The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About800 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 4.25.1983- �i � ■ ; _�....... _ iy� ;�� ,._, �� ' , � �. � N � �._._ ........q � .. P.C. 4/25/83 Item #3 MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION �i� SUBJECT: CITY PLANNER SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE EXPANSION WHICH INCLUDES AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE AT 800..AIRPORT 80ULEVARD The applicant, Stanley Lo, represented by his architect, Ted De Wolf, is requesting a special permit to expand.the office area in his existing office-restaurant building at 800 Airport Boulevard. The project includes conversion of the second deck parking area to 11,814 SF of office space. The 40 parking spaces required for the new office area plus the 30 parking spaces removed by the conversion will be provided in a new underground garage and restriping of the at-grade parking, so that the total of 225 parking spaces required will be provided. The applicant applied for this conversion in 1981 and was approved.by the Commission in January, 1982. However, because an extension was not applied for prior to the anniversary date of.the approval, this project must go through a re-hearing process as if it were a new submittal (Code Sec. 25.16.130). , Staff have reviewed this need for sprinkling and extension of the sprinkl 1983 memo) points out th Chief Building Inspector of the proposed garage, accessibility and parking. The Fire Marshal (March. in the underground the restaurant area private backflow va , 1983 memo) indicat riveway ramp profile 22, 1983 memo) notes the clappered outlets and City Engineer (March 28, drainage pump. The need for an elevation the need to meet handicap The applicant submitted no letter addressing this request for extension. Planning staff would comment tides, wind/wave action and s garage flooded. The City Eng outlet was below the level o To resolve this problem he ha applicant install a backflow system. on several of the findings. tormy conditions coincided ineer determined that this f the wave action on these s required, with this curr valve or pump drainage int This year when the high the lower.level of this occurred because the drainage occasions (+ elevation 8'). ent approval, that the o the public.storm drainage In July, 1982 the handicapped parking requirements State-wide changed. The plans as submitted, based on these new requirements, do not.comply. Therefore the applicant is being requested,by a condition, to comply-with the current standards when he submits his final building plans.. Ceiling height standards for the handicapped spaces could affect his ability to put any of the handicapped spaces in his below grade parking areas. He will have to re-layout his at-grade areas in order to comply. The traffic allocation impact of this conversion is modest: interchange, 0.3% at Broadway (current critical point) and� with any project in the Bayfront/Anza area, the prima traffic impact. The proposed office conversion equal restaurant square footage of the building. No other allowed.based on the original approval. 0.6% at..Airport/Bayshore 0.2% at Penins.ula. As 's the cumul ati ve gross office/ conversion will be � request. standpipes er bell to e need for (April 18 need for d garage, . The 1 ve or es the s and. ry concern i s 26% of the office space r � e ' -2- For Commission information the original staff report (January 5, 1982) has been included. The Planning�Commission should-hold a.public hearing at which they should consider the following conditions: 1. that the conditions.of the.Fire Marshal's memo of March 22, 1983, the City Engineer's memo.of March 28,.1983 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of April 18, 1983 be met; 2. that the slope on the ramp.to the underground garage shall not exceed 6 percent; and 3. that all conditions of the Januar.y 19, 1982 approval,.sha1.1 be met. 1' v�/ G�M WJ '" 4�' !� NC Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 4/19/83 cc: Stanley Lo Ted De Wolf � � .. . . � :t r yi PROJECT APP�.ICATION �r CEQA ASSESS�IENT Appl i cati on received ( 3/ 14/83 Staff review/acceptance ( ��c�� °� 800 AIRPOR� BOULEVARD suRUNcan�E project address �,� � � FOUR SEAS �*��p'w project name - if any � ' i. APPLICANT Stanl ey Lo 348-6300 name telephone no. 800 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, CA. 94010 applicant s address: street, city, zip code Ted De Wolf, AI�, 127 North San P1ateo 347-7764 contact person, if different Y'1V2, an a�eo, telephone no. � 2. TYPE OF APPLICATIGN �A. 94401 Specia.l Perr�it (X) Variance* ( ) Condominium Perr!it O Other *Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. s. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SPECIAL PERMIT to allow an office addition in the C-4 district; Code Sec. 25.41.025 includes "executive, administra- tive and professional offices" in the C-4 district as a conditional use reauirinq a Special Permit. The project will add 11,814 SF of new office space by converting a second floor parking area to offices. 225 parking spaces are required and will be provided by addition of an underground parking area. This project was reviewed and approved in January, 19II2; the permit has expired, however, and (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) e a p p ic an 1�- required to re-apply � Ref. code section(s): ( 25.41.025 )( 25.41.040 ) for the Special Permit. 4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ( 026-342-310 ) (Parcell� ( - APN lot no. block no. � _ _ C-4 ) ( � 76,000 zoning district land area, square feet Four Seas Center Ltd.�, c/o Barry land owner's name dtt P� ortaaqe 0. ( Parcel Map Vol. 49/54 subdivision name 155 P�ontgomery St .,�Su i te 311 ad�anSFrancisco, CA. 94104 Reauired Date received city zip code ,_ (yes) (no) ( ) Proof of ownership . (yes) (no) ( �) Owner's consent to a�plication _ 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS E-xisting 5-story office building with parkinq at grade and on the first and second floors. Required Date received (yes) £� ( 3/ 14 / 8 3> Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and . curbs; all strGctures and improvements; paved on-site parking; landscaping. (yes) (no) ( - ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area by type of use�` on eacf� floor plan. � (yes) (no) ( - ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant). (yes) (no) . ( ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant). (otner) (11/3.0/81) 1 etter of expl anat� on �`Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufa;cturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT PP,�POSAL Proposed construction, Below grade ( Sf) Second floor ( Sf) gross floor area First floor ( SF) Third floor ( SF) Project Code Pr000sal Requirement Front setback Side setback Side yard Rear yard ' Project Code Proposal Requirement Lot coverage Buildina height n 0 C 2 Landscaped area On-site pkg.spaces ` 225 225 <- . __.� : .. . � _ - Y,�„y�.". y.'.. �.1. . . �. .'.�., ... _ " .- ' . . . . ' . ... . �-�-�+-Q�'-�a+'+�r � � � � � � '- . . � � '>'• � -Y N r�- �1-� tt3 i— a� o� � Rs a� .a � v� � •r- � res O t� •r- 3 N� r- N i-� r- d-> N•r- N�- N N U•r �— c0 N " ` U U •r U •r U -Q � � �� X cd L � rt5 t� � �I- •r N Q-. N fl-r (CS � fn > RS •r N .� N O t QJ � U>�I-� �- -I-� U N S- tC N _. � N 4- 4- � O N O� o no�+-.n.�� •� •� �cs o +� � > U tn �.. Y N t� S- N+� 4- � fC3 � • r a� -� c� o o a� o � Q- � N .� G. "C3 N � cC CL LL. o\° � � •r r V7 Cn �C N M rtf •� tCf cC5 r • �� a� �a d- a� � a� a� cn a� s.. ,--i s�_ rts �� a. [� S- N � r C � \ N (�f t •r O � -1-� � -F-� � � �6 •r t � Ur O � >i-� U•r- �r +�-� -I-� 4- � � N N � O U O N N N+� +� +� a� .� � �.. c a� o. ti- � +� +� a� •�- +� �� +�4- � A� r— +� +-� t� O•�- 3 U , r- S- •r •�- � o -o -� � N TS 3 ��-+ �n � -a' �° o o .� � -1--> r r fCS -� �. �1-� � (� N N � � N C� � +-� N I�— � � � N rt N•r � N�1-� 00 S �r N � V1\�'� -i-� r- N+� U tn TJ i� •r- U •r •r � •r N � � U � 3 O �4-rr � i � E 4- 00 � f].. �1-� S� � � Q'� �1-� � (n O ^ O S- � +� •r U � •}� S- -I� •r S- U LL. � •r N O �6 S- N.� �> N � LZ�..� -1� •r � N i ctS O O•r � N �6 ^•r U t O�p N � N � a. ¢ �. ,�C N N -F� U •r N � �CS �o � .� •� c � � o a� d' -F� �1-� N •r � -F� .� O-. �x � 6. PROJECT PRDPOSAL (continued) Full time employees on site Part time emoloyees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Trio ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles EXISTING after 8-5 5 PM IPJ 2 YEARS � after 8-5 5 PM IN 5 YEARS after 8-5 5 PM "�Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES Existin� offices to the northwest; offices and hotel under construction to.the east and south; vacant land to the west. Required (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Date received ( ) Location plan of adjacent properties. ( • ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. firms ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. comnany vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 (X ) Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 ( ) Variance/other districts $ 75 ( ) Condominium Permit $ 50 ( ) TOTAL FEES $ 15O.00 RECEI PT N0. I herehy certify,.uriiier penalty of perjury true and corre�#i't�`the best o�f�my knf+w� Signature Other application type, fee $ ( ) Project Assessment $ 25 ( X) veqative Declaration $ 25 ( X) EIR/City & consultant fees $ i ) 5880 Received by M.Monroe t the information given.herein is F~,nd belief. te P�arch 14, 1983 _ ry (qppiicanL� -�, STAFF USE ONLY NEGATIVE DECLARATION F;,e No. ND-335P The �ity of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on April 15 , 1983, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: . ( X) It Will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: Thl S project WdS previousl y approved i n January, _ 1982 but the permit has now expired, requirinq resubmittal. An __ Environmental Assessment and Neqative Declaration were prepared for - .�he existina develo�ment at 800 Airport Boulevard in 1978. The �ro�osed proiect will add an underqround parkinq area to the exist(*j � CITY PLANNER 4/15/83 ig ature of Processino Official Title Daie Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination� all be final. DECLARATION OF POSTING Date Posted: �3 ��/� I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk o the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Neoative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to th� Council Chambers. � Executed at Qurlingame, California on �� —' 19� Apnealed: ( � )Yes ( �o , � E � H. HILL, CITY,CLERK, CITY BURLIN AME i _'i . '� �; INITIAL STUDY: i The Initial Study determined that the project, as proposed, will not cause any of the following effects: �1'/ Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; ,2� Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; ,3� Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or / the habitat of the species; � Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; � /5� Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control; . �. Substantially degrade water quality; ,,� Contaminate a public water supply; l8: Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources; 9'� Interfere substantially with ground water recharge: � . / �� ' �,],0:� Disrupt or alter an archaeological site over 200 years old, an historic site or a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study of the site; ,,�1"1�. Induce substantial growth or concentration of population; ' �,,�°. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing � traffic load and capacity of the street system; �l"�. Displace a large number of. peopie. . �� /y4. Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel or energy; �5'. Use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner; - ' ,Y6. Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; �i Cause substantia] flooding, erosion or siltation; �8:� Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards; �1-g. Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development; : ,�fl. Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants; ; �i. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; . � Create a public health hazard or a potential public health hazard; � Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific � uses of the area; ' ,,�. Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors , to substantial pollutant concentrations. . , ' , ^r r, , - t . �, � . .. � . � � �� STAFF REVI EW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICNTION , Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply received City Engineer ( 3/17/83 ) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( �� ) (yes) (no) Fire Inspector ( " . ) (yes) (no) Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( _ ) (yes) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Concerns Will the proposal have a negative effect on surrounding properties or the area in general? memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (�o) (yes) (no) Mitigation Measures Proposal formerly approved and found to have an insignificant effect on the area; subsequent projects have been approved on the Bayfront which took into account traffic generated by this proposal. Do.the plans meet the require- Request comments from the Fire ments of the Fire and Building �1arshal and Chief Building Departments? Inspector. 3. CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: rs the project sub�ect to CEQA reviet�? Yes See Negati ve Decl arati on ND-335P . IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study completed Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed RFP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR accepted by staff Circulation to other agencies � � � � i � � � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Study by P.C. Review period ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � i � � � � � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4. APPLICATIOP� STATUS Date first received ( 3/14/83 ) Accepted as comp'lete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required_ ( ) Yes( ) date P.C. study ( �/�//�1�� ) Ts application ready for a Qublic hearing? (yes (no) Recommended date (/�a �'/k—y ) Date staff report mailed �t plicant (��20 � 3) Date Comnission hearing ( a S �) Application approved (V ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no) � Date Council hearing ( ) AQolication ap roved ( ) Denied ( ) � si ned dal� 9 INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: F ROM : DATE : Meg Monroe, City Planner Malcolm Towns, Fire Marshal March 22, 1983 SUBJECT: 800 Airport Boulevard, The following cond,itions must be attached, to the approval of this proposal: c,�d2�' 1. 'Ifhe�lground level parking structure must be protected, by an automatic fire extinguishing system (connected to existing und,erground, system) . 2. 'Irhree (3) wet stand.pipe outlets must be installed on the second.floor of the parking structure. , 3. Submit sprinkler plans for garage and new second floor office area. 4. Change Fire Department connection to four (4) clappered, outlets instead. of present swing clapper. 5. Extend. sprinkler bell to restaurant so ow alarm will notify all tenants. !� � �'' � �-�,,. r� �C c;�i� Malcolm Towns Fire Marshal 0 March 17, 1983 MEMO T0: GINEER . CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR (plans are in Public Works Dept.) . FIRE MARSHAL FROM:. PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: OFFICE EXPANSION AT 800.AIRPORT BOULEVARD Please review the attached p7ans and application for an 11,800 SF office addition at 800 Airport Boulevard. This project was formerly approved in January, 1982 but the permit has since expired. I have attached your comments from the former application; do you wish to change them or�add anything? The application will be on the April 11 agenda.for study. We would like to have your comments by April 4. Thank you. l�-1 �-�----� Helen Towber Planner �� att. ` ��/U � Url�d _ %�� , r ' �'�( /y %� �Zr��Z �'� �e � � � �G �� r „ °�% `' � Gzs-r?is P�G%��'ti✓� ��' �� ' ,-� 5��.� G� ! , C� r� 6G��'� S � , , � �� `�� 7�2�`� V � C '� ' � �� - �� -��'�' � �/�� ` � �� ?�� ' - �,� �� G��r'�� S��i� �`�3, ��.� %%�� G2i%� r % �i �� l�� J�� ~ 5�� G%�� t eF� i�� r r ��'�S'�'��''�'1�� °d'✓ ��Z� �.,�� ' �%�� " / ��J �� r�, oa �P 7 �D�L�'�� f�f�� /.�iaan/�P�/� �? ff2��G,�� r�_�.,�,- 4>,�0 _ March 17, 1983 MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR (plans are in Public Works Dept.) FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: OFFICE EXPANSION AT 800.AIRPORT BOULEVARD Please review the attached plans and application for an 11,800 SF office addition at 800 Airport Boulevard. This project was formerly approved in January, 1982 but the permit has since expired. I have attached your comments from the former application; do you wish to change them or add anything? The application will be on the April 11 agenda for study. We would like to have your comments by April 4. Thank you. ��^ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ Helen Towber . Planner s/ att. April 18, 1983 T0: PLAiVNING DEPARTh1ENT FROM: BUILDING DIVISION 1. Plans do not show any elevations of parking garage. 2. Plans do not show any driveway ramp profiles. 3. Plans shall meet handicap accessibility and parking. � � PETE KRINER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR ., f� January 5, 1982 T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANN�R SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF O�FICE SPACE AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD The applicant, Stanley Lo, is submitta.ng a new xequest �ax a special permit to expand lzis o��ice use at 800 Airport Boulevard by 11,814 square feet (Code Section 25.36.030). The addition.al space will be achieved by converting to office the second deck within. the Four Seas structure. Parking requirements will be met on site by adding an underground parking area on the north side of the structure. To'tal spaces on site wi11 be 226 (187 originally authorized, plus replacement of those converted and new spaces for the converted office space) . Staff has reviewed the proposal date stamped December 29, 1981. The City Engineer (memo January 4, 1982) and Chief Building Inspector, (memo December 30, 19$1) have no comments. Fire Marshall comments (memo December 30, 1981) that the new underground parking area will need to�be protected by an automatic sprinkler system which should be connected to the existing system. The applicant submitted no new letters of explanation, However, he was on record at the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 1981, (see minutes) that he does not wish to close the restaurant at lunch. At the Planning Commission's meeting of December 14, 1981, (see attached minutes), David Keyston commented he had no objection to the proposal, but felt the applicamt�. should�be required to return to the Planning Comm- ission if the restaurant on the top floor were re-opened �or lunch or converted to an alternative use. This current proposal touches on several of the Bay Front design guidelines. The allowed floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.9 for traffic generation/land use density proposed. With the conversion of the parking deck the FAR o� the site�is 0.8. The view corridor is protected by placing t'ne additional parking underground. The existing structure is not af�ected, except that there will be one more floor of black glass.a This project wi11 generate more traffic at the three critical intersections called out in the Anza area's specific plan. The greatest impact would be on Airport Boulevard/Bayshore intersection where 0.6°/0 of the available peak hour capacity would be consumed. continued on page 2 The impact at the Broadway interchange is 0.3% of available capacity and at Coyote Point/Peninsula 0.2% of the available peak hour capacity. This project was submitted and reviewed by the Public jnlorks Department before the available peak lzour capacity was exceeded at the Broadway/Bayshore interchange. Therefore, it was included in the available peak hour calculations before preliminary applications were taken in the Anza area because of lack of PM peak hour capacity. (See November 29, 1981 memo, page 2, Four Seas).. Planning staff recommends, if after a public hearing, the Commission is satisfied that all their previously expressed concerns about view corridor protection, availability of on site parking, adherance to the City's design guidelines and traffic g�neration are adequately addressed, they approve this application with the following condition: 1. That the require- ments of the Fire Marshall's memo of December 30, 1981, be complied with. �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/b �� V c� �t� C�i�� .�f ��tx�Zi��tnt.� - SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931 January 21, 1982 Mr. Stanley Lo Four Seas Center 800 Airport Boulevard Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Mr. Lo: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the January 11, 1982 Planning Commission approval of your special permit application for converting 11,814 SF to office and providing 226 off-street parking spaces, 49 of which will be in an underground garage, became effective January 19, 1982. The January 11, 1982 minutes of the Planning Commission state the permit was� approved "with conditions listed in the Fire Marshal's memo since the present use of the site wi17 not be changed:" The Fire Marshal's 12/30/81 memo required the "entire below grade parking to be protected by automatic sprinkler system. Service to be connected to existing system, so one connection will supply both."---- All site improvements and construction work wi71 require separate application to the Building Department. Sincerely, MP�/s cc: Chief Building Inspector � Edward A. De Wo1f, AIA De Wolf & Associates 127 North San Mateo Drive San Mateo, CA. 94401 ��G�G�'��"1+�,�. � Margaret Monroe City Planner Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Anza Airport Park No. 4; APN 026-342-190/200)