The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1500 Willow Ave - Staff ReportP.C. 1/24/83 Item #2 MEMO T0: PLA�JNING COMFIISSION F ROP4 : SUBJECT: CITY PLANNER AP4ENDMEPJT TO CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ENCLOSE PARKING GARAGE AT 1500 WILLOW AVENUE The applicant, P�r. Zev Ben-Simon, developer of 1500 Willow Avenue, is requesting an amendment to the condominium permit for the 18 unit project at 1500 Willow Avenue. The amendment is to provide a security gate �ahich he has already placed at the entrance to the lower level parking garage. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-80 requires guest parking for a condominium project. The Planning Commission has also established a policy (Commissioners Handbook Section III) regarding guest parking which states that condominiums should be required to have 20 oercent of their required parking designated for guests, 4lhen a project is not located on E1 Camino Real, at least four of these spaces should be outside the security gate. The project as approved contained 18 units. There were 35 on-site parking spaces provided in two garages. The upper garage was approved with a security gate. The lower garage was left open and designated for guest parking. The lower garage contains 18 spaces (51 percent of the total parking provided on the site). In April, 1981 the orioinal condominium permit approved in 1980 was amended. The 1981 amendment request was for some rearrangement of the interior space and for a 26 percent grade on the driveway to the lower parking area. The Planning Commission granted this amendment. City staff have reviewed the current amendment request. The City Engineer (memo January 4, 1983) notes in his memo previously expressed concerns about the width of Willow Avenue near E1 Camino Real and the possible need in the future to restrict parking in this area. He also points out that guests parking in the steep driveway while notifying a resident of their presence may cause a problem, particularly because of the 26 percent slope on the driveway. Finally he points out that in his ooinion the applicant has not pursued all the alternatives to provide both building security and unobstructed guest parking. (See Planner's comments later in this report.) The Chief Building Inspector (memo of January 3, 1983) points out that the current installation would have to meet the requirements for building and electrical permits. The Fire Marshal (memo January 5, 1983) has no comments. The Police Chief (letter December 21, 1982) responded to Mr. Ben-Simon's letter (December 17, 1982) pointing out that he did not give Mr. Ben-Simon authority to proceed with the gate without any further action by the city. The Chief also indicated in his letter that a communication system should be incorporated into the gate (Note: no communication system is no�� built into the gate). In response to a letter from the Public Works Department (December 14, 1982) Mr. Ben-Simon commented that he was aware that the gate is in violation of city ordinance. He indicates extenuating circumstances: tenant complaints, kids skateboarding down the basement driveway and climbing up to the roof of the building, and theft from cars. He installed the gate on the assumption that tenant safety was of greater concern than the cost of the gate and inconvenience of not having guest parking. At the study meeting the Commission asked a number of questions regarding this request: how many on-street parking spaces are available to this building now and in the future, the status of the the TSP Commission's discussion which would affect available parking, and alternatives to the gate. - On-street parking. A diagram (January 17, 1983) prepared by the City Engineer indicates that there are currently 9-10 parking spaces on the Willow Avenue/Arc 4Jay frontage of the -z- building. There are nine spaces on the other side of Willow Avenue within easy walking distance of 1500 Willow. However, as the aerial photograph indicates there are at least two apartment buildings on this side of the street, one of which has its major frontage on E1 Camino Real where there is no on-street parking. - TSP actions and recommendations. The curb on the south side of Willow Avenue, 20 feet from the corner, is painted red. This was painted at the request of TSP. In addition, at their January 17 meeting, the Council introduced an ordinance proposed by TSP which would provide visual protection at intersections. Under the provisions of this ordinance no vehicles higher than five feet would be permitted to park within a maximum distance of 75 feet of the corner. The ordinance would allow the city to designate specific areas by posting them. The Willow Avenue/E1 Camino Real intersection has not been designated by TSP or Council for visual protection designation at this time. But poor visibility on both sides of the street at this corner make it a potential candidate. - Alternatives to gate. The diagram prepared by the City Engineer indicates a viable alternative to the security gate. By this alternative a new exit (door and stairwell) would be installed on the E1 Camino Real side of the lower garage. This doorway would open into the E1 Camino Real frontage and could be placed to meet Fire and Building exiting requirements for the garage. The open area between the upper and lower garage could be secured with metal rails or other appropriate materials. The stairwell and elevator could be key locked, available only to residents. This alternative would remove the necessity of a required exit which opens into the rest of the building, thus allowing non-residents to reach the roof or apartments inside. It would also provide full security in the upper garage since one could no longer climb from one to the other. Finally it would allow the guest parking to continue to be available on an unobstructed, as needed basis to guests. Planning staff would note several things about this request. First the gate was knowingly installed without benefit of the city permit procedure after the applicant had spoken to several city staff inembers about the problems, issues and permit requirements. Staff never had an opportunity to work with the applicant on viable alternatives to the installation of a gate, because he never followed up his initial contacts. Finally, several residents on Fairfield (across E1 Camino Real from Willow) testified at the 701 Fairfield condominium hearing that on-street parking was a serious problem on Fairfield,particularly in the late afternoon and evenings,because people who lived in the apartments on the other side of E1 Camino Real parked on Fairfield since parking was unavailable to them closer to their place of residence. Clearly the parking standards for the 1500 Willow project are adequate, unlike some older buildings on E1 Camino Real. However, the comments from residents on Fairfield seem to confirm a shortage of available on-street parking for guests, particularly during the after work hours. The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. At the hearing they should consider the following staff recommended conditions: 1. that the installation of the gate to the lower parking garage meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 3, 1983; OR -3- 2. that the security gate to the lower recommended by the City Engineer in 1983 be installed compliant with the and the Uniform Fire Code. �b✓JIC�('�I�r� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 1/19/83 garage be removed and the improvements his diagram date stamped January 19, standards of the Uniform Building Code cc: Zev Ben-Simon Willow Circle Condo Partnership ! �' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2 January 24, 1983 Discussion: clarification of the number of signs and exceptions requested; a desire to standardize all future nameplate signs on this building. C. Graham found this building most appropriate for a master signage program because of the large number of businesses it could contain; specifically, the ootential amount of signage on this site would be far areater than what is being requested in the present application if each tenant obtained separate signage. C. Graham then moved to grant this master sign nermit with the following stioulations, as amended by C. Giomi: (1) that the master sign permit include the plans date stamped December 8, 1982 and the letters from Peter Callander Associates representing Mr. Yee dated December 6, 1982 and January 14, 1983; (2) that the future signs noted on the plans date stamped December 8, 1982 shall divide the remaining available square footage of sign area on their respective frontages equally between them; (3) that when nameplates included on the December 8, 1982 plans are reolaced they shall not exceed the size shown on the plans; and (4) the applicant shall submit a proposal for a uniform size and letter style for future nameplates to staff for approval. Second C. Garcia, motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. � 2. A"1EfdDP�1EMT OF 9/22/80 CO�JDOF1I��IUM PEP.!1IT TO ENCLOSE THE PARKING GARF�GE AT ��-- 1500 l�!ILLO;�! AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY ZE�� BEN-SI�10fJ, TALDA.Pd ifJ�lESTf•1ENT C0. Planner To��!ber reviewed this application to provide a security gate which had already been placed at the entrance to the lower level parking garage. Reference staff report dated 1/19/83; aerial photograph; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/20/82; City Engineer letter to Zev Ben-Simon dated December 14, 1982; Zev Ben-Simon letter to City Planner dated December 17, 1982; Police Chief letter to City Planner dated December 21, 1982; City Engineer January 4, 1983 memo to Plannina Department; Chief Building Inspector January 3, 1983 memo to Planning Department; Fire Marshal memo to City Planner dated 1/5/83; Planning Commission study meeting minutes of January 10, 1983; Traffic Engineer's 1/17/83 diagram indicating available on-street parking; plans date stamped January 3, 1983; and City Engineer's diagram indicatinq an alternative to the security gate. The Plr. discussed the requested permit amendment; Planning Commission requirements for guest parking; parking provided by this project; city staff review and cor�ments; applicant's explanation and justification for installing the gate; Commission study meeting questions: current available on-street parking, TSP Commission's actions and recomr�endations, and alternatives to the gate; Planning staff comments. If approved, two alternate conditions were recommended for Commission consideration. Zev Ben-Simon, the applicant, was present and explained the installation of the security gate as an emeroency respense to numerous tenant complaints: children skateboarding on the ramp and climbing to the roof, theft from cars and storage areas. With reference to auest parking he commented there u�as ample on-street space but many tenants wanted their guests to have security for their cars if staying there. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. The following residents of 1500 Willow Avenue spoke in favor of the lo4�er security gate: Robert Reif, Bob Morton and John McDonald. Their concerns: burglarizing of autor�obiles (stereos, etc. and even a service revolver of retired San P?ateo County Sheriff, Mr. McDonald); the gate was necessary for security of the entire building; security of the lo�ver garaae storage area; vandalism in the building. Melinda Gotelli, a resident of 733 Fairfield Road, also spoke in favor, commenting her building has had the same problems: car burglaries, security of the building itself and children skateboarding down the driveway. There were no further comments in favor and none in opoosition. Chm. Mink declared the public hearing closed. CITY OF BURLINGAP-1E PLANPaING COM�QISSION JANUARY 24, 1983 CALL TO ORDER .. � A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, January 24, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Mink, Schwalm Absent: None Staff Present: Planner Helen Towber; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the January 10, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGE�IDA - Chm. Mink moved Item #,4 to the beginning of the agenda, continuing with the regular agenda immediately following. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN TO APRIL, 1983 C. Cistulli nominated C. Graham as Vice Chairman to April, 1983. The nominations were closed and C. Graham named Vice Chairman by acclamation. C. Cistulli nominated C. Giomi as Secretary. There were no other nominations; C. Giomi named Secretary to complete C. Graham's term. 1. MASTER SIGN PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A SIGN PROGRAPI FOR THE BUILDING AT 1200 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BY KING YEE, THE UNITED INDUSTRIES INC. Planner Towber reviewed this application for a master sign permit at 1200 Howard Avenue. Reference staff report dated 1/18/83; Sign Permit application filed 12/15/82; Sign Exception application filed 12/15/82; no objections/no comments memos from the Fire �� Marshal (12/16/82), Chief Buildinc� Inspector (12/21/82) and City Engineer (1/4/83); City Planner letter to Mr. Yee dated August 16, 1982; Peter Callander letter to City Planner dated December 6, 1982 with attached color photos; January 10, 1983 study meeting Planning Commission minutes; Callander letter to City Planner dated January 14, 1983 addressing study session requests; plans date stamped December 8, 1982; and aerial photograph. Plr. Towber discussed details of this uniyue property with three frontages and the master sign permit request; code requirements; staff review; sign exceptions requested; Callander clarification of study session requests; Planning staff comments addressing issues of the sign exception and master sign permit. If approved, three conditions were suggested: the condition listed in the staff report and two additional conditions as amended by Planning staff. Mr. Yee, the applicant and Peter Callander, his representative were present. P1r. Yee advised the Chm. he found the Plr.'s description of his application accurate. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was declared closed. d j . �# City of Burlingame Planning Cor�nission Page 3 January 24, 1983 Discussion: possibility of second entry at the lower gate; staff concern about the steep slope, �arkin� on the crown of the lower drivev�ay and blocking sidewalk areas. CE advised if the gate were left in place there would be sufficient legal exits from the garage. One Commissioner expressed concern about personal safety with an open garage; the possibility of putting a communication system to the aate in the uoper level was discussed. There was some further discussion about parking requirements, on-street parking, guest parkin� and protection for residents and guests. C. Graham stated his concern about vandalism and safety, and noted that guest parking would still be available to guests as well as on-street parking. He then moved to grant this amendment to the 9/22/80 Condominium Permit with the following condition: (1) that the installation of the gate to the lower parking garage meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's r�emo of January 3, 1983. Second C. SchHialm; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Aopeal procedures were advised. 3. PU6LIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE POSSIaLE REVOCATION OR SUSPEPJSION OF THE MOVEi�16ER 27, 197�4 USE PERMIT FOR PENIPdSULA SPORTS CEMTER AT 1239 ROLLINS ROAD Reference staff report dated 1/19/83 detailing permit history, use permit issue and listing four conditions for consideration should the Commission wish to conform the use permit to the existing practice. Attachments H�ere as follows: site drawing; November 16, 1982 letter to Ann Mori, Peninsula Sports Center from the City Attorney; January 11, 1983 letter to Ms. Mori from the City Planner; June 19, 1979 letter from the Asst. City Planner to Ms. Mori; Planning Commission minutes of June 11, 1979; Director of Public 4lorks' May 5, 1979 memo; Planning Commission minutes of November 27, 1978; Director of Public 6Jorks' November 22, 1978 memo; Traffic Engineer's Novembar 14, 1978 memo; December 5, 1978 letter of action from the Asst. C�ty Planne��; staff report for Item No. 7, �lovember 27, 1978 agenda; Project Assessment revised llj2/18; applicatior� letter from Ms. P1ori dated October 20, 1978; November 19, 197£3 letter from Ms. Mor�i; site plan for Peninsula Sports Center, 1239 Rollins Road received October 24, 1978; Fire Marshal's mer�o of January 19, 1983; Special Permit application dated 10/16/78; and letter from Ms. Mori received by the City Attorney January 18, 1983. CA Coleman noted Fire Department correspondence regarding Fire Code violations and information received from P4s. Mori, after notice of revocation hearino, that indicated hours of operation and class size were not in conformance with the oriainal permit; the CP's staff inemo sets forth options for Commission's action. Ms. P1ori was present and, led by Chm. P�ink, there 4ras considerable discussion concerning her present hours of o�eration and class size. It was pointed out that the concern of Commission was traffic and circulation in the area which depends on the number of people who visit the Center and the hours. As a result of this discussion h1s. Mori made a specific request for an amendment to her permit to allow gymnastics and fitness classes on the site for a maximum of 16 students and two instructors per class plus some parent observers, with hours from 10:00 A.h1. to 8:30 P.ht, weekdays and 10:00 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. Saturdays. It was brought out that Peninsula Sports Center also holds gymnastics meets. Chm. �1ink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the hearing closed. Concern was expressed about traffic during critical peak hours and the impact of those attending the qymnastics meets. Ms. Mori advised all were small teams consisting of children and she would prefer earlier hours. It was noted that after normal working hours there t•aould be parking spaces available for those attending the meets. The hours of 5:30 P.P1, to 9:00 P.��1. were agreed with a maximum of 55 people, the occupancy load to be established by proper city staff. . t� . � Page 4 City of Burlingame Planning Comr�ission January 24, 1983 C. Giomi moved to grant an amendment to the November 27, 1978 use permit for Peninsula Sports Center at 1239 Rollins Road with the following conditions: (1) weekday hours of operation to be limited to 10:00 A.M. - 8:30 P.P1., and i0:00 A.P1. - 1:30 P.M, on Saturdays; (2) that class enrollment be limited to a maximum of 16 students and two instructors per class with occasional parents; (3) to allovd gymnastics meets, Monday through Friday, from 5:30 P.M. - 9:00 P.�4. with a maximum occupancy not to exceed 55 people; (4) that this site be found in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements for this use at this location; and (5} that the business be found to be in compliance with the standards of the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code and conditions of this use permit in six months time. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEM FOR STUDY 5. AMENDMENT OF 4/28/80 COPIDOMIPdIUM PERMIT TO ENCLOSE THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AREA IJITH A GATE AT 733 FAIRFIELD ROAD Requests: exact percentage of the grade into the parking garage; number of on-street parking spaces available within reasonable walking distance of the property; number of available spaces on the R-3 and R-1 sides of the street; alternative location for the gate. It was also requested that Commission restudy guest parking policy. Item set for hearing February 14, 1983. CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP's review of January 12, 1983 Council study meeting and January 17, 1983 Council regular meeting was distributed to Commissioners. Discussion of regulation alternatives for grocery and drug uses in the C-1 and C-2 districts was continued. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette Giomi Secretary Burlingamc. Planning Commission Minutes 1TE61S FOR STUDY �. MASTER SIGN PEP,f4IT FOR THE BUILUING AT 1200 HOWARD AVENUE Page 3 January 10, 19Q3 CP a:lvisec� s�caf�f had ask�d tiie Froperty oswner i'or a r�aster signage program for the guidance of all tenar�ts and city staff, Requests. more d��tail on the des7gr� criteria; �aniformity in design; clarif7�ati�n of liohting in�.luding ground sign ligh�ing and overall fighi:ing scheme for the buil�iina; clar�ification of addresses; detail on namepl�,te �: gn :; ho�r does request exceed r.od�, ?tPm set for hear i nc� Januar�y 24 5 7.9� ;� �E. �1MEND��1EIdT OF CUND�biINTL'M ��Fk�iJ'f iC� ENCLOSE THE PARKTNG 6ARAGE AT 150G ialLLOW RVENUF � Ite iaests hov; man c;n-street s aces.�r°`e dCC�SSi��P. to this bui1din for� q y p g guest parking; avail�b-i lity of an=street parkircy s�}�.;c�s, r�l�esently ard in future, and at what hours of day; titat:us cf TSP Commiss'ion's disr..,,5s�� ofi' these on-sti�•eet soaces; alte��natives �i.o the ga��e. CR a.�iv �:;ed thi s ga �e as ��:si;a' 1 ed wa � r�ot; on tl�e a.ppr�ved candoir? ni um ;�1 �ns, tl�erefore �he gate �vculd �e a�i amer�;;rent ta i.hc condominium permit. ? tem set for heari�ig ��a;i;��ry ��4 ':_98'. � ;- ,,;�i-,�[:a� FrRf�I�I "i�� ALLO�, R':s�G �;i�0<< HC�TtL �aT i50 ANZr'� BOULLVARD, bY BLU�vi� F�SSG�;ATES FOFc GRANAD� R�)Y%;�� }iOf�iETr-L� in'Z;H i'Hk ST:ATE OF CALIFOI�NIA Ai st'vf�'s suggestion Co.mrriss ior, ac;;�c3ed t_o a special study sess;or� ror this i�tem c;r Giednesda.y, ,lanuary ��, 1983 at I° 3f� I� „�.. �� Con�i �rence Room �. ihe Cna � r adaeci �;n;� ac�ic�r� item, i,e.,; :��ect.-�cr� i�f o. n��,� r�ice: Cha.irmar� +o repldce C. �-iarvey, :;iT� PLA�!NEf< ��EPURr; CP Nr.nroe ,��mrr�arizect f`curcil ::ei,icn, at �ts meefina of Janu�r�y ;,, 19;3� Convenier*cs >ic�res in the C•-1 a:nd f;-2. !);srricts Refer•ence staff repori: dat2d 7_; 5i83, CP M�r�rae discussed �i.ne �norator:um imGosed by CUun�'i1 on groce;�y, drug ar�d s�nGry� store� in C-1 and C-2 anci iis req�.�sst that st�ff take the matter f;r� i,he Piann�inc i;ommission for the�r study and recommendation tc� Cour<cil � CF noted police recor�s fro�li ?9.•'S to i982; '.;ypes tif poliCe cal�s arsd hours; regulafi�ons of other cities9 previous public c�ncerns and a summary of conce��rs, �P requester,' Commission input as tc whether additiona'� r�gulaiion of thes�� ;t��res was necessary and, if so, what should 'the nazure of che regulation be. Discussinn: t,ypes of convenienr_e storns� hc�urs ai aperat�on, si�ould not be too �e�trictives des�irability of a1lNnight operafiior�s; l�ca�tic�n of these ct:ores and possibility of d7i'ferent regu�ations for diff2r�nt. ar�Ua.ss prc�xi�rity �o R-1; phys-ic�,�[ regulations to mitignte 1 itt�ring/r�o�ise; ?ar�dsrapi��g;"Ii;il��i:-�n_y rey��af��ons. Ii: was agrezd staff t�rould draft sevprai optior�s -�c�r� Commi<<.ia�i censideration including yenera� �ro��is-ions for the zon� a�d a�,,�ecific set a�i �t:an�ard� for �racery and drug stores. Review of Metal R�o-`s and Su c+�sted Code Chan es Reference siaff rep�rt for this ite:n, City Manager's merno ta Coun��l �11/9/82} and City Attorney's 12/30/82 memo to Cc�uncil attach�ing proposed ordinance al�cwing metal roofs and walls. CP Morrae rev�ew•�d C�uncil'� discussion of the need to r�evise the Municipal Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 10, 1983 Code amending the Uniform Building Code regarding metal roofs and buildings. CA's proposed ordinance received first reading at the 1/3/83 Council meeting. Commission had been asked to review this ordinance, the major change being the elimination of architectural revie�v by Commission of all metal buildings and roofs. There were no Commission objections. Commissioners' PJotebook CP briefly discussed the possibilities for use of this book. Ch. Mink suggested staff reports refer to sections of the notebook, that copies of the book be made available to the public at the library and that Commission beqin discussions concerning procedures and interaction with each other. Chairman Mink made available to other Commissioners publications he had received as Chairman of the Commission. CP Monroe distributed Financial Disclosure forms and an announcement of the 1983 Planning Corrunissioners Institute to be held at the Hyatt Del Monte, Monterey, March 2-4, 1983. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 P.M. to January 19, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. in Conference Room B, City Hall. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary � -- - - " 1 PROJ�CT �PPLICATION �,�.F'c�rr o� 1500 6Jillow Avenue �r CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLINGAME project address �� Wi11ow Circle Condos __ �,- '� project name - if any Application received ( 12/20/82 ) Staff review/acceptance ( ) 1. APPLICANT Taldan Investment Co. 334-4270 name telephone no. 4 Joost Avenue, San Francisco, CA. 94131 applicant's address: street, city, zip code John Raleiqh or Zev Ben-Simon, 334-4270 contact person, if different 4,]OOSt AV2. telephone r.o. 2. 'YPE OF APPLICATioN San Franci sco, CA. 94131 Condo Permi t Special Perr.:it ( ) Variance* ( ) C�ndor..inium Permit ( ) Other Amendment *F,ttach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment of the September 22, 1980 Condominium Permit to allow .�-ha hasPmPnt-level parking area to be secured by a gate. P.C. J3es�1_��tinn 5-80 requires guest parking and it is the policy of the Planning Commission that "guest spaces ... shou —�tside cP��rP� Tarlting arPas " The new security gate eliminates open _ �Lesc to anv parkinq areas on this site. The applicant has indicated that the �ate was added for security and safe�_reasons. (attach letter of explanatior if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s) �PC Res.5-80� � � 4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ( 028-134-070 )(�arcel 2) ( 5)( Burlingame Park No. 5 � APN lot no. block no. subdivision name ( R-3 ) ( 15,690 SF � zoning district land area, square feet Willow Circle Condo Partnership c/o Gilco Construction land owner's name address OOS venue �ap Fran�i�r4_�41.31 Reouired Date received city zip code (yes) (no) ( ) Proof of ownershio (yes) (no) ( ) Owner's consent to a!�olication 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Existing 18 unit condominium with two levels of parking. Required Date received (yes) (no) ( ' ) Site plan sho��aing: property lines; public sidewalks and curbs; all structures and improvements; paved on-site parking; ?andscaping. (yes) ��j ( 12�2�/82) Floor plans of all buildings showirg: gross floor area by type of us�`on each floor plan. (yes) (no) ( - ) Building elevations, cross sections (if retevant). (yes) (no) ( - ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant). (otner) ( 12/20/82) 1 etter of expl anati on "Land use classifications are: residential (show € dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; mznufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be des ribed). 6. PROJECT PP,�POSAL (SECURITY GATE ONLY; NO INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA� Proposed construction, Below orade ( :—S�7 Second floor ( �F� gross floor area First floor G- �- SF) Third floor �� SF) Pro.ject Code Project Code Pr000sal Requirement Proposal Requirement Front setback Lot coveraqe .� Side setback 110 Cfld Euildin� height 110 C 2 v Side yard Landscaoed area - Rear yard On-site pkg.spaces } � G. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) EXISTING IM 2 VEARS IM 5 YEARS after after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM Full tine emoloyees on site Part tir�e 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 *Show calculations on reverse side or attach se�arate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LADID USES Residential uses on all adjacent sites. This use conforms to the General Plan. Required Date received ��) (no) ( — ) Location plan of adjacent properties. ��) (no) ( _ ) Other tenants/firr�s on property: no. firr�s ( ) no. er�ployees ( ) floor area occupied ( Sf office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( � no. comoany vehicles at this location ( , 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts a100 O Other application type, fee $ 25 (X ) Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment `� 25 () Variance/other districts $ 75 O Neoative Declaration $ 25 O Condominium Perrnit $ 50 O EIR/City & consultant fees S O TOTAL FEES $ 25.0� RECEIPT N0. 5H4Z Received by H.Towber I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature /�C � �%�e-Gc�/ Date '1G � L � Aoolicant � STAFF USE OPILY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. The City of Burlingame by on completed a revie�•� of the proposed project and determined that: ( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) No Environmental Imoact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: 19 Cateqorically exempt: Code Sec. 15101, Existing facilities. Signature of Processino Official Title Daie Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the deternination shall be final. DECLARATION OF POSTI^!G Date Posted: I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I oosted a true copy of the abov2 Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to th� Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on Flpoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o 19 EVELYPJ H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME S1AFF REVIEW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply received memo attached City Engineer ( 12/21/82 ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Fire Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) PO1 i C2 X�R( Department ( " ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) 2. SUt4MARY OF STAfF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOP! MEASUP.ES Concerns Mitigation Measures 3. CEQA REQUIREP7E^!TS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: Is the project subject to CEQA review? Categorically exempt IF AP� EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study completed ( ) Study by P.C. i ) Decision to prepare EIR ( ) Review oeriod ends ( ) Notices of preparation mailed ( ) Public hearing by P.C. ( ) RFP to consultants ( ) Final EIR received by P.C. ( ) Contract awarded ( ) Certification by Council ( ) Admin. draft EIR received ( ) Decision on project ( ) Draft EIR ac_��ted by staff ( ) Notice of Determination ( ) Circulation to other agencies ( ) 4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 12/20/82) Accepted as Comolete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( ) Yes( ) date P.C. study ( ) Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( ) Date staff reoort mailed to aoplicant ( ) Date Comnission hearing ( ) Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no) Date Council hearing ( ) Aoolication aporoved ( ) Denied ( ) signed date �1 City of Burlingame • POLICE DE°ARTMtNT �:��.��i�� DEC 2 N 19�2 C PLANNlNG'DE�GT� TU: MEG D4GNRUF, C".ity Planner December 21, 19ts2 FROM: ALFRED J. PALMER, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Security Gate - 1500 L�7illow Avenue In response to tenant complaints in September of tnis year, I was contacted by the building owner, NIr. Zen Ben-Simon. After discussing the security problem with Nir. Ben-Simon, I spoke with Ralph Kirkup and Meg Monroe in order to reach a possible solution. One of the alternatives that developed was the possiblity of a security gate closing off the guest parking area. The gate alternative, I explained, could only have the possibility of being considered if there was a communications system at the gate. The visitor could gain easy access by contacting the tenant who could then buzz the guest in. After my thoughts were explained to Mr. Ben-Simon, I ex- pressly told him to contact Mr. Kirkup and Ms. P4onroe who could assist him further. At no time did I give authority to Mr. Ben-Simon to proceed with his gate without any further action on his nart. ( j � ` `'q i W V ALFRFjH' J PAL2�ER Chie� -of lice AJP:j 0 �� 1'��`iJ�� i �7 lly ��o I�b1L Il llQllCII° ffi�' ml��ll�]�Q',II° 5 1 V�o�l ��.�U.p iJ�.IliL �I�°�]i�t�Il.�Q�.�y `�/xle J�l�I��L ��I�� ,I ��I60 � December 17, 1982 City of Burlingame Burlingame, CA 94010 Attention: Meg Monroe Dear Nis. Monroe: i�c�i��`�i�� DEC 2 0 1982 ��TMpLA�NNING DEP�TME Re: 1500 Willow I have received notice from the Director of Public Works of the City of Burlingame that the security gate is in violation of the condominium permit provisions. I am aware of the violation, however there are extenuating circumstances. The gate was only put there in response to urgent tenant complaints. Kids were skateboarding on the ramps. Kids were climbing up to the roof. Three robberies occurred, in- cluding the theft of Sheriff McDonald's gun from his car. In response to this emergency situation, and with verbal approval from Chief Palmer, we installed the gate. We felt the safety of the tenants was of greater concern than the cost of the gate, or even the inconvenience of not having guest parking. I look forward to discussing this problem before the Planning Commission and I appreciate your patience in this matter. Yours truly, � � , --��-----_ �v Ben-Simon Building Owner ZBS/ep 1 v GTY� i' o,� �/1 �� , RLINGAME ` C�1�e Lz�� a.� ��icxZz��in�r SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-SOI PRIMROSE ROAD �t E C E 1�f'�I�AME� CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931 OEC 15 1982 oecember �4, �9s2 C�TMPIA�NNING DE TME Mr. Zev Ben-Simon Gilco Construction Co. #4 Joost Avenue San Francisco, California 94131 Re: 1500 Willow Avenue Dear Mr. Ben-Simon: I have been informed that your on-site guest parking has now been blocked by a security gate. This is in violation of the condominium permit pro- visions which required that this be left open. Your choice in this matter is either remove this gate within thirty (30) days or come before the Planning Commission to amend your condominium per permit. Yours very truly, THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Ralph E. Kirkup, P. E. Director of Public Works /� � �' . ��/l �� v / G/ � " _ Frank C. Erbacher, P. E. C:ity Engineer FCE:mg cc: Building Dept. City Atty/Cit anner