Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout860 Stanton Road - Staff Report� --> P.C. 11/27/78 Item No. 4 MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER SUBJEGT: VARIANCE FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO REMODEL 2,850 SF OF WAREHOUSE SPACE INTO OFFICE SPACE The attached Project Assessment describes the proposal by Curley-Bates Company to convert 2,850 SF of warehouse space to office use, and increase the 26°G office portion of this building to 38%• These proposed changes are shown on the plans date stamped October 26, 1978; the two alternative parking layouts are further illustrated on plans dated November 20, 1978 (Alternative A provides parking for 43 cars, with 700� of the proposed spaces to a substandard size; Alternative B provides parking for 35 cars, with g1� sub- standard spaces). The reasons for this application and the suggested justification of its approval are explained in the October 26 and November 20, 1978 letters from Mr. William Benevento, Vice President and Treasurer of Curley-Bates Company. Mr. Benevento notes that his company moved to 860 Stanton Road in 1962, leased 4,500 SF of additional office space at 840 Hinckley Road in 1975 to accommodate the company's executive and sales/marketing groups, closed their Seattle facility in 7976 and plan to close their Irving facility if this variance is approved and they are able to enlarge their available office space at 860 Stanton Road; Mr. Benevento also notes that the margin on which his company distributes sporting goods at wholesale is perhaps half that enjoyed by the larger manufacturing companies, and that the consolidation and computerization they have attempted is necessary to keep the company competitive and profitable. There are two principal issues raised by this application: 1. Plan B is the parking lot design preferred by both the applicant and staff; however, 97� of the proposed parking spaces are substandard. The Commission has studied and recently approved applications for parking layouts with 10-20"G compact spaces; the CTA variance allowed 25� of their 19z spaces to be compact size. This application goes far beyond any yet approved, and there are a number of traffic engineering concerns with the proposal. The November 22, 1978 memo from Tom Moore reviews both Plan A and B; the November 22, 1978 memo from the Director of Public Works recommends against approval. The need for an adopted set of city standards for canpact parking spaces (which may distinguish between higher standards for short term public parking in commercial lots and lower standards for long term employee parking in private lots) is both obvious and urgent. 2. Burlingame's Zoning Ordinance requires a certain minimum on-site parking to be provided on any property, related to the gross floor area and type of land use. The code requirement for 860 Stanton Road, with the proposed 2,850 SF conversion to office use, is 44 parking spaces; Plan B would provide 35 spaces, which Mr. Benevento argues would be adequate given his commitment that his company will never employ more than 35 persons at this facility, and that "customer traffic is negligible (since) virtually all of our business is transacted by mail or phone". Given the substantial changes in the Curley-Bates organization in the past 5 years, these commitments may be reasonable today but less certain in a further 5 years. And if the property were determined to be unsuitable for this company in future, and it was sold or leased to another business, that company may require the full 44 parking spaces that code suggests is a reasonable average. C � -2 For the above reasons, staff does not recortmend approval of this variance application. However, Comnission sho�ld note that Mr. Benevento is aware of these concerns; in his November 20, 1978 letter he observes that "if there is a concern that one day in the future the Curley-Bates Co. may sell its property with the possible result that the requested variance ... may not work for a new owner, then in an effort to mitigate this problem, we are amenable to allowing the recording of a resolution stating that if the property were sold, the variance could be voided by the City ... and the 2,850 SF of improvements would be removed". Such a recorded resolution has been used by the City before; it may be an alternative to be considered for this application. This is an application for a variance, however, and before approving or denying the application, findings relevant to Code Chapter 25•54 should be made. If the variance is approved, the following conditions are reoorrmended for Commission review at the public hearing: 1. That the variance be approved to Curley-Bates Company and be non-transferable. 2. That all interior construction be consistent with those plans date stamped October 26, 1978. 3• That reconstruction of the parking lot be consistent with Scheme B�35 on-site parking spaces); all parking spaces to be striped and those spaces less than 20' in length to be marked "compact car only" (14 of the 35 total). 4. That the northeasterly truck loading dock door be permanently closed. 5• That not more than 35 persons be employed on this property at any one time. 6. That a resolution be prepared, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, which identifies those circumstances when this variance shall be subject to review and possible cancellation by the City, at which time the Curley-Bates Company would remove alt improvements in the warehouse portion of this building proposed by this application; the resolution to be then recorded by the City. J�, JRY/s 11/22/78 John R. Yost Assistant City Planner cc: Mr. William Benevento Curley-Bates Company . . � ROBEF2T H. BROWN 840NINCKLEV ROAD BURLINGAME, CAlli'.94010 INDUSTRIAL•COMMERCIAL REAI ESTATE PHONE 692- 2334 ���'i�t'�'�8.� NOV 2� 1g78 November 21, 197s C{TY 0.^-. aJRii"^CASRE {+�ju�aWit4G LkPTr Planning Commission City of Burlingame City �3a11 Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Curley-Bates Co., Application for Parking Variance Dear Comm.ssioners: The parking requirements stated in the Burlingame Zonin9 Ordinance for office and warehouse buildings has been proven to provide more than adequate parking for most uses. To the best of my knowledge, the parking lot of the office building I manage has never been completely filled. This is in spite of the fact that there are usually a number of vehicles in the lot that are not being used for travel to and from the building. T'he requirement of one parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse space typically provides a greater surplus of parking than is found in office buildings having one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. In the case of buildings built on spec- ulation or general purpose space, it is difficult to predict what the use will be. In these cases it certainly makes sense to require sufficient parking to give a high probaUility that the building will not become a burden on its neighbors by over crowding the streets and/or the neighbor's off-street parking. The trend to the use of smaller cars has progressed to the point where a large percentage ofthe cars being parked in our industrial area parking lots are compacts and sub-compacts. These cars can be very adequately parked in stalls smaller than the 9'x20' called for in our code. I expect the trend to smaller cars and the use of pubiic transportation to continue. This indicates that the use of a large num�er of parking stalls smaller than currently required will not create a future problem and that in the future it may well take less land to provide adequate parking for a given building. The Curley-Bates situation is not typical of general purpose or "spcc" space. The design ofthe proposed space is not what would be considered Planning Commfssion Page 2 general purpose. A significant amount of the space will be devoted to computer, lunch, and show rooms. The ratio of office space to warehouse is more than what most users would want. As the owner occupant of the building, Curley-Bates is in a very good position to judge present and future employee requirements and number of employee and visitor movements in and out of the lot. From what Bill Benevento, of Curley-Bates, has told me, they have no intention of creating a situation that will not be functional for them or that will create problems for themselves either now or in the future. Curley-Bates does not now have or anticipate a large number of movements in and out of the lot. The employees typically arrive in the morning and remain all day. There are few visitors to the building. The iunctions that can logically be moved away from the warehouseQ executive and sales, have already been moved out. These are also the areas in which recent and anticipated increase in number of employees occur. I anticipate no negative'impact on the neighbors or community if the application is approved. Curley-Bates has been a desirable resident of the Burlingame industrial area for about 16 years. They should be allowed to upgrade their property. The community should do what it reasonabiy can to encourage Curley-Bates in remaining where it is. As an owner and manager of property in the area� I do not want to see actions taken that will damage the properties with which I am involved. I urge your approval of the Curley-Bates Co., application. Sincerely, ��� Robert H. Brown RHR/ka MEMORANDUM TO FROM John Yost, Assistant City Planner Larry Newell, Chief Fire Inspector SUBJECT: Curley Bates Project, 860 Stanton Road November 2, 1978 We have reviewed this proposal and have no objections to its approval. Wowever, we will require that the sprinkler system be extended into all new office areas. o��� �. �t� L, J. N, WNcsnb � � � f� .�:? � �/ / ( �. �. F�. "�� �...� � ���. rrs� t.;:{ `\ i Curley-Bates Mr. John R. Yost City Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Request for Parking Variance Dear Mr. Yost: October 26, 1978 � . �♦'Fr� i,�� V {..iN MAR 1 7 1980 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNIN6 DEPT. Pursuant to our conversation of October 18, in your office, I thought that you might be interested in knowing a little more about the Curley-Bates Co., and so I am providing some information to that end. � Curley-Bates Co., was founded in 1923, in San Francisco, and has been engaged in the wholesale distribution of sporting goods since that time. We market and/or distribute such sporting goods as Easton Aluminum Baseball Bats, Mizuno Baseball Gloves, Titleist Golf Balls, Tiger Athletic Shoes, Kawasaki Graphite Tennis Frames, and Munsingwear Grand Slam Shirts,.as well as probably 40 other lines'of sporting goods merchandise. Although the Company has had branch warehausing in Seattle, Washington; Irvine, California; and Honolulu, Hawaii, it does in fact distribute not only in the United States, but to the Far East as well. The Company has its roots in the Bay Area, and in the last 16 years specifically, in Burlingame. Mr. Sheldon, the sole owner and President of the Company,is a native of the Bay ..Area having been born and raised in San Francisco, before marrying and settling down on the Peninsula. For many years the administrative offices of the Company were located on Mission Street in San Francisco. In 1962, the Company needed room for expansian and de- cided upon the now exis'ting site at 860 Stanton Road, Burlingame, just'off of Old Bayshore. Curley-Bates can be considered to be one of the pioneers in this area which is now virtually 100 percent built. The Company from the inception has owned its own property and has no plans.to change. During the course of the last few years, due to the increased efficiency afforded by technological improvements made by both the coiumunications and computer indus- tries we have been able to consolidate some of our operations, Specifically, tcao years ago we were able to close our Seattle facility and to service the Northwest from Burlingame. Currently we are about to close our Irvine facility and once LEADERS /N LElSURE PRODUCTS SINCE 7923 F.XECUT','- nFrICcS; PURI.MG��'.'E CALIFORNIA DISTRIBUTION CFNTERS� SAN FRAp:CI5C0 • LOS ANGELES • SEATTLE • FIONOLUIU •lAEXICO • FAR EAST Mr. �ohn R. �oat Page 2 again consolidate its operations into our Burlingame facility. That is, if we are successful in obtaining the necessary variance as we will need to both re- furbish, as well as, enlarge the total office space within the existing warehouae by slightly less than 3,000 square feet. Consolldation for us is necessary in order to maintain our efficiency and to be able to e£fectively compete with the giants in our indu&txY such as Wilson, Spalding, Rawlings, etc. Each of these major sporting good firms, each of which is owned by a conglomerate, is also a manufacturer and therefore, enjoys considerably larger profit margins than does a distributor, such as ourself. It is not unco�on for a distributor to have to operate on less than one-half of the margin on which a manufacturer operates. Thus, to be able to compete against these major names, and others as well, we must be able to provide better service, while keeping our own costs down. To this end you will find that most distributors probably have all of their offices, whenever possible, within their own warehouse so as to minimize the cost of office space. Tn our own particular situation approximately three years agp, we outgrew our facility at 860 Stanton Road and had to lease additional office space located a block away under long term leases. We moved our executive and sales/marketing groups to 840 Hinckley where we plan to remain due to proximity of the two locations, However, our cost for the approximate 4,500 square feet oP office space we maintain at Hinckley Road approximates $.70, per square foot, whereas, even in a refurbished state our administrative offices housed at 860 Stanton will still only cost us in the neighborhood of $.30, inasmuch as the Company has owned the facility for many years. Thus, we not only want to stay in the area, but we economically need to stay in this area. Just by way of added information I reviewed some of our old records and found that even though the mix of people had changed between the departments housed in our administrative offices over the course of the last ten years, our total number of X employees had not changed materially. Specifically, we employed 24 people as of June 1968 and progressed to a high of 31 in 1974 and then to 25, 26, 28, and 29 tMF�-�.a5 respectively in June of 1975, 76, 77, and 78. Currently we are projecting total administrative and warehouse employees to be housed in this facility at a maximum of 35 over the course of the next ten years. The reason for the small increases over the years and for what we consider to be a reasonable increase over the course of the next several years is due to the efficiencies that we have achieved and expect to continue to achieve through utilization of the various technological improvements that are available to us and or will be made available to us. As T mentioned to you during our conversations, our office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, with � hour for lunch and we have been observing such hours for at least the last 11 years dur3ng which I have been associated with the Company. We expect to continue to observe such hours into the future at least insofar as the � hour 4or lunch is concerned. This being the case a significant majority of our employ- ees located at 860 Stan[on Road either bring their lunch and eat in our lunchroom or walk across the street to one or another of the cafeterias or restaurants located nearby. I only mention this to further emphasize the fact that once our employees X arrive in the morning by car, and some do share a ride or are brought by their spouse, they seldom move their car again until they depart after working hours. 7n"�^ Pp`��� Thus, I do not believe that in our particular circumstances those several tandem parking spaces present any type of a problem whatsoever. As a matter of fact, some o£ our employees have been parking in such a manner for the last several yeara. - Mr. John R. Yost Page 3 As a practical matter, in the plans we have submitted for your consideration, we really do not expect to utilize all the spaces that we have provided. There rarely is a day when one or more of our employees is absent either due to business travel� vacations, or on the negative side sickness. This is certainly nothing new to � employers, but when one considers the practical aspects of the situation it is fact none the less. Insofar as customer traffic is concerned it is negligible, as �"'}'"� we are in the wholesale and not retail business, and with the exception of a few ra��� local golf courses and sport shops virtually all of our business is transacted by mail or phone. With respect to the size of the parking stalls under one plan 17 of the 43 stalls would be Sx20 rather than the required 9x20. The balance of the stalls would be for compact cars with 13 stalls 8'6"x18 and 13 stalls 7'6"x20. We recognize thia departure from Code as well as the trends both by the domestic and foreign auto industries to "size down" automobiles. Our own employees certainly are represent- ative of this trend as approximately 65 percentage of them now drive compact auto- mobiles. As a matter of curiosity, on October 24, I had my secretary survey the cars parked in the lots servicing The Burlingame Office Center and 840 Hinckley as well as on Hinckley and Stanton Roads. We found that 60.2 percent of the total 487 cars parked in these areas this morning were compacts. We are interested in remaining in this area due to its desirability and also because it is and has been our home a good many years. We are very interested in working with you in the refurbishing of our building as well as the conversion of approx- imately 3,000 square feet from warehouse to office. We consider ourselves good citizens of the coimnunity and feel that the required variance would have no negative impact on either ourselves or our neighbors. Hopefully, you will feel similarly. Sincerely, ��/������-,�. � � William R. Benevento Vice President & Treasurer WRB:sai ,. �����0���9���,��'AL e�A�����4�� ���" Application for a Planning Department Determination on the Need for a Project EIR I'orm E2, Revi.sed July 1975 Tentative, Subject to Revision il `�,I`n- Date Filed ���Z� �%$ Recommendation ND-184P Date Posted 11/14/78 PROJECT Name Curley-Bates Remodel CEQA File No. ,//�) -/8�P Descriptionremodel existing office space; expand office area into existing ware ouse s ace. Type of Permit Required Variance for arkin stall dimen- _ sions ase on remo e o axis ing ui ings. 2. APPLICANT Name Curley-Bates Co. Telephone (415) 697-6420 Address 860 Stanton Road - Burlinqame, Ca 94010 3. PROPERTY Owner's Name Curley-Bates Co. Telephone (415) 697-6420 Owner's Address 860 Stanton Road - Burlingame� Ca 94010 Legal Lot s 12 and 13 Block 4 Description: SubdivisionE, h1illsdale Industrial pk,APN 026-302-440 Land Area 41,125 square feet =.944Ac. Zone_ �I-1 9. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS sporting goods warehouse� attached office building, parking and landscaping. 5. PROPOSED PROJECT remodel existing office space� expand office area into existing Warehouse 6. ,FEE: $25 -j l� ;� J.�!.-_ Receipt No. `�Iz� Received by � I hereby certify under penalty of perjury t the information 9iven her.ein is true and correct to the best of my knowledcyF� d��elief. ��� i Signatur� � Q,.',�, Date . (Applicant) 7. EVALUATION BY CITY PLANNER Either of two alternative on-site parkinq plans proposed bY Curley-Bates would meet the expected needs of their projected 35 employees. Employees expected to use 8' wide parking stalls rather than the 9' width required for no,rmal public use. Increased numbers of compact cars make an 8' stall width increasingly practical. No on-street par ing s 1ou resu ' rom is pro�ec , i a e. Signature J � � ��1 Date 11/13/78 DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT PROPOSED PROJECT 8. I�PACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT What 8re the objectives of this project? to expand into existing Warehouse for additional needed office space � to upg'rade employee facilities� (i.e, toilets� lunch room, etc.)� to modernize existing office 61dg, What alternatives to this project have been considered? to relocate elseWhere How much environmental effect will this project have? none What are the adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented? none What mitigation measures are proposed to reduce these adverse impacts7 General upgrading of existing building and site landscaping, 9. PROJECT DETAILS A. Present land uses, project area: Use 1(describe, area SF)_office space - 5,905,5 sa.ft. Use 2( " "") warehouse space - 17,005.7 sa.ft. Use 3( " "")_parking� landscaping etc. - 18,213,8 sq,ft. B. Present land uses, areas adjacent to the project: same as this project: Warehouse, office space and parkinq areas. C. Effect on topograph and natural features: none D. Effect on trees and vegetation: none; Project to include additional landscaping, •� . � E. Proposed construction Below grade (Gross floor area, GFA, in square feet, SF) First Floor Expanding 2,848.9SF of office into existing Warehouc Second Floor _ Third & above - Gross floor area of building = ZZ�911.2 SF. F. Lot covera e rea o area Perty = 41,125 SF. 9 ( ) i�) 55.7% G. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 55.79b H. Building height 13'-8�� office, 2D'-0" warehouse I. Proposed materials Qeneral commercial construction for interiors J. Estimated Flows in Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years gallons per day Water consumption (gpd) 2 year average 300gpd for domestic use Wastewater from site (gpd) n u u 100qpd ° °� ° K. Estimated people at site Number of residents Permanent employees Visitors, customers, etc. to site L. Estimated parking required Autos all day parkinq Autos short term parking Trucks and service vehicles M. Estimated vehicle movements A.M. peak hour P.M. peak hour (}4N�al 35 � 3 /day � 33 /day � 3 /day � 5 /day ) to site g.pp from site g.15 to �ite 5:00 from site 5:15 __ _ _.._.. _ `. l '� • � rid B�9 � � � �� V � GU,71JYlrAM11E �T..`'7Ti �'�L; � , 1, „.._�„�ia;s �Le.��o�vh�� � Application to the Plannina, Commission and City Council of the City of Burlingame 1. APPLICANT A. Name_ B. Address CURLEY-BATES 860 Stanton Road Date filed � Z6 7g Study meeting Public hearing /f � 7 7 � ACt].OR c�(�;,�,y�(� j — O �T " ic a�- � i��rn.� a�i City Burlinaame. Ca Zip 94010 Telephone(415) 697-6420 2. PROPERTY A. Address 860 Stanton Roa�l - Burlinqame, Ca 94010 B. Legal Lots 12 and 13 Block 4 Description: Subdivision "East f�illsdale Industrial Park" C. Assessor's parcel number (APN) 026-302-440 Zone �1-1 D. Existing land use and improvements sportinq'qoods uarehouse. office space, parking and lands�aping 3. "VARIANCE REQUESTED to change the dimensional size of parking stalls to conform with the number of parking stalls required based on the gross square footage of the buildinq. See attached Exhihit -A-. 4. SITE PLAN ., . Attach site plan, drawn to scale, showing all exi�ting and proposed major improvements, located 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, if relevant. ITEMS SUHMITTED WITH APPLICATION: - Authorization by property owner. x Title report showing proof of ownership (except for R-1 & R-2 property _� Affidavit for Variance. x Site plans, X6(4(&(V(�Y4(3fQ(�f� and exhibits. (photographs) x Fee: ($40 for application on R-1 or R-2 property) ($75 for other zoning districts) Receipt No. `���`� Received by I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the . information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. . �'�ri�ry -/� � / ' � P' Signatur �y '� Date /o�z�/ t !/0 r "T.,. ... e APPLICANT'S AFFIDIIVIT POR VARIANCE LEGA7, REQUI�2EML•'NTS FOR VARIANCE A. Has applicant read Chapter 25.54 of the City Ord}nance Code? / Yes � No 8. Describe the exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to your pr.operty which do not generally apply to other properties in your area, ar.d tl�e extent to whir.h you may deserve special consideration to which your neighLors are noc. entitled. C. Describe why the variancc is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property. U. What hardships would result if your request were denied? IS APPLICANT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? Yes X No IF N0, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: A. Owner's name � B. Owner'a address C. Attach signed statement from property owner declaring knowledqe of and agreement to this variance application. � _ . ' PR�.lECT ASSE55MEt'�tT ,�.�•�'s"..�.� {�"�'7 860 STANTON ROAD � � . ' � BURLINGAME ' • 11/2/78 1T/22/7$ ,� ,.. , project address ----�-- date date "6, "�`! �",,° CURLEY-BATES COMPANY prepared revised b^.••^��•�°•' project name - if a y 1. APPLICANT William R. Benevento, Vice President b Treasurer 697-6420 name telephone no. Curley-Bates Company, 860 Stanton Road, Burlingame' 94010 applicant's address: street, city, zip code Hubert McDaniel, Desien Consultant 941-1254 contact person, if different telephone no. 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Variance from parking requirements to remodel 2,850 SF of warehouse space into office space i,n the existing building at 860 Stanton Rd. The company presently emoloys 29 persons and has 29 code standard parkinq spaces in its arkin lot. With tHe ex ansion,_ Yhere would be 35 employees. Scheme A restrives ie exis ina ot to provi e�t par_ i_n�t seaceS—fUo�QY'�Fsrfi— Ref. code section(s): ( 25•70.03� )(25•50.070 ), are substan 3. PROPERTY IDENTIfICATION ( 02Ci-302-440 )� 12 & 73) i 4 )� East Mi I lsdale Uni t 2 ) APN lot no. block no. subdivision name ( M-t ) ( 41,125 SF ) zoning district land area, square feet Curley-Bates Company (yes) X (no)_ (yes) X (no) land owner s name proof of ownership owners consent to filed application filed 4. PROPERTY: PhIYSICAL CONDITIONS Required Date received (yes) -frrvr (7o/z6/78 ) (yes) -Enu} (to/26/78 ) -�Y�-� �no) i -- -f.veg� (no) ( -- (other) ( 5. PROJECT PROPOSAL . Front setback Side setback Side yard Rear yard Lot coverage Building height Landscaped area On-site pkg.spaces *17 stalls 8'-0" x 20' 4� 13 stalls 8'=6" x 18' �_ 13 stalls 7'-6" x Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and curbs; all structures and iinprovements; paved on-site parking; landscaping. Floor plans of all buildings showing: aross floor area by type of use* on each floor plan. Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant). Site cross section(s) (if relevant). Project Code Proposal Requirement , _ __ _. . 5_.8� _ _10%__ 35* - 43`* 44 k* 3 stall 9'-0" x 2 18 stall 8'-b" x 2 ��ea71 _8'-8,, x_i � _._„ Q�_„�� .. , Full time employees on site Part time employees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun. Residents on praperty Trip ends to/from site Peak hour trip ends Trucks/service vehicles after 8-5 5 PM � 35**s o 0 0 3/day 0 -� -- -- 0 i 0 o � o 43 0 35 j o /day � 0 ereae29 ploye s at esent * Land use classifications are: residential (N dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; inanufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). _ .� 6. ADJACENT QUSINESSES/LFlND USES Required Date received � -F�� (no) ( -- ) -Es�- (no) ( -- Curley-6ates is the sole company occupying this property. 7. STAFF REVIEW [� � Location plan�of adjacent properties/written description of adjacent land uses.. Other tenants/firms on property: no. firms ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no, employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. company vehicles at this location ( ) Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply received City Engineer ( 11/2/78 ) (yes) -E�+o-)- Building Inspector '( il/2/7$ ) jyes} (no) Fire Inspector ( 11/2/78 ) (yes) -(-naj- Police Department ( -- ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( 11/2/78 ) {yEs} (no) CEQA REQUIREMENTS memo attached (Yes) -%�- (yes) (no) (yes) -(rtoj- (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Is project subject to CEQA revie�v? (yes) {na} Has a Negative Declaration been prepared and signed? (yes) {ne}= File No. ND- �$y P. � date signed (11/14/78 ) Is an EIR required?-Fy�j (no) When will the RFP be circulated? ( � SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Concerns Mitigation Measures Are the legal requirements for a variance met by this application Shortage of adequate on-s'ite parking. There are 29 code standard spaces at present, and 35 proposed future employees. If not, the application should be denied. -Review proposed site plan Alternatives A&B. -Are the locations � dimensions of the compact spaces reasonablel -Should additional parkiingspaces l�e developed within the warehouse? If inappropriate today, should this be studied as a future option7 If approved, a future sale of the Consider a recorded resolution with property to another company with terms under which the variance would more employees could add to the expire or be subject to future review. present on-street parking problem in this area. 10. APPLICATION STATUS • Date first received (10/18/7� Accepted as complete (70/26/78) P.C. study ( 11/13/J$) Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) -EHo-} Recommended date �1/27/78 ) Date staff report mailed to applicant (11/24/78) Date Commission hearin9 Q1/27/7$ ) Application approved (� Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (nu) J Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication ap�roved (r/j� Denied ( ) J <tN > > /2z/78 � signed date �XIiIIIIT II - NPGIITIVI•: DIiCL11RJ\TION Tentative Procedure ,�,,�_�.T,r.� 5/10/73, Subject to Revision � �,.,._ IRLIf�i;nni c File No. ND-184P Project Title: CURLEY-BATES COMPAPlY ' � Type Of Perm].t: Variance from parking requirements to remodel a portion of an existing ware ouse. iegal DeSCiiption: Lots 12 and 13, 61ock 4, East Mi llsdale Un.i t No. 2; . APN 026-302-440 • • Zone: M-� Property Owner: � ' Applicant: Nvne: CurleY-Bates Companv • Name: William R. Benevento Address: 860 Stanton Road Address Vice President b Treasurer Burlingame,CA. g401U c/o Curley-Bates Company Contact Person: Hubert htc�aniel Area Code: 415 Phone: 94i-1254 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Curley-Bates Company wishes to remodel 2,850 SF of warehouse space into office space in the existing bui.lding at 860 Stanton Rd. The company presently employs 29 persons.. lJith the expansion, there would be 35 employees on site. It is proposed that 44 on-site spaces, eacn y- x t��. � The City of Burlingame by JOHN R. YOST on NOVEMBER 13 19 78, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: () It will not have a significant effect on the environment. (X� No Environmental Impact Report is required. , R6aSonS fox' d ConClusiOn: Either of two alternative on-site parking olans proposed by � Curley-Bates would meet the expected needs of their projected 35 employees. Company employees c�n be exoected to use E' wide parking stalls rather than the 9' width required for normal public use. Increased numbers of compact cars make an 8' stall width increasingly practical. No on-street parking should result from this project, if app1roved. NOVMEBER 14, 1978 - J�fM. uGS�� Date Signed Signature of P ocessing Official a ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER Title Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date Posted: /_T17� DECLARATIQN OF POSTING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlin9ame and that I posted a true copy ofi the above Negative Ueclaration at the Gity Hali of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on �// �--c-f/ /� , 197� Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No • 860 STANTON ROAD Pro�ect nddress or Location C„ zr/"�,� �✓ /��� —r EV YN H. HILL, CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME PFEIIMINAf.Y RLP012T �. �� , . �. � r� �n{,.,��� �Ns4'ti• t'i: v ..�. _ ����yi• � ,i � tiubjcct �u a minimum chargc as rryui�c.J by Scction 12404 ot thu InxurnnccCaJc. � ,�i�l.i'SL �l")2E�!"L�'c;LrG ��G��E;' a F2SLGi"f.�12C'E,' ���112�[)u�.P7..�/ San Muteo County 2'ille 1)ivision ioer.¢uir S,ui .41,rr<�o Corr»t�� Y';�Ir Co,,,p,ury esinousr;r.0 iorn ]tcfcr to Ordcr Ninnbcr aud nfficc as indiculcd. cr.,rrrDnL� snvzr�c� aran r,onr� nssrr. 1Aiddl.ii�ld nnd M�..h�ll ItedwouJ Cify, Culif. 1100 So. cl Cam�no Roel $nn Mnleo, Cnli(. 1�190 Cfwslnuh $lreef n Manlo Perk, Cali(, �'' 7 � 777 Knint A.an�e $an Bruno, Calif. 150 BDIh Slreet � Dnly Ci+y, Cnli(. 100 Cabrillo Hwy. North . Half Moon Buy, Calif. Bo� 519 1G0-1051 Coc 469 741.76'71 Box 90L 32J�1775 Bo. 70h 583�93I4 �ox 8)0 542-4F06 Boz 273 72G-46t6 Redwood City Ordcr h!o. 2l���7�� Customer's Referenc� ' fonnofPolicyCoverac�eRequested:�pr�T�,����NIA L{1NA TI^1Id'� ASSOCIATT�tT STP.PIT�ARI� CQVI':RA�P: POI.,ICY � In response Yo the a6ove referenced applicatiun for a policy of title insurance, this Company hereby reperts that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be iuued, as of the da[e�hereof, a Policy of Title Insurance in tlie form specified above, describing the � land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may he sustained by reawn of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or reTerred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to The printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said policy form. This report (and .any supplements or amendments [hereto) is issued solely for the purpose oF facilitating the issuance of a �!:` policy of title insurence and no liabili[y is aswmed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issu2nce of a �� policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requesfed. � � Datedasof AU(?USt 26� 1975 a.7:30a.m. -�� c"� J�` ��- —�-'������% .���vYn � TITTOFPICER •jL Title of said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: CURLEY — BAT�S CO., a California Corporation The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is: n T�rr At the date hereof exr,eptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions contained in said policy form would be as follows: • 1. Taxes for the fiscal year 1975-76, novr a lien, but not yet due or pavab le . 2�130%4 1?age 2 ?.. County and Munici.pal. `l'axes for lhc f:i.�cal ycar :1979-75. Parcel No. 026-302-940, Code 11rea 4-2 lst Installment Personal Property Improvement.11istricL- $3,118.04 Paid 2,5G7.B5 Paid 1,07t3.71 Paid 2nd Installment Personal Property Improvement pistrict \1�, 3,11£3.04 Paid 2,567.65 Paid 1,078.71 Paid Covers property under searcl� only. Business Exemption in the amount of $46,896.00 3. ASSBSSMENT No. 96, Series 47, dated September 16, 1959 under 1915 Act for Gast t4illsdale Indnstrial ark Pdo. 2 Original Amount $15,509.84 • Balance of Principal �$4,91 � yr;v;a �,, , Interest to idaturity S,! ��,7 , � 782.66 ��� To t a1 �'' S 5; fi�T:�2-0� h` C`"'�"`�` Payab.le in 4 installments with County Treasurer. Amount to pay in full may be paid to County TreaSurer. ;, ✓ �`�'"J r:. `� ` ,.: �:r�a..,. � '. + sn �` `/, . � ��:����I,.e€?'' � pn�_��,..1 �n , � ��ll`�� j4'�y,'�11,��"Y� / loa'1f� � �s-w J � sq� � `�3 � n addition to the above there is Principal included on the 1 75-76 Tax Bill $1,056.8� ✓ In addition to the above there is Interest, included on the 1975-76 Tax Bill 357.37.-`�� 3y>�' Total $1,414.26 This Assessment (except for amounts included in 1975-76 Tax Roll) may be paid in full for $5,697.20. Affects Lot 12. 4. ASSESSMENT No. 47, Series 4L, dated September 16, 1959 under 1915 Act for East �,�`li 1s�e Industrial�Park No. 2 Original Amount $5,092.09 � Balance of Principal. at $2,564.09 Q Interest to Maturity ,� 3��' 408.35 Total �5'�' $2,972.WN Q�,.c��r�t i4i�,, � z�.� oy�;;.4 � 551, 4 t �s-T 31� -.._---- �Payable in 4 installments taith County Treasurer. , Amount to pay in full may be paid to County Treasurer. In addition to the above there is Principal, included �,,\, on the 1975-76 Tax Bill $551.42 v In addition to. the above there is Interest, � included on the 1975-76 Tax Bill �1ti�� 186.46 Total $737.88 This Assessment (except for amounts included in 1975-76 Tax Roll) may be paid in.ful.l for $2,972.44. Affects Lot 13. 1qSDl� I�.�'1" "S �\� 5/ BUILDING SET Bl�GC I,1NE 15 feet Lrom St�nton Road �s�shown on the map hercin mentioned. l 6- EAS6ML•'NT ['OR PUl3fTC U'PIfI'PIES ovcr thc hcr.cin dc^cribed property as shown on the map herein mentioned, such strips to t lh1'�11 ���Pt open and L-ree Lr.nm bui.lding; and strucL-urr_c; og any M1.�a1� • ' V � U Affects the,[dorthcastcrly 15 L-eet oL- LoL- 12 aiid L-he North- �westecly 5 feet of Lots 12 and 13. �: WIRE CLEARAP]CE EASEMENT over the herein de�cribed property �e� shown on the map herein mentioned, such strips to be ke t �cSpen and free from buildings and structures of an p (� Affects the Southeasterly 5 feet of the n, Y kind. v 0 feet of Lots 12 and 13•. orthwesterly �• COVCNAN'1'S, CONUi'1'lOP1S A[�U kL•'S'.P12LC1'iOMS, bu� �:Ie1eL-i.ng resL•il�_ tions, if <any, ba�ed on r.acc, color, re.ligion or naL-ional origin as contained in Ueclar.ation: �Executed by: Atlantic Life Insurance ComP�ny, a Virginia corporation ilaas & Oaynie, a parL-nershi.p, J. L,. hi. Co., a {_, Cali£ornia corporation, The (4er.ri.11-f?rose Cornpany, ' �v a California corporation, and Universal Sales. Dal-ed Company, a California corporation : September 2S, 1)59 P.ecorded : Sept,-embcr 28, 1959 rile No. : 90p27-R Book 3679 of Official Records at page 1, Records of San';,ateo County, California. Said Instrument does not expressly provide £or forfeiture of tit,le in case of violation., All rights under the above conditions have oassed to Texo Realty Co., an Ohio corporation. This report is preparatory to the issuance of an ALTA PoliCy of Title Insurance. We have no knowledge of any fact which would preclude the issuance of said ALTA Policy with Indorsement 100,attached. Said properi-y is unimproved. NOTE: There have been no Deeds recorded within the last 6 months prior to the date of this report, affecting the herein described property,. 0 ;�� ; a�in ��;��i�, n DESCRIPTION The land herein referred to is situated in the State of California, County of San i�7ateo, City of Burlingaiae, and is described as follows: Lots 12 and 13 in Block 4 as shown on that certain map entitled "East Millsdale Industrial Park, Unit Pdo. 2, Burlingame, San Mateo Count-y, CaliEornia," filed in.the office.of the County Recorder of San Mateo CounLy, State of Califocnia on August 3, 1,959 in IIook 52 of Maps at pages 4, 5 and 6. AP 026-302-440 e e JPN 26 3 0 3 02 44 ORDER DATE — August 28, 1975 S.T.R.DATE — None F' a � � /i �'li/= G:-,�yE_�cio•!.-7i. ' . : [,s'i:i GYiiii' GCS^>l.'.•'41• `� \ � / / _ `� %Y>"c' G/_.�.�i;vi'!.c'Gd1L%?v�i�` �`. � . '-GJ-- — —�i_ ._� � • � i I: I � �J' � /.: r_."<" 1�;:' -r 0 �� h j\ i� �Q \\ �l . /.%:9%�7 Se•!6.'^cx�lii�e"--- / ` � --- 4l/�� -',� �i' Si ,�yTD�S/ . . . /�p-�O I — —I_ i_�' � ti��# PLAT OF: d v ' E'�JST /I''i ' ' - % �" /iJ!il.'s iiT •i.� ��',y;"; ; �gi � ' � OUR NO. � �� �!� SCALE: "- ,�' /,�>, O.•-- / %O_ _ � NOTE: 7HIS IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND, BUT IS COMPILED FROM DATA SHOWN 8Y THE PUBLIC RECORDS �C_�j +';, SAN MATEO COUNTY TITLE COMPANY—REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA .