }! . t 't � t 1 wi : .. ' 1..t ` t'i �'T"'� `T � ��f 35.rI�L { x sxl 1` Z �. � r ' 1 � � �.' - �x ,+., w, . a� �!t �: . .. � .. . ""' -, 1, , ..' �.�a - 4'�,." r Y� , lf � .�L � , �'_ - " z. I :._ , � r 'C��w�.s.+_P_'.�s».r_. .i�Sa.e...,._, }'v� �.ar;:�_?.,��v �._��__. � . .._ . ^ � T �;, � ._ * .' ,r^- er" , � '. � , , , � .. ,, y: ;. , �,. . . ; .:,: . , . : . ' . .K.«M � ' � ..:: �... � . -•. �' ' .. . - . . .:� . � . ...�.. ,_`_� r. .� .. . . .. '. :. �e;. . . . .�. :.' ;�:- �.. •v,.s . : :. �y. �..P �. '�. . .. . '., ; .. ; R4^A�� ;Y � ` � .4 ..�' � . . _ . .. . � . 9 ^P r�.�.^ v+..'+'Ya� x' yp.wnwy � : �' �. .. .. ' . �( *M . , ' �i - S o Y 4;?a'i� . k ;. ..: � , 3 . . . '�'+K� �� i .S..l�� ,. � '? '�`Y,iwaT+�W � � � . . . .: . . `�m+-.r+an+t 4 Y �� \ i \ X 3 c, t � . . , _ � ,,. . . . , � � , a'¢� =i;� �. � � � . . .. . �. �§ Tx.."u�'�3a'?. �T=�- . . .. � � :� � - � ,� � .,: _ ' �` z '" � w .x ', "f "+� .+a ^�"� r. ., � -1,.. "" �^.3s;,., �'� ' r"� a � - . .<� ;ron��..� ne zk�,e.� �`�°'�°'�Gv%...iz�.,..,n y;" , ,, M' e ? � "'.^� x '�`�"'" a 3�-'o"c'�"� � '- ,! r ` _� e ,�` . a � +wx£». �j-:. .. . . . _ . _ .... _ � . _ _ .. ,_....a .�.� ._ . ... , . . . , . . :. .,.., . , ..._ M...�--�.k�;�,.«.a, �.„,. _ „\ ;"n:: w�.�"�v��a�3i+�LY?�net�n ve - Yf�inA.x « rf' � �'x" t � :}�.,.,,, —^' ,�:c. *e �.....�..%f— j Y*iR �+^� e . j 4:..= "�^" . . "'F.`:t;�. �: W a.+rm+r.°�x."'w:.nM:'.�..'.vn'x'1""'r . � , ��. � � ;� ... ;. '�'�`+��:ii's+�:�`��"o""'"",.. , -:. . �-.� -. .�., . . .i^..'. � �`�;:'h..:xm+��'"�"' ,. . .. a P ;,' � � ` ! �. w . � .�. . _ . _..__ . _... . _ .,,. .. �.. �: ._ .. ,. VIEial OF SITE FROf1 CORNER OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND BAYVIEW PLACE P�9ITIG�TION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS 0 � The construction related adverse environmental i�pacts are for a relatively short period of duration. These may be mitigated by using dus� control measures.where possib�le and by coordinating traffic diversions to such times as would not conflict with peak hour traftic patterns. Since there.is no housing in the arPa and sznce the site is fairly isolated, construction noise would not� be a matter for serious concern. Th� proposed project is designed in accordance to tne �assina proposed in the Anza Airport Parlc Master Plan. This. i�Iater Plan was designed to �iaximize open space and view with access to the bay and bayfront. Landscaping berms around the street frontage will visuaJ.ly reduce the structure's height and screen the parki.ng area from the street. � Landscaping,.as shown on the drawings in ano,ther section of this report, shall result in a substantially im�roved environment. The landscaping is intended to soften the impact of .the building as wel�. as to black from view ttie parking. � Mitigating the traffic impact may be accomplished in three basic ways; StaggerPd and Flexible 6�orking Time, transit and car p�ols, and mixed occupancy. 0 The process where the emplayer schedules different employees to . r start and stop work at various times �f the day is known as � � _ � staggered working times. G1hen the employee, with the consent of the employer, selects his own working times it is known as flexible working time. Either of these techniques can be'very effective in reducing peak period traffic; recently, both have becor^�e a popular m�ans of avoiding traffic congestion. Also r�lat�ed to the environmental and energy problems are the recen�.return to transit and the implementation of new programs for setting up car pools. As recent trends have shown an u�turn in transit usaqe throughout the nation, San Mateo County has been studying the feasibility of im�roving comr.luter rail and bus szrvice on the peninsula. The Federal EPA recently proposed a series of rules intended to restrict private use of 'the automo'�ile. One of these requires th� establishment of regional ca� pool s�,�st�ms. If BART were extend�d from San Francisco to San Francisco Air�ort, a shuttle service between the airnort and t'ze project should b� implemented. While this extension �aould not be entirely effective in serving the worka.ng force of the project because the line would not have many westbay stations near er:�ployee hames, the South�rn Pacific lin�'s peninsula stations are located near residential s areas. A shuttle between the Southern Pacific and the project's concentrated employment area would th�refore be quite effective in mi�igating automobil� traffic and r�ducing traffic below the estimates herein. � _ � .� The mixed occupancy of the building, with restaurant and office us�s, acts to lower peak traffic flo�as and to lo�ver peak utility demands. When th� offices are most active the restaurant is dormant and when the offices begiri to�close, the restaurants cor�e to �.ife. . Since thc runoff from the site hecomes contaminated.with petroleum products during concentration and overland flo�a, means must be instituted to prevent thes� volatiles.from reachin� the waters of the Bay. A pit-type clarifier (grease trap) which , cort'.�ines sedimentation and skimming action shall be installed to purify the storm waters before they are discharged from the . site into the municipal storm dra.ins in the right-of-way. . 0 0 . . .. � .+ i:};t'txl�:c��,'� z� — t�;;c��xvr: t>>;c:r,nr�n`PJON . 7.'er►t:cii�a.vc l.�r.�ceclure ' ��<��.;��,; �� 5/a.0/13, : ul�jcc#: t�o IZCVa...�3]:0I1 _l' . r..�Ji•,. i. l. 3V1:1_II':i �f�f•.1f: , �'``: '� r r,�,._: � I�. •��. f� I�/i'J� e v , ...+11...J �� r �'a�i r u �u��. ° . � • • • T0: COUNTY CLTRK �� • �- � Goun�ty o� �an !•S�itGo . � Itedwoocl Cii�y, .Calitornia . • ,• , • • 8�O AIRPORT�BOULEVARD �---------�---._• ' l.'ro;�eci: 1lcicirc� � oz: J�UC�1�1�.10I'1 9�0G3 Fi�.e No. ND-159P k'xo ' ecf: T�.�1e • Four Seas Center O�fice/Rest�ur.ant � � �,�ype o� Perma.t:� Variance from Parking� Regulations & Special Permit for 59' Height Le�al. De�crip�:a_on: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Anza Airport Park Unit No. 4 APN•026-342-190/200 � . � � Propc�rt��, Owner: . • ' . .. ' Name : Stan 1 ey T. Lb � .• Address : 828 Ai rport B1 vd. � � Burlingame, CA. 94010 �onc : C-4 A�,>�a_a.cant: � . . • Name: Raiser Architectural Group Address 800 South Claremont Street San Mateo,�CA.� 94402 Cont��c� Person: Joseph Kent Area Code : 415 Phone : 342-9061 ��Y �).ZOJI�C��."' ;�SCI2IPm:i:O�� : A 58' -6" hi gh fi ��-story offi ce bui 1 di ng wi �h 17,200 SF of �_ ��, � ��restaurant space ov'er about 29,OOO.SF of office space on two levels.above a two�level parking.structure with 57 parkin,g spaces plus landscaped parking lot with 132 spaces� �� .including 2 for handicapped persons, tota1 189 spaces. ' '� � � � There would be 34 compact car spaces including two in the lower garage level as detailedbelow. Level � � � Lower garage Lobby Zl x 56 = 1,1 — U er a ra e - • � Third floor Office Space 2 x = , � Fourth floor Office Space 78 x 192 = 14,976 Subtota , _ . Fifth floor �Restaurant Space 86 x 200 = 17,200 @ 1/200 = 86. � o ta s , . Par ing rovi e an ar s�ze par �ng spaces � Compact size (8'xl7') spaces . . �34 - — -- __.� ,�_._---._._.�89--.-_----..._._._..._- Deficiency of standard size parkinc� spaces - 30 �lariance reques�ed-�o aTTow �36-compac�-size"parking spaces br �.�6:2%--�f'-t�ta9�eq�ui-�ed� �---� �-- parking spaces. � Note: If evening and weekend use of restaurant space was assumed to be a specialty restauraniin �fie�=��is�ric�-�he par,�inq "requiremen�s of��.-2�5:��::080-might�app9y:------- � Customer Parking 17,200 SF @ 1/100 = 172 spaces 155 full size plus 17 compact � � __Empl oyee Parki ng :- I"T;200- SF-@-1��7000_"= __r�:_2---��_._----17�.*-- --._..____ _._ _ _ _ ----. --- ----- _ _ ..--- - - - -.. � 189 172 spaces plus 17 compact **May b� located off-site within a reasonable distance ifi use of spaces can be guaranteed for the life of .ihe oroject. - ' . .. Garage plan area of 12,150 SF will cover 16% of the 76,000'SF site; landscaping will - cover 20% of the site. EXHIQIT Q - f�EGATIVE DECLARATION Page 2 The City of Bur�ingame by WAYNE M. SWAN on May 12, 1978 � , completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ' ( ) It wi11 not have a significant effect on the environment. ( X)� No Environmental Impact Report is required. � Reasons for a Conclusion: . � Restaurant uses are compatible and consistent with th�e General Plan. Waterfront Commercial land use is shown on the General Plan at the project site. Concept plans satisfy•building, fire and zoning regulations except for the compact car spaces. An alternative parking layout could be used to provide 30 more standard size parking spaces and avoid �he variance but it would reduce the landscaping to 15% of the site and result in a less attractive and less functional project. The changes required would be as follows: � (1) Convert the 13 compact spaces behind the building to landscaping; and reduce � existing landscaping for more parking; � (2)'Push the park7ng lot closer to Airpo'r.t Blvd. and convert 19 compact spaces � to 17 standard size spaces; (3) Drop the entry pTaza and the end of bay planters to gain 6 spaces; (4) Push the parking l.ot 9' closer to Bayview.Place to gain 4 spaces; and (5) Remove landscaping along north property line to gain 3 spaces. The net change would reduce the amount of parking by two spaces and reduce the landscaped area by near7y 3,700 SF. . � The Open Space Element of the General Plan shows street rights-of-way and "adjacent front yards" along Bayshore Highway and Airport Blvd. as street space. Wide landscaped berms around the street.frontage will screen the open parking area from the adjacent site. Four Seas Center will occupy a prominent corner. This inters�ction will become a major point of entry for northbound tra�Ffic along Bayshore Freeway destined for.Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust territory. When the but�onhook freevray ramp is constructed, access to the'project site will be enhanced. �� A reasonable standard for office buildings which require more than 50 parking spaces is�to allow up to 20q of the total required spaces to be far compact cars. For a mixed occupancy proj�ct the guideline might be 15 or 16% of the total parking requirement. The first 2Q% might be standard size spaces and ihen 20% of the balance could be compact spaces. For'this project this vrould mean that the first 20% (37 of 185) should be full size and 20% of the balance (30 of 148) could'be of compact size. . . . r EXHIBIT B - NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 3 The proposed project parking layout has been designed and balanced to serve the mixed uses by time, provide the number of parking spaces req�uired and allow a reasonable, realistic mix of compact spaces. • Traffic to and from this prominent corner site will have�two driveways;�one on . Airport Blvd. and the other on Bayview Place. This affords op�rational flexibility, with the possibility of a signalized in�ersection. Truck access is simplified. On-site loading/unloading can take place behind the building in the rear driveway. Project sponsors made off-site modifications to the median planter in Airport alvd. to include lanes for left turn movements to and from the project parking 1ot. The existing water distribution system has sufficient capacity for the proposed project. The existing wastewater lift station has sufficient capacity and creates no new unanticipated.sewage load at the treatment plant. Pollution �rom s�orm t�ater runoff will be mitigated by the installation of a pit-type clarifier which combines sedimentation and skimming action. � . . The impact of traffic generated by the proposed office/restaurant project can be mitigated by staggered work hours and flexible working time, transit and car pools and mixed occupancy. Space used by restaurants will generate traffic at differ�nt times than office uses. � � ,The Bayfront Alternatives under consideration in land use studies all show office use at the project location. The concurrent Qayfront Traffic Study has assumed o�fice°use for projecting traffic generated by this 1.74 acre site. It is estimated that 140 permanent employees wi11 work at Four Seas Center. Three study area permits have been approved for restaurant uses on neighboring sites, one being at the end of Bayview Place. Notices of Exemption or Negative Declarations have been prepared and posted for each of these three restaurants. The proposed project wi11 be tall but it wi17 not have the appearance of a solid building. Tt will be possible to see through the parking garage. The fifth floor restaurant will have a magnificent view of San Francisco, the 8ay and the Burlingame backdrop of wooded hills and the San Francisco watershed. Significant project effects can be mitigated by sharing in the cost of circulation system improvements ar�d i=uture traffic signals at the intersection. �Economic, social and physical benefits will accrue to the City. This unusual project will become an eattractive asset �'or the City of Burlingame. _ May 12, 1.978 . . Date Signed � ��'�� S�gnatur� of Processing Official CITY� PLANNER Title EXHIBT7 B- NEGATIVE DECLARATION � . � Page 4 Unless appeaied within 10 days hereof the date post�d, the determination shall be final. pate Posted: May 12, 1978 �� DECLARATION OF POSTING I declare under pe�alty of perjury that I am City CZerk of the City of Bur1ingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Councii Chambers. Executed at Burl ingame, Cal ifornia on �• �%..•�`. �� `� �� "� � • . Appealed: ( )Yes � ( )No 0 -� e.�. f�,� j�i�,J f,� • - % �,(.(../ EVELYN H. HILL, CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME , , . � � , , � Staff Report - P'I anr.i nq Commi ss i on Mee �i nq - Mav 22, 1978 Page 2 2. and 3.� Variance and Special Permit for an office/restaurant building that will exceed 50' in height in the C-4 District at 800 Airport Qoulevard. - Reference Negative Declaration, ND-159P posted May,l2, 1978. This negative declaration gives extensive detail regarding the proposed project. Staff worked c1osely with project architect to balance �he size of the building with the required parking and achieve the maximum amount of landscaping. It would be possible by reducing the amount of landscaping to provide the required number.of parking spaces with no compact car spaces. fihe aesthetic advantages of,having wider planting s�trips along Airport Boulevard and Bayview Place greatly outweigh the o�her a1ternative. This project occupies the quadrant of a future iniersection that will become the entrance to the Anza Shareholders` Liquidating Trust territory once� the freeway buttonhook is achieved, constructed and placed in service. - In addi.tion ta the n�gative declaration the Commission requested dimensianed building plans, a landscaping plan, parking requirement per floor and a dimensioned parking plan. Reference Sheets 1=5 of the Four Seas Center � . plans v�rhich include the requested information, and Project Summary submitted by applican-t. - The first floor parking plan lobby area is included in the office space calculations. Parking at the ends of this first floor level inc1ude one compact space because of column spacing. - In order to satis�fy egress requirements for the occupant load of the restaurant space a third stairway was added. This eliminated one parking space at �he first and second floor leve1. (Note the additional stairwell does not decrease the parking required for t:he gross floor area on the third, fourth and fifth floors.) - Sheet 5 gives a transverse section showing the relative location of the b�ilding �o Airport Boulevard, the rear driveway and the building height of 5$'-6". � - Site plan is shown on Sheet 2. Note the "L" shaped driveway with access to two different streets. Project will require modification of the median islands in Airport Boulevard. Perimeter plan�ing areas are wide enough to accommodate street trees and even future street widening if necessary.. Signalization of the A7rport Boulevard/Qayview Place intersection will be needed when the freeway access road is completed. At the regular Council meeting held May 15, 1978 the decision ti;�as made that the John Blayney Associates contract would be amended and the Planning Department would be given the responsibility for the implementation of the Bayfront Plan. A step in the direction of implementing the Bayfront Plan requires charges for services and development of property. As yet no system of development charges has been proposed, let alone be considered for implementation. Therefore, wif;h the new responsibility, the Planning Department sugges.ts serious consideration of the following: : It is recon�n�ended that th� Plannin Coinmission recommend to Council for consideratian thai, ti�is�roject pay 1Q0.00 per required �arkin space for future off-sitc circulation system improvements. m Staff Report - Planning Commission Nieeting.- May 22, 1978 Page 3 2. and 3. (continued) Future street improvem�nts for �he access to the freeway and signalization of this.intersection wi'fl greatly improve �he�value of this site. The timing and method of payment can be worked out by City Council, but the point remains, to implement future circula�ion system improvements requires equitable means of distributing the cost. Therefore,• at $100.00 per required parking space, vario;,�s land uses within the Bayfront Study Area could pay tf�eir fair share. This project could be approved with the condition that they pay 185 times $100.00 per space for $18,500. � - The variance is-required to allow 16%, or 30 campact car parking spaces. - The special permit is required to exceed the height review line by 8'.-6". - Staff recommends approval of these applications wi�h the above underlined � condition. � " 0 0 CIT�Y OF 6URLI«GAME PL�IPJP�ING COMMISSION MAY 22,,, 197F3 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the.Planning Commission, City of Qurlingame was called io order P�1onday, h�ay 22, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. . RQLL CALL Present: Frank Cistulli Jules L. Francard � . � Ruth E. JacoUs, Chairman � .Everett IC. Kindig, Secretary � Thomas l�J. Si;�e . - ' � Thomas C. Taylor Absent: Charles 4J, f�1ink, excusect 2.' VAR1At�C[ FR0�1 CODC SEC. 25.70.030 TO CO^ISTRUCT A E3UILDING tdITH 29,544 SF. , - OF OFf-ICE SPACF AfdD 17,200 SF UF RESTAURAPdT SPAC�, �l�lITH 30 CO!riPACT_ CAR SPACES; . PP,OPERTY A7 800 A1Ri'ORT QOULEVARD (/�PN 0?_6-342-].90/200), ZONED C-4, BY JOSCPN f:Et�T OF RAISER FlRCHITECTURAL GROUP FOR STAfdLEY LO (APPLICAPJT AND PRUPERI�Y , ObJNER . (�D-159P�POSTED h111Y 1?_, 1978) .� City Planner Sti�ran revie�-�ed i;he above varianc� and i;he related special permit (item 3) simuli:aneously, notiny that separate hearings and moi:ions ��ould Ue requii�ed. He explained tne project is proposed i:o be located on t�•�o lot�s at Bayviet-� Place and Airport [3oulevard and made refere�ice i;o a project sumrri�ry provided by the applicant. He �noted'that a parcel map to combine the tv:o lots into one parcel would be required�and referred to a staff report and the negative declaration prepared for i;he project. •Mr. St�ran er,plained the reason for the variance is to gain c��edit for 30 compact car spaces, noiing i;hat the number of spaces required for the COI115111Cd office/restau•rant use could be calculated using the rai;io 1:300' office area and 1:200' eating area, �vi�f;h a deficiency of 30 si;andard spaces. He noted thai fo�� a specialty resiaurant �ased ix� the evening or on weel:ends the required parking would be 189 spaces; and ihe �roject sWpplies that many. He also noted there is 1G% lot coverage and ZO% landscaping. He said the compact spaces could be eliminated and 30 more standard spaces provided by a reduc�ion in landscaped area and total parking provided. He felt it v�ould be more beneficial to have a t�rider planter buffering the project from the street, especially if future improvements evolve (wi'dening of street to provide on-�street parking). He_then asked that the si:aff report be ;incorporated by reference. , The City Planner conti�nued, noting that details in the nec�ative declara�ion concerned p.rovision of parking and tl�e im�aci: of compact car spaces. He felt an environmental impact report was no1; required, the main impaci; being the addi�:ional traffic; traffic ��ould be divided over a longer period of time because of the mixed use. �1noi:her im�act he noi:ed ��as the aesthetics of a building of tfiis height and the �ollution from traff�ic.cominq 1;o i:he site. In mitigai:ion of height, the parking arca is lo��ered (2' beio�v grade) and opeii, permitting vision under and through the buildincl to the [>ay beyond. He also noted i:he restaurant is on �:he top level tvhich provides unrestricted views of San Francisco [3ay. Since the most signii'icanl; effect is i;raffic, h1r. Stvan feli;.an i1;em i:o consitler for mii;igai:ion could be off-site circulatio'n syst;ern improvemeni;s. fle suggesi:ed i:he' follotving condition: that the Plannin� Connniss.ion recon�mend to i:he Council thai: this project pay �10� per,required piri;ing s�iace �for future off-si�:e circulation system iinprove- ments. 7his figure could be adjusted doivmrard for ini:erim projects; and he � em�ihasized the costs for roads aiid traffic signals are extensive. ' Connni ssi on di scussecl Ci ty P1 anner� J�.VC1I� � S suggested condi ti on at l en �i;h. 7here rras some quesi:�ion as io i;he consi:ii;utionalii:y of i:his as �i�; might be a revei�ue produciny char�e. City �ngine:er� K�irkup stated that similar one-i:ime assessments have been made in San Jose and �cross the f3ay, not necessarily based on a parkin� space ra�:io (square foota�e, nu�nber:of unii;s, etc.) and it is constitutional as it is a one-time cfiarge. He explained, ho�;rever, that i:he money musi; be earmarE;ed for a�specific use. : . • Several Commissioners si:ated their individual opinions; ho4vever,,•it was the general consensus of Commission that such a condi�:ion establishes a policy and - such pol�icy should be hand�d dorm from the Counc�il �;o the Commission. Cii:y Planner S�-ran agreed thai i t 1-ro«1 d be the Counci 1's pol icy al �;hough the Commi ssi on mi ghi; present tlie idea to Council.. Co,�;inission fel�: the approval of such a condii:ion rrould be a departure from ti�eir regular praciices. . Commission discussed the stat;us of i:he tentative map with staff and City Engineer Kirkup confirmed �:he ten�;ative parcel map �-aould noi; go to Council bu1: the final map ti�rould. Ci�;y Planrier S��ran staced thai; under the emergency ordinance �`�hich is in, effec � i n the bayfr,ont area anythi ng proposed rec;ui res revi et�� by the Ci ty Counci 1. Commissioner Ta,;lor questioneci the decision that an environmeni:al impact report is not required; f�eeling traf-fic is a major impact. City Planner S�-tan explained that he felt the negative declaratioi� adequai:ely covered the im�acts of the project, noi;ing this area is sugg�sted for office use by �;he Glayney Report and that the overall impact of traffic for the area is bei.ng covered in the plan for i:he area. Joseph Kent of Raiser Architectural Group, representing the appl.icani:, presen�;ed a rendering of the proposed building. The nzain points of his presentation ��,ere that�i:he compact spaces could be cunverted to full size spaces�if less landscap9ng is provided. He noted the smaller amount of landscaping would s�(:ill satisfy zoning regulations. Regar�fing i:he special permit, he stated that with the unusual setting a most important aspeci; of the site deve7opment is to maintain a visual sense Oi 4'llldt is ha�pening beyond �he building, He feli; one justification for ihe height was the visibility of i;he Qay ai: ey�,level through the parking area. Res�on�ling i;o questions from the Con�nission, Mr. Kent confirmed that even ��ith full size spaces i;he de�!elooment could still offer the 15% required landscaping. I-le explained that the�parapet acts as a screen -for miscellane��us equipment and it�is anticipated �;he parapei;��vould be sufficient to screen any machinery. He noted • that hydraulic elevators are to be installed and the elevator equipment would be � at the lo�vesi; level of oarking. He further confirmed the second level of parking is 2' belo4a grade with a landscaped berm to bufi=er it; soil conditions make it .• unde�sirable i:o go lo�ver: He stated i:here is room i=or a tovr truck at the lot,�er level with a slab-i:o-slab dimension of about 9', leaving �' head room in i;he � . parking area. • Stafif confirmed that no permits could be issued without the parcel map. Chair�man _ Jacobs o{�ened the public hearing on the variance. David KeysLon, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, first conmiented on the policy of chargin� developers $]00 per required parking space for off-site cir,culation system improvements. He.stated he �vas o�posed to such a charge and noi;ed his co��pany had danated valuable pr.o{�erty to i:he City for improvemen�;s. Ile i;hen adtlressed thc variance, speaking in ' o�position as it is very difficul�: to ciireci;�people i:o park in`specific areas for � small cars. fie noi:ed i:f�at offices and restaGrZni:s produce the greatesi: traffic .�i��ipact during �4:30 to 5:30 P.M. peak hours. ile further sLated he, did noi; sce any er.cepi;ior.al circumstances Lo t�rarrani; the yranting of a variance and the denial oi' such a v�riarice v�ould not necessarily cause a loss of propef��L,y r�ic�hts i:o i:t�e o�•mer. Ile felt this could force parking off i;he site and on�;o ti�e street or oi;her properties. As a resuli: oi' his persanal dealings' �•�ith the applicani;, h1r. Y.eysi:on caui:ioned i:he Conunission to carefuily dei;ail any conditions or commii:ments from i;he appl i cant�. � � John Raiser addressed the Con�nission, coirmentin� with rec�ard to traffic impact ' the figures noted by hir. Keysi;on ��r�i�e based on a 1:1 lot coverage and i;his project . has .61 lot coverage. Ne stated the pro,jeci;t•ras conceived as a resta�mant/office . � combinai;ion in direct answer to ;1:he C�ity's desire for more restauranLs in i.he , wa�:er�front area, and the request for the varianc� is a minimal one. He felt ii; would bc a first class projcct ��ri��h�in the yuidelines and spiri�: of the Cii;y's vrishes. Leonard l•laldo, !�Jm. J. Purdy Co., snoke in opposition to 1:he variance, not�ing i:hat in h�is L�usiness out af GU cars i:here are onl,y 3 coi��pacts. 7hcre ,,.��, being no further public testimony, i;he hear�ing vras closed. Chairman �J�cobs ��las concerned aboui �:he restaurant, .-feelin� it ti-�ould be a• spec�iali;y restaur.ant ai; .�;he noon hour as �vell as evenih��. Co!�;missioner Taylor discussec� the.square foota�e and parking requirements �vi�h staff. Cii:y Planner Svaan conf-irmed i;hat i;he restaur<7n�1: floor has approximately 17,200 SF of floor . area and, based on 1:200, the required parking tvould be IIG spaces; if the restaurant concept �vere.eliminated, it would reduce the required parking i:o 99 spaces. He suggested Conmission consider if i;he variance actually improves the quality of the.loi; as stated by the applicani;. Chai�rman Jacobs questio��ed the style of 1;he building, and Com�nissioner.Taylor felt i:he applicant ��,as '� ati:empting to create a higher quality development. Commissioner Francard felt �� the landscaping and parking plans v�er� incomplete; Cii:y Fngineer Kirl;up confir�ined the plans did not shotv bumpers or curbs. Mr. t:ent explained i:he stalls are la��ye enough and include room for bumpers so ihe wh�els ��ould noi; protrude into the landscaped areas. Fie agreed that perhaps this t�las an oversimplification in i;he plans bui, stated�the bumpers a�ere planned as this is fairly sl:andard procedure. City Engineer Y.irkup co�rnented �:his could be a condition of approval. : .� Con��ii ssi oner Si ne t��as opposed i:o the vari ance, feel i ng thai: a pl an t�ri th standard spaces tvould be more desirable. He felt Vrhen compact car ai�eas are provided they are not properly used. Con7nissioner Cistulli feli: there is a trend -for sii�aller cars and believed it would be more desirable to have.ihe addi�:ional landsca�ing. � Corrinissioner 'faylor felt there had been adequa�:e exceptional circumstances demonsi:rai;ed by the applicant, 1;hai the variance is necessary for the use and enjoyment of the piroperty, thai; it ��ould be c�nsisi:ent t�tith the zoning requirements and conforms to �:he objeci:ives of i:he General Plan (as �t is being amended), and thai; it would not be injurious to surrounding properi;y ot�n�ers. He then moved for• a�pr�val of the above-noted variance subject to the conditions that {1) 20�5 landscaping be provided as proposed, and (2) parking spaces be provided ��ii:h adequa�:e curbs> bumpers or ►vf;eel stops. Commissioner Cistull i seconcied i:he motion. Therc �•ras son,e question about the parcel map and staff s�:ated i:hat ��ermii:s cou�d not •b� issued �vii:hout a parcel map. Upon� roll c111 the motion for appr'oval. of the variance carried 5-1, Conuniss�iener Sine casting the negai:ive vote and Con��issioner P1ink absent. � MIPdUTES of the May 22, 1978 meeting ►�rere approved with the follo4ving addition: undei� Item rr2, Chairman Jacobs e��ished �:f��e minutes to reflect her concern that the vat•iance for noontime parking at this restaurart wauld be only one space per 200 SF versus the code requirei�ent for a sbecialty restaurani: of one parking space per �l SF of gross floor area. � J 3. SPECIIIL PFRMIT TO�CONSTRUCT A(3UILDING TH/�T EXCEEDS 50' IN FIFIGHT (5&'-6"), IN TIIE C-/� DISTRICT;� F.ROPERTY /IT �;00 /�IRPORT BOULEU/1RD (/1Pfd 026-342-190/200), 6Y JOSEPH KEPdI" OF RAISEI? /iRCHI7ECTURIIL GROUP FOIZ STAf'1LCY �0 (/1PPLICANT 11P;D PROPLR7Y Ol�l��IER) � � � As City Planner S��an riad revievred this with Itern 2 above, he stated he had nothing � to add. 1�1r. Kent stated that he, i:oo, liad nqthing,to add. Cominissiorier Taylor noted that the 50' linrii: is a r�eview figure and noi: a mandatory limitai;ion. There l�eing no fin�th�r discussion, Chairman Jacobs opened the puUlic hearing. There t•ras no public inpui: and the hearing vras c1osed. _ Con�nissioner Francard �ras concerned as ihere v�as no defini�;e figurc given for the height of i;he build�ing (i.e., parapet) except�to say that it �-ro��1c� be �•rii:hin a given space, but this could change. Chairrnan Jacobs sta�:ed i;he applicant had assured Con�nission everything 1-Jould be kept under �the parapei;. Jcl�n Raiser _ addressed Con��ission, referring i;o projects currFn�l;1Y being completed and s�:ai:ing it can be seen -Lhey si;ay ��rithin i;he plans. He emphasized i;he parapet tivould not house i:he elevator machinery and that they paid particular �ttention i;o see thai: . �he raofs are attractive and ui�obs�Lructive i:o the neighbot�ing buildings. Cor,��issioner Taylor felt i:he soecial permit could be conditioned to allo�,� a � builcfing of 50' but not over G�' and added he appreciated the project summary, stating it was clear, concise and well ti��ritten. Commissioner Taylor moved ihat the above-noted special permi�: be granted for a building to exceed 50' in height in accordance t�rith the plans and specifications rece'ived P�1ay 17, 1978. C. Cistulli seconded the motion for approval. Cii:y Engineer f:irkup noted i:hai the height is not specified in 1:he o�lans and Con�missioner 7aylor adcied the clause "but not ovei� 60"' i;o the motion. Commissioner Cistulli agreed to this addii;ional pnrase and upon roil call i;he r.�otion carried 4-2, Continissioners.Francard and Sine casting i:he negative voi:es at�d Commissioner flink absent. Chairman Jacobs advised �:he public as to appeal and final dates and ihen called a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. � � � ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST � ' � � 433 AIRPORT OOULEVARD ' ' BURLWGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 ' . . � 1415) 342-5711 • � . . GEORGE N. KEYSTON, J�t, • . � � . DAVID H. K[YSTON � � , � • TRUSTEES ' . � � . � " . ' . . . . . . I . . � June 1, 19 7 8 � ��,,, ��„ �, ' . �� i�� J °' ��i � .. City Clerk . � . �d'� �� '.1��,f��t�,�l�eE ��caE�.� ��s�. . City of Burlingame . � 501 Przmrose Burlingame, CA 94010 ' � Dear Mrs. Hill: � � � r. I would hereby like to appeal the sp�cial permit and the ' parking variance granted at the last Planning Commission � meeting�to the Rais�r Archit�ctural Group and Stanley Lo for a building in excess of 50 feet in height and sub- . standard compact car parking on the corner of Airport`Blvd. . and Bayview Place. � � � I will be at the next two council meetings to answer any questions that the Council may have on this appeal. Siricerely, . - .__,.�--..�____.___._�� . � � .�� -�-_ , � - � ��, ��_. � David H. Keyston _ � Trustee DHIC : ph cc: Stanley Lo • , Joe Kent � �--�Ffayne Swan ' '' ' � Jerry Coleman . � � � � � � �