The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report.�` _ � ; - "" il _ _ _ �" - - Y � t ' _-r _ ) �: _ � �,�� 1s- � v�=. � a IS�S� I�vvc,� ��• �.�, �_ �, �. b, CITY f Q� � C � l�—� �� y �' �� Tc-- � • i � �� ,�.t� • °.� � r-- � 5 A ��1_..,,� � ��-.� � AGENDA BURLINGAME " I T EM k �.�� ; � : STAFF REP � MTG. b... DATE 1-3-90 TO: �B�jj�R�g�� R hN�l-C7mv (`(LTTNC`TT� SUE BY DATE: 8��]1Q$ER 1G� IQH9 API FROM: ��_ua�t�;�'A BY S�B�E=T: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 1011 CADILLAC WAY FROM R-4 TO M-1 RECOMMENDATION: City Council hold a public hearing and take action. The public hearing should include the negative declaration and rezoning action. Action on the negative declaration should be by resolution and action on the rezoning should be by ordinance. One finding is required for the negative declaration: that on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Reasons for the rezoning action should be clearly stated for the record. Action Alternatives: In a rezoning action City Council has three choices of action: 1. Accept the negative declaration as adequate and approve the rezoning. 2. Deny the rezoning. No action on the negative declaration is required. 3. Direct staff to consider some more suitable alternative for the project. No action on the negative declaration is appropriate. Item would return to the Planning Commission. Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-1 to recommend the negative declaration to City Council as adequate (Commissioner Jacobs dissenting, Commissioner Graham absent). Then the Commission voted 4-1 (Commissioner Jacobs dissenting, Commissioner Graham absent) to recommend against the rezoning. The Commissioners felt that to be compatible with the existing use of the surrounding nonresidential properties in the area, commercial use is more appropriate; that the general plan designation of the property is more compatible with a C-2 or C-1 zoning than an M-1 zoning designation; that a larger area should be considered for rezoning to a district more compatible with the general plan service and special sales designation to provide a more compatible transition between land uses over time; and further study of a commercial alternative which would affect a larger number of properties seems appropriate. TO DATE: .7 �" -� `.. ;� b, c�tr -� ,�,i, o,a AGENDA BURLINGAME I T EM tt �,� :;��: STAFF REPORT oATE 1-3-90 ��i�l�l��,� �1�Y�1R 11i�TL�-('ITY CATJNC'TT, SUBMITTED �� /�� B Y �� l�t'EMBER 14-, 148 Q APPROVED FROM: �� ?��j�11�� 8Y S�B�E=T: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 1011 CADILLA WAY FROM R-4 TO M-1 RECOMMENDATION: City Council hold a public hearing and take action. The public hearing should include the negative declaration and rezoning action. Action on the negative declaration should be by resolution and action on the rezoning should be by ordinance. One finding is required for the negative declaration: that on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Reasons for the rezoning action should be clearly stated for the record. Action Alternatives: In a rezoning action City Council has three choices of action: 1. 2. Accept the negative rezoning. Deny the rezoning. required. declaration as adequate and approve the the negative declaration is 3. No action on Direct staff to consider some more suitable alternative for the project. No action on the negative declaration is appropriate. Item would return to the Planning Commission. PlanninQ Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-1 to recommend the negative declaration to City Council as adequate (Commissioner Jacobs dissenting, Commissioner Graham absent). Then the Commission voted 4-1 (Commissioner Jacobs dissenting, Commissioner Graham absent) to recommend against the rezoning. The Commissioners felt that to be compatible with the existing use of the surrounding nonresidential properties in the area, commercial use is more appropriate; that the general plan designation of the property is more compatible with a C-2 or C-1 zoning than an M-1 zoning designation; that a larger area should be considered for rezoning to a district more compatible with the general plan service and special sales designation to provide a more compatible transition between land uses over time; and further study of a commercial alternative which would affect a larger number of properties seems appropriate. 2 BACKGROUND• Al and Jean Covarelli are requesting to rezone the 13,200 SF property at 1011 Cadillac Way from R-4, multiple family residential to M-1, light industrial. The site is presently developed with a 5,300 SF block building used as an office. The applicant wishes the rezoning in order to make the nonconforming office use and structure conforming so that if it is beset by disaster the structure may be replaced and the office use continued. Under the present zoning, if the building were destroyed up to 50� of its value, it would have to be replaced with a multiple family residential structure and residential use. A general plan amendment is not requested since the general plan designation for the area is service and special sales commercial, a designation that is compatible with the present office use. However, the implementing zoning use for the service and special sales land use designation is usually C-2. The warehouse light industrial uses which are the permitted uses in the M-1 zone are inappropriate in this land use designation. It should be noted that state planning law does not allow the designation of a single parcel within a larger area a different use or zoning (e.g., spot zoning). Thus, since the zonings and the parcels adjacent to the project site are R-4 or M-1, those are the choices for the applicant. Otherwise some meaningful number of adjacent parcels would need to be rezoned affecting directly and causing the participation of the owners of these adjacent properties. The Request The property at 1011 Cadillac Way is presently zoned R-4. The structure now being used as an office was built as the contractor's office when Northpark (a large apartment complex) was built. Later the apartment complex used the site for a leasing office. Then they sold the building, retaining the ownership of the land, to a man who operated an insurance office on the premise. In 1986 the owner of the building and the then owner of Northpark filed a parcel map and divided off the land under the building. Subsequently the building owner bought the underlying land and sold the building and land together. In order to get the parcel map the applicants were required to receive a variance for on-site parking (10 spaces were provided on site, 18 required for the 5,300 SF office structure). The variance (subsequently granted) included a required mitigation that for the next 20 years of office use the applicant would lease 10 parking spaces from Northpark at their rear property line adjacent to the office building. The City Attorney has determined that the requirement for this additional parking is limited to office use, but would allow reconstruction of the present building with only 10 parking spaces on site. After 20 years, the 5,300 SF building could be operated as an office use with only 10 on-site parking spaces. Some of the present� on-site parking spaces do not meet current code dimensional requirements. 3 The applicant wishes to be ensured that upon purchase of the building and the land he can, in perpetuity, have an office use and building on this site. Also he wants assurances that in the event of some catastrophe he could replace the building and use. Environmental Review Staff prepared Negative Declaration ND-428P for this application. It was determined that a negative declaration was appropriate since the rezoning goes beyond a simple administrative (ministerial) action in the sense it could allow different uses on the property than city policy as stated would allow in the general plan. With this in mind, the initial study focused on the potential environmental impacts which the permitted uses in the M-1 zone would have. These would be uses not allowed in the C-2 zone which is the implementing zoning district for the present general plan designation. The present uses in the area zoned M-1 between Broadway and Toyon (auto sales and service, gas station, restaurant) are all conditional uses in the M-1 zone and permitted uses in the C-2 zone. The initial study identified possible concerns relating to the compatibility of permitted M-1 uses with existing uses in the area. Generally these possible impacts related to noise, visibility of adjacent less compatible uses, parking and access. The present M-1 zoning district addresses visibility of use by requiring all activities occur indoors except storage which must be kept at the rear or side of the building and fully enclosed by a fence or wall. Any change in use would have to provide the parking required by the code on site. The street is presently a commercial arterial often used by trucks serving the adjacent auto sales and service businesses, gas station and restaurant. Thus the addition of a small light industrial use would not have a significant impact. Finally, noise is addressed in the general plan and a new use could not increase noise by more than 5 dBA at property line. The Planning Commission did note that because of the proximity of 101 to the area it was already very noisy and it would take a lot of additional noise to raise the noise level at property line 5 dBA. EXHIBITS: - Monroe letter to Mr. and Mrs. Covarelli, December 5, 1989, setting Council hearing - City Council Minutes, December 4, 1989 - City Council Staff Report, December 4, 1989 - Planning Commission Minutes, November 27, 1989 - Planning Commission Staff Report, November 27, 1989 w/attachments - Resolution No. 57-89, Planning Commission, Recommending Negative Declaration - Resolution No. 58-89, Planning Commission, Recommending Denial of Rezoning Request 4 - Notice of City Council public hearing sent to property owners December 15, 1989 - Notice of Public Hearing, SAN MATEO TIMES, published December 20, 1989 - City Council Resolution and Ordinance for consideration MM/s cc: A1 and Jean Covarelli (applicants) David T. O'Neal (property owner) (v CITY C;t. O'� BURLINGAME .1.. l% ^�.rx''� � � woe � qq �9 \`,�RATEo JUNCb V�� V �� MM Y�V�'.�. YN J CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 December 5, 1989 A1 and Jean Covarelli 1001 Broadway - Suite 302 Millbrae, CA 94030-1951 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Covarelli: � � �--. PLANNING DEPARTMENT (415) 342-8625 At the City Council meeting of December 4, 1989 the Council scheduled a public hearing for consideration of a negative declaration and rezoning of the property at 1011 Cadillac Way from R-4 (multiple family residential} to M-1 (light industrial). The hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 3, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there. any questions. Please call me if you have Sincerely yours, ��:.� �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: David T. O'Neal (property owner) City Clerk � Councilman Pagliaro moved approval of the Mayor's assignments. Seconded by Councilman Harrison, carried unanimously by voice vote. COMMISSION CANDIDATES City Manager reviewed list of 29 candidates to the various commission vacancies. Councilman Pagliaro asked that since there are only three candidates to the Beautification Commission the filing period be continued until December 15. He also noted that there may be another opening on the Planning Commission in a few months and suggested council might interview for both openings. Councilwoman Barton agreed, noting council wants to appoint Planning Commissioners early in order for them to have an preparatory period before beginning their term. Interview teams are to inform City Manager of dates for interviews. CANCEL DECEMBER 18 COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lembi asked if council had any objections to canceling the next regular meeting due to the holidays. Council had no objection. Councilman Harrison moved to cancel the December 18 meeting. Seconded by Councilman Pagliaro, carried unanimously. SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING OF 1011 CADILLAC WAY City Planner reviewed her memo of November 29 which recommended council set public hearing for January 3, 1990 meeting. Council concurred. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Lembi commented on the preposterous requirements of one government agency from another government agency regarding San Francisco Water Department's lease agreement, Item C, which requires the city to provide a faithful performance bond. Mr. Sopko requested to make comment on Item G which was removed from Consent Calendar. a. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR DRAINAGE LINE IN DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 1718 ROLLINS ROAD Public Works memo of November 294 recommended council approve this permit subject to the requirement that the property owner be responsible for the maintenance of this drainage pipe. i� c. � RESOLUTION 126-89 - LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SAN FRANCISCO WATER FOR LAND AT BROADWAY AND ALONG CALIFORNIA DRIVE Public Works memo of November 29 recommended council approve an agreement with San Francisco water Department for leasing property along California Drive from Broadway to a point 170 feet south of Trousdale Drive. The terms of the lease are five years with an option to extend the term an additional five years with the lease being on a monthly basis thereafter. There is provision for condemnation if the city decides to acquire part or all of the property by fee simple. It also requires that the city provide a surety performance bond in the sum equal to six months rental to ensure the city's faithful performance of the lease. RESOLUTION 127-89 - AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN MATEO COUNTY AND CITY FOR UPGRADE OF CIVIL DEFENSE MICROWAVE SYSTEM City Manager's memo of November 28 recommended council approve this agreement with the County to fund replacement components for the county-wide microwave system. Burlingame's share of the project cost is estimated to be $10,378. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR SIX FOOT FENCE IN EASEMENT AT 1407 MONTERO AVENUE Public Works memo of November 29 recommended council approve this permit subject to the condition that the pile of firewood be removed from tY}e easement. City Council Minutes December 4, 1989 ,* TO DATE � CITY �� O� AGENDA BURLINGAME ITEM e ��:;e;�:�:. STAFF REPORT DATE 12/4/89 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 29, 1989 BY �� CITY PLANNER APPROVED FROM: gy SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUBJECT: AND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 1011 CADILLAC WAY FROM R-4 �MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RECOMMENDATION: City Council set the public hearing on this request fvr January 3, 1990. BACKGROUND: The property at 1011 Cadillac Way originally a part of the Northpark apartment complex is presently zoned for multiple family residential use (R-4) but developed with a nonconforming 5,300 SF office building. The prospective buyer of this property now separate from Northpark apartments is requesting a rezoning of the property to M-1 (light industrial), the same zoning designation as the property adjacent to the east and across the street. The Northpark apartments would remain R-4. With the rezoning to M-1 the office use would no longer be nonconforming. Rezonings require adoption of an ordinance to amend the zoning map, thus final action on the request is by the City Council. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and made a recommendation as city procedure requires. EXHIBIT - Planning Commission Minutes of November 27, 1989 MM/s cc: A1 and Jean Covarelli (applicants) David T. O'Neal (property owner) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 27, 1989 employees or vehicles, he must come back to the Commission for amendment of his use permit . `��,,,.,:�,r� �� ,,..r--� Motion was ap.proved on a 5-0 roll call,,,,�td�e, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedur„�s were advised. __ , ' Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M. 6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 1011 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 11/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of use of the site and building, parking provided; applicants wish to purchase but are concerned about the nonconforming status of the site, rezoning to M-1 is being requested; neighboring properties are zoned M-1 except for Northpark which is zoned R-4, the general plan land use designation is service and special sales. Negative Declaration ND- 428P was prepared, it focuses specifically on the impacts of permitted uses in the M-1 zone which could go on this property without a special permit and city review since these are the ones with the greatest potential for impact on the adjacent residential use. The conclusion of the negative declaration was that based on the initial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. CP discussed parking provided including 10 spaces leased from the Northpark apartment complex (by variance in 1986), parking requirements have increased since this complex was built, there has been no recent study of Northpark parking but staff has received no complaints. CA has determined that parking goes with the use on the site, not with the building, it could be rebuilt as office with the 10 Northpark spaces, if the use changed the variance would no longer be in effect. CP concluded her review with a summary of Planning Commission action. Commission discussion/comment: applicant is requesting rezoning to M-1 because it is the least restrictive use of the property, what is the most restrictive zoning which would allow the office building; staff advised C-3, however state planning law would not allow the rezoning of a single isolated parcel. Responding to another question staff advised restaurants are not allowed in C-3, they are allowed in C-1 and C-2, the Velvet Turtle is in R-4; C-2 is heavy commercial and allows all uses in the C-1 zone. Rezoning the restaurant, gas station and this property to C-2 was suggested, this would not be spot zoning or planning, it would be even better if more properties were included, perhaps the properties across the street could be rezoned to C-2 including the auto sales and service businesses; concern about environmental assessment and noise going from R-4 to M-1, the major noise generator in that area is the Bayshore Freeway which has the highest CNEL in the city, do not Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 27, 1989 think 5 dBA increase at property line allowed is a reasonable protection given the high ambient noise level in the area. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. A1 Covarelli, applicant, was present. His comments: their business is basically a paper mill, they are purchasing agents who process purchase orders, they act as agents for hotel owners and do all the purchasing for the hotel, the work is done on computers, it is quiet, there are nine people in the office and two outside agents, one in Northern California and one in Southern California. He advised he did not want to buy this property as a nonconforming use, if there was a disaster he couldn�t put it back as an office with the present zoning, he needs an office building, not an apartment building; his purchase of this site is contingent on the rezoning. Responding to Commissioner questions, applicant stated rezoning to something other than M-1 would be fine with him as long as he could retain an office use, it is a concrete block building, he has not had a problem financing a nonconforming property. A Commissioner commented he was not concerned with the office use of this building but rather that some future owner might go to the limit of what is allowed in M-1. Applicant said he would not object to rezoning with conditions. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have a basic concern with this property, Northpark is huge, the city is limited in property zoned R-4, am opposed to M-1, are C-3 uses quieter? Staff advised C-3 allows only office use and promotes certain kinds of office use, medical, dental, real estate and financial. Continued comment: am not convinced R-4 zoning should not be retained on this lot, the businesses on Rollins Road face the freeway, this would be the first lot oriented toward the more residential street frontage, how can we help the applicant and maintain the integrity of R-4; regardless of the general plan designation, there is a lot of noise in that area now, with rezoning could get a lot of incompatible uses, Northpark is very close, am opposed to giving up this R-4 lot. Responding to Commission question, staff advised if R-4 zoning were retained and the existing building substantially damaged the owner would probably have to demolish the existing building and construct an apartment building, parking would be a restraint to the final number of apartment units. Further comment: would be in favor of what the applicant is attempting to do, to continue with the current occupancy by changing the zoning so that he can have an office use and rebuild for office use if something should happen to the structure; not in favor of M-1, am in favor of maintaining the use, it is an appropriate use and acts as a good buffer, if a C zone is needed for this use then Commission needs to consider C zoning for other properties, think a C zone would be better than Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 November 27, 1989 M-1 for many properties in that area; have a problem with R-4, there is a need for a buffer between M-1 and R-4, office is a good buffer, opposed to M-1, staff has concerns about C and spot zoning with C, would like to accommodate the applicant in a positive manner. Possibility of approving M-1 this evening was suggested, then at the next opportunity changing the whole area to a C zone. Staff warned of the consequences and incompatible uses which might occur before procedures for changing to a C zone could be accomplished. Commission comment: am not comfortable with M-1, to rezone to a C and not spot zone will require other lots be included and necessitate further hearings, etc. CP suggested Commission could make a positive recommendation to City Council by stating that rather than M-1 some other zoning is more appropriate and that it should include a larger area, Commission could be specific about the area, the proposed C zoning should have contiguous lots; the negative declaration could still be approved. Commission discussion continued: cannot recommend to City Council without a study of the whole picture; a lot of things were done in good faith in this area previously, applicant�s proposal is for an office building which was associated with the operation of Northpark and expected to continue forever, unfortunately forever lasted less than 10 years, it was a good faith action originally, now Commission should look at the future and not just patch up. C. Giomi moved to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration ND-428P with the finding that based on the initial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Graham absent. C. Mink moved to recommend to City Council denial of rezoning of the 1011 Cadillac Way property from R-4 multiple family residential to M-1 light industrial for the following reasons: that the existing use of the surrounding properties is more appropriately a commercial zone than an industrial zone, e.g., restaurant use, automobile sales and repair; that the general plan service and special sales designation of the subject property is more compatible with the uses of the C-2 district than the R-4 or M-1 zoning districts; and that a larger area should be considered for rezoning to a district more effective in implementing the general plan designation of service and special sales and provide a more compatible transition between uses over time. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: R-4 is not appropriate, neither is M-1, C-2 probably is; the whole area would serve to buffer the Northpark apartments from the greatest noise source which is Bayshore Freeway; will support the motion, not Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 27, 1989 comfortable but am not in support of the M-1 rezone request; will support the motion with the understanding further study will be undertaken. Motion was approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Graham absent. Staff will forward Commission�s recommendation to City Council. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT._ . ,:! ,,,.---'. - 1990 City Council Calendar yl'•� -/' PLANNER REPORTS , %'` - 1990 Planning C vote . �� - CP Monr� reviewe regular'meeting. ADJOURNMENT ssion schedu•le - approved unanimously on voice .`^� d Council actions� at��,,its November 20, 1989 The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary P.C. 11/27/89 Item # 6 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 1011 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED R-4 A1 and Jean Covarelli are requesting to rezone the 13,200 SF property at 1011 Cadillac Way from R-4 multiple family residential to M-1 light industrial. The site is presently developed with a 5,300 SF block building used as an office. The general plan designation of this site and the entire area from Broadway to Toyon between Rollins and Carolan Avenue is service and special sales (see general plan map). This use is generally implemented by the C-2 zone but many of the uses of the C-2 zone are allowed in the M-1 district. The general plan designation would guide future development toward those uses allowed in the M-1 zone which are also allowed in the C-2. Examples of these uses all of which require a conditional use permit would be auto sales lots and service, grocery stores, restaurants and bulk merchandise. The proposed parcel to be changed is located between a small area zoned M-1 light industrial on the south side of Cadillac Way and on the west and south by the Northpark apartment complex zoned R-4 multiple family residential. The entire block across Cadillac Way facing the proposed property is zoned M-1. The use there is auto sales and service. History In 1986 a variance for parking was granted to create a separate parcel from the Northpark apartment complex for the present block structure. The variance was for eight spaces since the 5,300 SF building required 18 parking spaces at 1:300 for office use and there were only 10 parking spaces on the site. The parking variance was necessary for the nonconforming use to continue on the site with the lot split. The variance for the lot split included a mitigation that the office use lease, from the adjacent Northpark apartments, 10 parking spaces to be available for office tenants/employees from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. weekdays. According to the conditions this mitigation must be provided for 20 years if the office use continues that long. The City Attorney has determined that since this is a mitigation to continue a preexisting nonconforming office use on the site the requirement for the 10 additional spaces goes with the office use not with the land. The wording of the conditions substantiates this determination (see Resolution 23-86 with Exhibit A). 2 The excerpt from the May, 1986 tentative and final parcel map shows the parking layout on site which was approved. The map also shows the 10 covered parking spaces leased from the Northpark apartments for mitigation. These 10 parking spaces are located along the rear property line of the Northpark site adjacent to the Velvet Turtle restaurant property but accessible only from Cadillac Way (see tentative and final parcel map reduction for layout). Environmental Review Negative Declaration ND-428P has been prepared for this request. It was determined that a negative declaration was appropriate because the rezoning goes beyond a ministerial action, even though, in this case, the zoning would become conforming with the policy of the general plan as stated in the land use designation and land use element. The initial study for this request focused on the impacts af all uses in the M-1 zone, but particularly on the permitted uses since they can locate without any city review as long as the structures housing the use meet the city code requirements. However, even permitted uses must meet the requirements of the zoning and general plan for the M-1 district; therefore noise emissions from the site could not exceed 5 dBA over present at property line, outdoor storage areas would have to be enclosed by a solid fence or wall and kept to the side and rear of the lot; and all parking for all uses other than office would have to be provided on site. The conclusion of the negative declaration was that based on the initial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. Staff Comments City staff have reviewed the request for rezoning. The City Engineer, Fire Marshal and Chief Building Inspector had no comments. In the future individual projects would of course have to be reviewed for their compliance with all city codes. Planning staff would point out that the present general plan designation for this site and the Northpark apartments is not consistent with the R-4 zoning. In the future the Planning Commission may wish to review the general plan policy and designation regarding this entire area. Study Ouestions The Planning Commission reviewed this project at study on November 13, 1989. A number of questions were asked (Planning Commission Minutes, November 13, 1989). There are 10 parking spaces on the site at 1011 Cadillac Way. The six of the spaces parallel to the building are 8' x 20' (code required dimension for parallel spaces is 8'-6" x 20', Code Sec. 25.70.020) with a 28' wide driveway 3 access (14' wide provided on site, 20' wide provided if include portion of driveway on Northpark site, Code Sec. 25.70.020). The four spaces at the rear of the lot appear to meet code dimensional requirements (9' or 10' x 20' width, 24' backup aisle, Code Sec. 25.70.020 a4, b3). The 10 spaces leased from Northpark are located immediately adjacent to the rear property line of both the apartment complex and 1011 Cadillac Way. They are covered by a carport and marked for the office tenants' use. A recent parking study has not been done of Northpark. When the subdivision map was approved this parking at the rear of the complex was underused. The complex was required to provide one and a half (1.5) spaces per unit at the time of construction (756 spaces). Present parking requirements for apartment development are higher and would require 816 spaces or 8$ more than were required in the 1972 approval. However, the shared use of parking of the office building and apartment complex has been in effect for about 15 years. There have been no complaints to the city regarding the shared use. Under the M-1 zoning district permitted uses, those allowed without any city review, include light manufacturing or industrial uses wholly enclosed in a structure; manufacturing, processing or packaging of foods; printing or publishing; warehousing or wholesaling of goods and equipment. Outdoor storage related to a permitted use must be confined to the side or rear of the site and enclosed by a solid fence or wall (Code Sec. 25.42.030). A negative declaration was prepared. It has been properly posted and should be acted on as a part of the project. The negative declaration is included in the staff report attachments. Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. The hearing should include the negative declaration and rezoning request. Planning Commission should make a recommendation to Council on the negative declaration and rezoning. Affirmative recommendation on the negative declaration should include the finding that based on the initial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. No specific findings are required by the code for the rezoning, but the reasons for the Commission�s action should be stated clearly for the record. Recommendation on the rezoning should be made to the Council by resolution. Commissioners may include facts from the staff report by reference as substantiation for the recommendations to Council. � �'� Ltl ►' �''�--� Mar aret Monroe City Planner cc: A1 and Jean Covarelli David T. 0'Neal Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 13, 1989 2. ZONING CHANGE FROM R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AT 1011 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED R-4 Requests: clarification of the parking, number of spaces on site and those leased from Northpark, exactly what parking is there; use status if rezoned to M-1, does Northpark have excess parking in the daytime, what environmental review is required; correct zoning of adjacent land uses in the staff review sheet; clearly identify the 10 parking spaces allocated by Northpark. Item set for public hearing November 27, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1317/1321 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 11/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff review and comment, applicant�s letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: policing, clean-up, previous uses on the site. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Lonnie Sopko, applicant, was present. His comments: there seems to be a misunderstanding of the flow of traffic in and out of the facility, people can come alone but the game is more interesting with a group of 60, there are rare occasions of only one or two people but the norm is 4-5 people per car; the equipment is rented to individuals. They did a parking survey along North Carolan and on Rollins to the fire station (number of cars parked and number of businesses open between 6:00 P.M. and midnight). Staff advised North Carolan is a public street. Applicant stated, based on their rough measurements, they counted 51-52 spaces, subtracting the cars parked on the street, they estimated highest number of spaces available would be 49, the lowest would be 36. They did not want to open this business if there were no space to park. Responding to Commission questions/comment, applicant stated they had considered changing their opening hour to later than 5:30 P.M., businesses in the area tend to stay open until 6:00-6:30 P.M., they based their hours on other similar operations; one of the other businesses had warned them of garage uses in the area; presently during the day there is a lot of on-site parking but it begins to thin out about 5:30 P.M., by 6:00 P.M. it is minimal. Regarding clean-up, they would not hose down because there is a gel type material that holds the water paint together, it's like a casing, takes 6-8 hours to break down and absorbs some of the paint. They will handle this by sprinkling something similar to kitty litter and then sweep it up. STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. II. Proiect Address: 1011 Cadillac Way Proiect Description and Permits Requested: The applicant is requesting a zone change from R-4 Multi-family and Other Uses to M-1 Light Industrial (CS 25.16.010). The parcel includes an existing 5,300 SF non-conforming office building with 10 space parking variance tied to office use. The area subject to rezone is 13,200 SF. III. Property Identification: Assessor�s Parcel Number(s): 026-231-270 Lot No: 1 Block No: - Subdivision: Parcel Map Volume 58/54-57 Lot Size: 13,200 SF Zoning: R-4 Multi-family and Other Uses General Plan Designation: Commercial: Service and Special Sales IV. Existinv Site Conditions and Adiacent Land Uses: Existing 5,300 SF office building built about 15 years ago. Adjacent zoning to north M-1 auto sales and service, retail commercial to south and east. To the west zoning R-4, multiple family residential use, Northpark apartment complex. Office structure originally built as a part of Northpark development. V. CEQA Status: Negative Declaration ND-428P VI. Proiect Dat�: Proposed New Construction: none Existing Area: 13,200 SF parcel with 5,300 SF building on site Proposed Percent Increase in Area: none Proposed Front Setback: Side Setback (corner lots) Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: Declining Height: Lot Coverage: Building Height: On-Site Parking Spaces: NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Required NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA �� c�rr o� euRUNc,nME �b� - '/ CITY OF BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Application: Special Permit Variance X Other zone Change �o�r Project Address -�'� Cadillac Way Assessor's Parcel Number( s) 26-231-27 APPLICANT Name: Al And Jean Covarelli Address : 1001 Broadway, Suite 302 City/State Millbrae, CA Z ip : 94030-1951 Telephone: ( Work ) (415) 697-7370 (Home) Architect/Desicrner: Name : N/A Address: PROPERTY OWNER Name : David T. 0' Neal Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Address : 577 Airport Blvd. , Suite 100 City/State Burlingame, CA Zip: 94010 Telephone ( Work ) (415) 348-3300 (Home) Telephone (daytime): Please indicate with an asterisk (*) who contact person is for project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Approximatlev 5300 Square Feet of building on ±13200 Square Feet. Currently Zoned R-4. Applicant wishes to rezone current buildir.g to M-1. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true orrect to the best of my knowledge and belief. � / 9 � Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. � -�� i � '� Property Owner Signature Date xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOFFICE USE ONLYxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx � Date Filed: �(� (�, (�,�q Fee 7�0(> Receipt #_ S�-� Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: P . C . study meeting ( date ) / / I3 �' P . C . public hearing ( date ) � / - � 7 - �� P.C. Action !.'�C'�n,�, ��v.v � ,�/ =C ,Oc= ', Tv �: C�%��o�,w, ��v0 �JD /�� Ni�� o r/�i'Zo�t/i Appeal to Council? Yes No �� Council meeting date /_�.- p Council Action Up - 7�'s �� ,,��y��- /J ��- n � a �= A c .t/ r ,4 � D � %2cZon/iiVG � R0. Q � �O W � �. a/ � � W 'Q R nl� � Z�7NED �' I BA ySHORE •Q�o. +s� V0. 0 R, v a o `� � �, m a � � iv, p' �t lo I ' ,-- m � m M 0o I O n� vmi �\oti� I o � B o� b I" :� ►"� I w � � .. I ti�� 0 '�� \� v I �� p� � I � o ' ° ••��N6z zcW { � I �z.�� NS� Z� w ' �za� ��Q r2O O_EA3E. .. wI _ � �N Om u5� 27'W V � Q m I40' Q ^� "� V 7 NI v I ti�cz�zcw � � � O I I Zo.GG y I �� I � � i h � I r po �zo.oa zo ii� iza�o 5G2 2G E CAROLAN �� h�� A% i 1G ;�� q . 9Ga {�'G� �J549 � a449 SG.13 45.28 I�570' ?� EASE. PM .;18� ul 26 wi,� a�03 v_ / + 2 " R�> ` M �''��9 z5 `,•', � PARCEL 3 � <9 .327AC �� PARCEL 2 7 �� 9a�-w z Ra°g's` . .%�B/iC �i 3� I 49 9' �� G— � � i � � �. � a0ZG9G'E 41.�0 5?C2G3'v-�v 47! 29G � � � � 20 ;. 2. G' W � — 2 9 � � � � i i �—,�J 52?3J�W EASE' � sa.a��— — � Z�N� R 4 231 z8 PARCEL Z P�o�77' �eau�sj-�,v� �EZotill�lC�• G�JRk'�l�% zoN,Ev R-� F/16►1� bENs�r R 5/b,E.�l ]'/AL, ��%�� ( �G Z �%N�+ � M-/ LIC�f l�lacJS,K�AL e aFF� cE us� • 1072. IG /V�//�� /Y �V � RD. BAYSyORE _ .:��= aqC. R�A(�� uG3-i549' �'�ABB� R ' � SG T3' �15.28 ?5.10' 'S. 94A9 EASE. PMJ?f10� 0 N��S,� � 26 W � Zg13� � .s ml� \ y 5�� a5 � pM �91i8 25 K� PARCEL 3 ,,, ��; y�� ps � „ Ao - x �' 327AC R o' � • � � a a o '2 "' ��y PARCEL 2 V�3 :9 aG'w R"g�s' � ti J�. � U � _ P , ' � tie°�' o� /9 `p .7�BAC bi 3r I 4s ., , o � � '] . o � � � .s o o ti'?o 2G �G'E 47.aa 53� Z'� JJ r� 4� �'� O_ / 'Q?o /2 b� �W 29G' � � � 20 tsg3. � !+�GA- NG2:G'W � � � � 294' 5 ��' �° ��p.00 � � � � `\ 0 �`. a c,: YV _t T� � � � J �� , 52,"3L'W E�4.SE' �.�'.;�, b o � � sa.a��— — � �0�1� � �"' ' / � �b �' tia � ti� � � N '%5�u1 w Q. - ` St�P,�EGT F�Wq��L . N �I � ..��.�a� lO , O �-. � m m n,��v 1 I g n� m h � p� I;^I O 4v �� o N .� � w � i. •s I �, L 8 � �,,� I � 233 � � �"° ?y� �V I � � b PARCEL Z Q p�•'�NG2 2G W j � � '14.G� u5G 27'W � W Izo — _ � �' � �w r 20 O9 _EA3E. o, m i� v u O W w I�' - m '�lL ��4 P L��S �`IO�I J T 1(1 / ' �,�/ Q 1.1$G ?7'W �.i m 1..� L�/��/ � ��//\, G m (40' Q � n+ ,41L PAKC�[.s st�b�J�l o�l 7z�1/5 MaP � GA�H.7 7 N� V � �f� GaMM�RGI�L r�15F.s - s�Yr�E � SP�clac �a�-�s ti�cz•zcw � I ^ Q �zo.�� ; I �� ' 0 W O � — � � � T T 7� � � � GO' 1072.1G I20.GG 20.III 12o.GG' }J62 26 5G2"2G E � CAROLAN C�I�,�t- [�lb �� C�5/6�,��'"lr.�i�l � � �� ,.�_�� ' � ' � ,�Y � � � <// � M1 �' 1 \ I _ ' .i. / <�+ � ' \ \ (l T '4' � C �q�" . C4 L"__"_"_""_'"—__—_"_"- \\� � �.F� � (.��'`/ �'�4.� � \` e� �i 1 � ' .�� 'a ` � e ' \ �\� � � ']{ �t/, r� / ✓ , � \�'� � ' � .` � MI ., F• �� \ \ � 1j C4 � \;\ , �� . i N I ,J�' � q ' � � . . ,,� @4 � �\M' _ , � �``''' 's => �� 6 a °' '�- �.1' - / '6? .�l / I L1 \\� P' �`. `�4R�y oyl .0 -9.i l� .T ' ' .` , % �,Ya�. � l ,�� \.`•� I• �•� G�., .,�u� f Ni. 4j�{� . � � �� d^d!`�.� �\� � \ �, u '. s r '` �?o-., , N �, , rt � �� ;z ,� o ^"',q , h' �' % � � a � ��. � .' ,: z ^ � P �� c i ' �„ /,•�" � i � ` Z ` e � / �. - � �\�� a�� `f�''.�l ��• � 40 n . � 4,�~� r4 _ `./� !'�'.' J. . � C I �) � � +• 6. � C9 � � . f �- . ^ � � . \ cl _ __ N�, ti M . ` .. o � ��. � � .. � . ;�', . M `v�y� . . , � i 1'� , c3 s `� n �+ � � _� r1 �', . , � � l; �1�oI.% �' s � , � . ' ., . c3.�'� � /^��r /Q �i i �♦ -�� \ �.� .,'s'' ? i ' � � , \��_.- \ ' ca _ . "�• . � ..-ia�.c...0 -_- �` . � � �a 3'� �. y- ' � - + L `� �� .... C4 ( � ,,•. , � - � .� \ e�� °�'"�.y l �4�° �� "'' �y � �i: �r� . . � � ,'� � . \ i. \; � \�, �\\•��. . � � �t.. `*'• 1�� \ Ca y � - ♦� M� .�o''�. ��\ � /f e.'..,., �4 . � ` a. - ..r . . \ r � C \j � `, � 4. � �� \\ 1 .• . '�4 �°r C3 ' o� -� i . �� '/ \ iii v.. t•i - � �. � � ` C4 B � y 5.. � f ` - •,o�n. _ �� , � , � �, ��ti � s �_� h�,,� /� ( 1� 4 Ri �� \ � ` � ' I A Q Y Ca R� �e� s�� 4\�Ca` V\�/ /v��\ � � � � � � n � � � '� ��\� \�` �� i �/°� . - q;�*,E q3 .' '�/C \�Y� n �\\�/ i,- O q \/ °r �r //�•�j \� `�� ,�c�.i �'. ": ��'a ��\ ��r.+ .. . \ Y:�'- -- � — - - -- - ,.. ' T � ..� n\�� ) � �> - . 1 P .'ne ,�/) � ( 4, � � �4,�� .. Y � � �.-� ... ....... . .. . . i.._ �° .: M �� .� s� / . r,l v� � � � �•/�� i � `•ir �f. ( � _l4\ q, v / �� . � � � `.,�j'Qe / � � � : ' , � 2 � i � . � /��.,�� f� Pl �\ +� _ l � � �� 4�\ � % � � � � _ • �, !� w'' ? '` � r p�� 'v � ! °� � � � .�/' , P� // J . cz � : Qt ..�� __ . ._ _ . � : �� ' , .. /,^�`'Q' �°�, �a(� �-. - G ✓i� i q � -A � sa ' ` .. . � „ ,. � . / I C'31 ♦ �' fl • ... \� *i \ 9 \ � . %� !�� '- .� ..a.en � `� �' �� e �� a � ;y /��!•..':, � TM �•° �*� P�' � 'q3 r� � ' �� ai n � '. � S f � r --P) 3_ 74 e� .. °' .l � .l ' ' °ii' . -� ' � v, = � \ � � 9 � �'� � - �. . a 4� 4, � � . �� i � '�i. y�'� � „ 4� � b 43 r � � c ti7 � � � � �� E '_ q• " �'•�R i a�� ♦. „T y��R\�` � \ �� A � ,. '�'�� - .- - \ . � � . �q �� I � � �� - - _ �� a, � , � a,� . .'�, /). � . aJ �C.J �. �� \� � ' � e� �A:� `\.� �� e _ � � , • �� °� � a . �\,\ / `\�\;V\�\\\V: % y �b �. 4 O3 'n' R " _ \_ � � `� \'� ./�' � / / 9� \. �\ �\ � \) \, P. /.. � �. P. � > �3 4J 9� (�� /I.•C�� Pj 3 ! =. q3� �2�� e,b� �/ 9 ). I:I f ' 4� \ \ \ �/�\ ' 4, � . / � . � �\ Ol V� f� • \ \ / . 4I i�3 � Cz \+ i� 4 4 p � .� \ �� '• . . • _ . t� '�� ,� \q3. � �P ( .....f/ \\ 4. Pz'. i, / . � Q� ; � '�� \`�e �\/ \ 4� /� \\ ° / ( \ 3 -. a3 L'�. 4 > � � 33 i \ az � � Rs � . �z � r °'" \, � � � . ' �, r � . . . /� ��_:� � \ 9 � y \ Qr� \ /� \� � ��. \ � 1 R �.�_. 3 `�� ' \q J z. Vz ' 7 \', t3 �y \ y 'q, � . � F / � � ` /j }/ � ` 4j � \/ \ .� f '� 4�\� d 1:/\: . / � = ' \/r � s \�r �. '��.t l /'� ? i'�C , � , 4 ( ♦� T . 4: '. P �. \. J 4 \ ,: � 9j � \ 3 � ii II V� Vl l V3 \ � '- 2 �,�I� /) � ' ;. � 9i �� \ � � � 92 � �� 4 � �< � . " - , � ' _ `1 . `G� /' 1 •ee' `+�r. \, � � .•,\ ^\ `� y� � \�• _ � i��i��Qz � qz�z -_> � \ f • � ` y � �y� - �� 1� a, �'� e. . � �4, � � ��. � �; 1 _--� �, ei �� °� °z "C� a1 . 'F� y r �s' i� � . A �' �� A i�' ��1 ^ `.. J ''1� ' � �� 9� \*i ♦ � � � �~f� 43 Q3 %� ^�c`. i ��'ii\ Iz y9. � �." q7 . "J � � \ ' ,� . �� - � — ,, �,., � J/ / a, ' �' ,� . �.. a, c ' \� �� I � �� .r � j� � � �� 0.' ) ' •9 0' V l , \� \ \ S 4 � \ 1_s` � ��`/ ` 07 y .? �, q. ' 4 � l / �' ••9j . '.'.' �+ ' . .. � 4, `Sl yi \9� �\ �� y . \�93� 1i�z �� (.r: � � �`t .�\ .. '�' � ' � \�� _. ` �~ � � �� ; �� a a • d., \ �•�si 4'� \ ''+voR, � /� �� u � �� _°3\�.., ez ,Qz �v. a. a-'- ,°� c o.�. a, � ',e. .� � � ��, i �� - a. �' �. /.•.' � �. �••/� _ ,z � 4 �� ,�T� ,� *� ` +,` , a, �, � \� )S a,� 4� � \v,°' �� .`\3 �� "'/�. � � L \ i � (� ° ,,' � i/ r` : � • , � , �.� n�� ; � � �% � z > �// c�� A � I; � , � .. .\ r a' 4 .��, �� "� � � f41 � ��'�.- a,�r�� ;' � ✓' aa ', � �� @ � / , r' �_ _ ' ( �'\ p \ � /v/,� `q� � �4; �'�!� \i 4 ! 'P.' /> i 4jJ(� 4 i J � - !�`i ��; ' / � '4 �r 9, 9��j . P. �� {^ \\ �/ � �\ j/4/ l .�qC\� �' P� p ' • . /-, .� ' , � �. �. \ q'� �% rT\,3� \\,' / . .� � q, j�v ,r ° <� (� 9, '•� I a . �� \ \ a 'qi q � I . . �.. \_, / �_�� ,f.� � �Pi \� � %y� \ // ` `� �`�' " \�'�/ % �. : ".. . \�• � q - � o.� ��"`��.,_ � I ��' l , `� ',•C. ; �\ .h" . �. � I � _ � � ,�/\� v� Q�: � `9,`��=`/ �/� ��,, \/' 4�,� �� / II � °j` .`>✓` � \ /! \.�� ' - a, -2^ ..\Z� q � _ j ) 1 '/ i{ f o /� � ��V , �,%/ F.' ��.\"�\'�;7i, .� •( •, °,\� °%_ EA •%.. � / � ��. l5y �/ ' '-r'`� � -,�� . .j ;� �.� �� a. > �+ . - 4.� ,� , r\ % p;� ��„�/�d*� � i• P � 4 e �� , ^ ��r� , � �;, �, � �� . � J qi \ i� , . �,,,,\ ' . _ ` �. �9� \ � t K , � ' � y� /� 11 ,� �\ � � � . �14'`� 'o � / �,\� � q� %� � `I�� , a. \\ j �. �� •, ' �� _ ��. • � . \ �' �� .. . � � .� �� . ��4j--� i "' �- � / .. I C� U �7t,.' ?� P, I ,.� � . i�� ' , , l� � Rj- .�:,- _ � � �:�- � _ � � ��. � ,;,�, : ,, �a. :�� ,r;;� . . , :� . ,�; /�.��•O R' � +; � :.v. . \�� /` J � �J� ,( :.;Jr � 9 l I I -•�, � PURCHASING CONNECTION, INC. 29 September 1989 Planning Department City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1101 Cadillac Way Burlingame, California Dear Planning Department: The purpose of this correspondence is to explain our application for the rezone of the above referenced property from its current R-4 zone designation to M-1, the designation of the property next door. Our company is currently in contract to purchase the subject property to occupy the majority ourselves. (There is currently another tenant, Pros For Kids in approximately one third of the building. They will stay through the end of their lease.) The current structure has been classified as a non- conforming structure under the current zoning. Our desire is to rezone it to M-1 in order to make it conforming. The current use is allowed under a variance granted with certain restrictions, which will continue to be met. We are not requesting an increase in the size of the building, and plan on maintaining its current configuration until the other tenant leaves. At that time it is our intent to expand our own office space. I have enclosed some information describing the nature of the business that Purchasing Connection, Inc. performs. Included in this package is an explanation of the number of employees we have on staff. 1GC1 Broadway. S�.;rte. ;i��2 1�4i Il�rati. C��t„r'�:i:; , 4��i:;��1��1 • ii:itp�,one� ; 1�:,� ti�� ,'3�,'u • �„ . ��l�tii b:+� ;:i; � Planning Department City of Burlingame 29 September 1989 Page 2 The traffic generated by our use is considerably less than a standard office-type of use would generate. Additionally, we have no truck traffic, as all our deliveries are from the factory to the actual job site. Thus, traffic will not be affected. We look forward to meeting with you to further discuss and process our application. Sincerely, PURCHASING CONNECTION, INC. �. , �'" �'I �r- st. -'Lc_. � - f Jean Anderson Covarelli, H.I.A. Principal � PURCHASING CONNECTION, INC. 22 September 1989 Mr. Mike Connor Vice President Blickman Turkus 3350 West Bayshore Road Palo Alto, California 94303 �' �� ~ i�.� : J "` �' ; � �t��. � , �� P2�i�l394 .i � 61.ICKMRF! YUkat<�iv � ,'�� l;lf', II�tC. �, .lY� � S .\'.i. ,F, a .'��s�}�,"F�� .._,�.� , '_":'• - Re: 1011 Cadillac Way Burlingame Dear Mike: We are pieased to offer the following information witri regard to our proposed rezoning of the above property to an Ml status. Purchasing Connection is a professional purchasing entity for the hospitality and health care ir.dustries. W� act as consultants to the project team in liaison with the 3evEloper, ar-chitect, ir.terior desiar.er «nd general contractor. Our work consists of purchasing, expediting, transportation and installation management. You can look at us as contractors for building interiors. All labor and materials are subcontrac�ed to others. PCI simply produces the paperwork to manage a project. Due to the complexity of our business, we do nct ir.ventory any goods. All planr.ing is done from our extensiv� library. Ali product review is aone at either the jobsite, architect's office or �esigr�er's of�ice. We currently employ eleven peop?e, including pr�.ncipals and three outside sales representatives covering r.orthern, central and southern California. Obviously, we have very little foot traffic other than postal and messenger deliveries i.e. Barker Blueprint and Federal Express. An example of one of our local projects is the Peninsula Regent in Burlingame, for which we procured all publ�c area interior furnishings. AI1 material consolidation is done by subcontracted warehouses. Iv'othir.g comes and goes from our �ffices other than paper and catalogues. . A copy of more explicit introductory material is herewith encZosed for your reference. Please let us know if you teel 10C' �i•eadw�ly. �..ite> �;u'" tdliJb!ae. :;��:itnrn;a ��-1(;3U ri.7�l a �uiep��o�ie� ��+��i ti'�:' ;.5;'C, • Fnn: (4'S� 092-�'315 Mr. Mike Connor Vice President Blickman Turkus 22 September 1989 Page Two the enclosed is sufficient for presentation to the Planning Commission, or whether additional information is desirable. Thanks much for all of your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, PURCHASING CONNECTION, INC. � . `�: . � r... Jean Anderson Covarelli, H.I.A. Principal Enclosure ^ITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-428P The City of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on NOVEMBER 16 , 1989, 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 Conclusion: The proposed site is adjacent to areas presently zoned M-1, has been developed and used historically for land uses more compatible with the M-1 light industrial district than the R-4 residential district and is consistent with the general plan land use element. In addition on the basis of theinitial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. f'�_ CITY PLANNER NOVEMBER 16, 1989 Sig t e of P ocessing Official Title Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date Posted: , , � Declaration of Postina I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on � � , 1989. Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No � JUDITH A� M�LFATTI, CITY CLER� CITY OF BURLINGAME EXHIBIT C - INITIAL STUDY � CITY �,t• O� BURUNGAME T0: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE �,� e 1400 - lOth Street '�•.-.o��,.•'� Sacramento, CA. 95814 1011 CADILLAC WAY Project Address or Location File No. ND-428P Project Title: Rezoning of 13,200 SF arcel from R-4 (residential to M-1 li ht Type of Permit: __Rezoning industrial Legal Description: APN 026-231-270 Zone: R-4 Property Owner: Name: David T. 0'Neal � Address: 577 Airport Blvd., Suite 100 Burlinqame, CA 94010 Contact Person: David T. 0'Neal Area Code: 415 Phone: 348-3300 Applicant: Name: A1 and Jean Covarelli Address: 1001 Broadway. Suite 302 Millbrae, CA 94030-1951 Contact Person: A1 Covarelli Area Code: 415 Phone: 697-7370 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a rezoning of a 13,200 square foot single parcel located. at 1011 Ca i ac ay from the present R-4 multiple family residential district to M-1 light industrial district. The property is developed with a nonconforming 5,300 SF office building, a carryover from the days when the structure served as the construction and sales office for the adjacent 500+ unit Northpark apartment complex. It is nonconforming since office building� and uses are not allowed in the R-4 zoning district. The general plan designates this site as service and special sales. This same service and special sales designation is assigned to the adjacent area zoned M-1 and the Northpark apart- ment complex zoned R-4. Since office uses are allowed in the service and special sales commercial area, the existing use conforms to the general plan. The M-1 zoning would match the adjacent zoning on the north side of Cadillac Way and on the adjacent properties on the southeast corner of Cadillac Way and Rollins Road. The M-1 zoning designation would allow office use. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site at 1011 Cadillac Way is fully developed with a one story b ock bui ing use as an office. The structure is surrounded by asphalt most of which is used for parking. The driveway is shared with the adjacent Northpark apartment complex of some 500 rental units. Northpark is developed on a campus plan with a series of low rise buildings set among lawns and trees. Generally Northpark orients toward Carolan Avenue, and the shared driveway off Cadillac Way runs along its rear property line. Apartment buildings do have windows facing the shared driveway. The other adjacent parcels are developed lot line to lot line with structure and paving. The present structure is one story. If rezoned and replaced the maximum square footage of office use on the site would be about 6,000 SF (assuming 10 parking spaces on site and the present variance for 10 spaces). The present variance is valid for 20 years and is tied to office use only. The rezoning would automatically allow any permitted use in the M-1 district; and would require a conditional use for the types of uses already located on the adjacent M-1 zoned land, auto sales, retail grocery and restaurant. The adjacent residential uses would not be allowed in the M-1 zone. , ,� -2- ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided at the conclusion of this section.) 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Yes Maybe No �_ ___Z_ — � _ —� — � — � — � —� �_ �_ � —�. „-,. P.C. 8/11/86 Item #5 ,: � � �o . D/ MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; SUBJECT; CITY PLANNER VARIANCE TO ON-SITE SEPARATE PARCEL FOR WAY, ZONED R-4 PARRING REQUIREMENTS TO CREATE A AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 1011 CADILLAC Mike Chandler is requesting an eight space parking variance (18 spaces required) for an existing nonconforming office building in an R-4 zone in order to convert the site from a leasehold to fee simple ownership (Code Sec. 25.70.030). This existing office building originally served as the construction office, then leasing office for Northpark Apartments. When it was no longer needed for that purpose Mike Chandler bought the structure to use as an insurance office. Northpark retained a long term lease on the land. The designated leasehold site was big enough for the office building and ten parking spaces. Over the years Mr. Chandler owned the building Northpark arranged for Mr. Chandler to lease 10 additional spaces during the day from their required residential parking. Northpark is willing to continue this lease agreement to the new owner, but a variance is needed because with the separation of the leasehold under the office building from the rest of Northpark's holdings, these leased spaces become off-premise parking. The code does not allow on-site parking requirements to be met on a separate site without a variance since these spaces are not under the control of the property owner. Moreover, this arrangement was unique since it represented a shared use of required parking, the office use during the day (8:00 A.M, to 5:00 P.M.) and the residence at night. However, since the areas used were all in the same ownership, they technically met requirements of the city code for required parking. Staff Review City staff have reviewed the request. The Fire Prevention Officer (July 8, 1986 memo) and the Chief Building Inspector (July 9, 1986 memo) had no comments. The Director of Public Works (July 21, 1986 memo) noted that he had no objection if the spaces could be leased for a long term from Northpark. Planning staff would note that even if the long term spaces are available this office site would need a parking: variance because leased spaces are not in the same property ownership. The variance would go with the land. The office use is nonconforming in the R-4 zone. The building has been continually used for office so the nonconformity is not an issue. Even with the parking variance the use would continue to be nonconforming and, if the office use were discontinued for six consecutive months or the structure destroyed over 50�, the office use could not be reinstituted. Applicant's Letter Mike Chandler wrote a letter describing his request and the reasons for it. He notes the building is about 5,000 SF and requires under current parking requirements 18 spaces. There are 10 parking spaces on site. � � -2- He would like Commission to consider the 10 spaces leased from Northpark as offsetting the eight spaces he is short on site. He feels that the shared (day/night) use of the space is complementary and should not be subtracted from Northpark's parking. He states he understands that the concept of shared parking has been used elsewhere in Burlingame. In addition he notes that this shared use has been employed since he owned and occupied the building, the variance won't affect anyone's safety, welfare and public health, and that the Northpark Apartment owners agree to the sale and lease and the variance won't affect the zoning in the city. This action is merely being taken to formalize and legalize an arrangement which has existed for at least the past 15 years. b A letter from Mr. indicating that he of the variance. Study Questions Thomas Newman (July 17, 1986) is also attached represents the potential purchaser who is in favor The Planning Commission had two questions at study (Planning Commission Minutes, July 28, 1986). The lease agreement negotiated between Northpark and the buyer is for shared use of the 10 parking stalls for 20 years. The term of the lease is five years with three subsequent five year extensions (total 20 years). The contractor, Joe Harvey, was contacted regarding alternative parking arrangements. He is trying to contact the property owners involved. Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: l. that the parcel map as filed and recorded conform to the map submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 30, 1986; 2. that the 10 parking spaces on site be clearly marked and designated for the use of the office building's occupants and that the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining markings and enforcing use; 3. that the property owner secure and maintain for at least 20 years a lease to use 10 parking spaces on the adjacent Northpark apartment site for use from 8:00 A.M, to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and that these parking spaces be clearly marked/posted for the office use during these times, the posting to be installed and maintained by the owner of the office building with the consent of the Northpark Apartment management; 4. that the striping of the parking spaces leased from Northpark Apartments be maintained by the owner of the office building; and -3- c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of.any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned use of an area? Yes Maybe No —,�— —� � � � —.�— � —� --�— — —�- — � — � — �— — _� � — _� — —�-- X X -4- 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERUICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No X � �_ --�— X _� —P� _� �_ �_ � —� � �c _ �— � � —� �_ �� -5- b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of peoole to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal comnunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe X No �C --�— �— —� _� h k � �_ X X X k �� RESPONSES TO IDENTIFIED EVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 6. Noise a. The M-1 district regulations would allow as permitted use some activities which could be less compatible in terms of noise with the adjacent residential use than the present nonconforming office building. 8. Land Use a. The irtxnediate rezoning will not necessarily result in an alteration of the present land use because of the existing structure but how will the rezoning affect the future use opportunities of the site? 18. Aesthetics a. Some of the uses permitted in the M-1 light industrial district are not visually compatible with residential uses. RESPONSE TO IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Items not found to be affected: The possible environmental effects of this project, the change in zoning from R-4 to M-1 at 1011 Cadillac Way, are limited because the site is located in a developed area and is already developed and served with adequately sized public facilities and services. Allowance of permitted or conditional uses in the M-1 zone will not exceed these capacities. Since the project focuses on the potential use caused by the change in use opportunities resulting from the change in zoning, specific developments and uses which are conditional uses rather than permitted uses would require their own environmental review with appropriate mitigations required at that time. Therefore the focus of review of this project is on the potential impact of uses permitted in the M-1 district. This property is now a buffer between residential and light industrial zoning. The existing uses on the properties now zoned M-1 are not permitted uses but those requiring a conditional use permit. The kinds of uses permitted in the M-1 district include manufacturing conducted wholly inside the building, and including the manufacturing of foods and drugs; warehousing; storage or wholesaling of goods also contained within a building except for parking on site of related vehicles; and outdoor storage of materials used for manufacturing or other permitted uses except that storage would be at the side or rear of the building. Since the site is now fully developed and future installation of any permitted use could cover the site equally, the change in zoning woul�d not result in a change from existing conditions of earth, water, plant life, animal life, light and glare, natural resources, population, public services, energy, utilities, recreation or archeology. Compliance with current fire regulations which is required prior to installation of any use in the M-1 zone and is enforced with regular inspection reduces the concerns about human health and risk of upset from permitted uses. Generally the permitted uses in the M-1 district generate fewer vehicle trips per day than an office use. However, more of these trips may be by trucks rather than is the case with office use. Since this site is small and therefore inappropriate for major manufacturing businesses, traffic is not anticipated to be a problem. Site access is from Rollins Road and Carolan Avenue both vf which are arterials and heavily used presently by commercial traffic. Rollins Road connects directly to the Broadway interchange with Highway 101. The uses between this site and Rollins Road on Cadillac Way are on property zoned M-1 and uses which are consistent with the conditional uses in that district. Since Cadillac Way now serves them as well as the nonconforming office use on the present site, the capacity of Cadillac Way is adequate to handle the traffic generated by a permitted use. Thus there are no significant transportation/circulation impacts caused by the project. There should be no impacts on any air quality because traffic capacities are adequate and should flow freely. A new permitted use�s emissions would be required to meet the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board and therefore would have no additional impact or would be considered by an environmental document at the time the project was proposed. Because the site is small and, although presently zoned residential, has always been in a commercial use and permitted uses employ fewer people per square foot than the present office use, the rezoning to allow permitted uses will generate no significant new housing problem. Future conditional uses which might increase employment on the site and possibly have an effect on housing would be required to receive a conditional use permit and be subject to environmental review at that time. Three items were identified as possible effects of the rezoning project: noise, land use and aesthetics. The noise issue relates to the possibility that some of the permitted uses in the district may be noisier than the present office use or a future residential use. The site is located in a CNEL zone which exceeds 70, the noisiest in the city. A permitted use would have to have an exceedingly high point source noise level in order to have a substantial effect on adjacent properties. Regulations controlling the placement of generators and other equipment exterior to a building established in the general plan require that noise levels not be raised above 5 dBA at property line. Given this requirement and the high ambient noise level, the adjacent residential uses would be protected by a future permitted use in the M-1 zone. Therefore, while noise from a use on site might increase, this effect is not felt to be significant. Since the site is presently developed with an office building and office use is a conditional use in the M-1 zoning district, rezoning the site will probably not result in an immediate change of land use. Moreover, since the present parking variance is tied to the office use, the most probable reuse, at least for the next 20 years, is office. The general plan designates this area, both the proposed site for rezoning and Northpark, as service and special sales commercial. Therefore the existing use and permitted uses under M-1 are consistent with the land use designation in the general plan and there would be no significant impact on land use policy caused by the change in zoning. Some of the uses permitted in the M-1 district can create offensive public views, outdoor storage is a primary one. However, the M-1 district regulations require all outdoor storage to be fenced by a solid fence or wall and kept to the side and rear of a building. Conditional uses can be conditioned to specifically address any visual nuisances. These requirements should reduce negative visual impacts to an acceptable level. Given the fact that the proposed site is adjacent to areas presently zoned M-1, has been used for a use more compatible with M-1 than R-4 since its construction, that the proposed M-1 zoning is more consistent with the general plan designation and its policy than the present zoning and that on the basis of the initial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. -7- DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( x) I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures which have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ( ) i find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date (��jrp � 1 � �g�1 �'z_._—_ Signature For CITY OF BURLINGAME � � � 51� �.1 s� � Please return to: Planning Dept. City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 I hereby certify this to be a full, true and correct copy of the document�it purports to be, the original of which is on file in my office. . Date : �'�l,co ��0 � - Margaret M nroe, City Planner 11/2/84 . ��— ��! i,�i= AF ` �-; � 86103 q0`� •�.LGUiZUti1 A1 RF.UUkS I U� � �-�.� � ��,,,�:�.. tiuc �l � �� M'�b G M�hvi�� ;Huf��ri. ��coaUE � SAN MAtE'0 Ci)l1NTY OFFICIAL RE�CORD$ RESOLUTIOv .ro. 23-86 RESOLUTION APPROVING Variance RESOLVED b1 the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that; wHEREAS, application has been made for a Variance to on-siie parking requirements to create a separate parcel for an office bui1ding at _ 1011 Cadillac Way_ �APN 026-231-270 �, and I WHEREAS, this Commission held a Public hearing on said application on August 11 ,19g6 NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that said Variance �S approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. � It is further directed that a certified copy of this (� resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of � �' San t4ateo. i I � /, � � _�\ , � � . . �. -,j��, � -- l' i � � , ; - l , / .r??'l � �7ar,nette M. GioT� Chairman Charles F. Schwalm, Vice Chairman . � I, ��Q"Xx,X��I�X �Xl�j(Y�C}X of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foreqoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular � meeting of the Planning Commission held on the Ilth day of August ,1986 , by the following vote: aYEs: NOES: ABSEVT: coc•u�zsszoNERs: GARCIA,GIOMI,JACOBS,SCHWALM cor�rizsszoNERs: NONE coc�r�rssrorrERs: GRAHAM/LEAHY ; %�(� /• � ' ' , . c: - � � -� �' "(� �" '�--�:',- � - �iebe+°� �J-� -l�ee .+r�r -6e�retazp--- Charles F. Schwalm, Vice Chairman I c C C r Conditions of approval, parking variance, 1011 Cadillac Way (effective August 19, 1986) Property owner: David T. 0'Neal, Jr. c/o Thomas W. Newman First San Francisco Corp. 989 East Hillsdale Blvd. - #200 Foster City, CA 94404 "EXHIBIT A" 1. that the parcel map as filed and recorded conform to the map subm�tted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 30, 1986; 2. that the 10 parking spaces on site be clearly marked and designated for the use of the office building's occupants and that the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining markings and enforcing use; 3. that the property owner secure and maintain a lease to use 10 parking spaces on the adjacent Northpark Apartments site for use from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and that these parking spaces be clearly marked/posted for the office use during these times, the posting to be installed and maintained by the owner of the office building with the consent of the Northpark Apartments management; 4. that the striping of the parking spaces leased from Northpark Apartments be maintained by the owner of the office building; 5. that if Northpark should ever convert to condominium use they would make arrangements to provide eight permanent parking spaces for the office or make arrangements to allow weekday, daytime use to continue; and � M�► O m O � 6. that the variance will become null and void should access to eight additional parking spaces no longer be available, loss of the � variance would affect the amount of office use on site. GENERAL PLAN MAP - - RESIDENTIAL USES INSTITUTIONS LOW DENSITY up to 8 du/ac b ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEDIUM DENSITY s co 2o du�ac b JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MED. HIGH D�NSITY 2t to so du�ac i HIGH SCHOOL �y«� �� ,� HIGH DENSITY e� plus du/ec 'dweliing units per acre PRIVATE SCHOOL 4� �� COMi1AERCIAL USES O POLICE DEPT QQ FIRE DEPT .:;;i. - I"'�' " SHOPPING 8� SERVICE OO CITY HALL QQ LiBRARY -- =.i: �� i� �� ° "1�;�, SERVICE & SPECIAL SALES Qt CHURCH ., � t. _ ::�T� � ` OFFICE USE ; OTHER �� + �� WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL a :?� , COMMERCIAL RECREATION PARKS -. j �;;�;,:: - _ '-}� ��~ HOTELS / MOTELS existing Q }- �: NEIGHBORHOOD .' RESTAURANTS proposed * � v«ti �t: _ r � ,� � � �« COMMUNITY � ` . j � ;'#,' :�-' _ ;,;;; .;;�,' PRESERVE _ � : . . . ., . . . w- �� , r, ,.,,._ �. ,.., .. _...... �._..___._ . ....... ........_..., -... _ � � , � : J�C.. � '' `• i :t t � � � � i.=.'-i�: S � i� �' ,7� ^'+r�.;_. �: - � .. = T +t� 9�� V.i'`:: �' ' q - _, �, improve b ', ' "= , � � � = interchange - � - r ; t. , ,_. ;;t: INDUSTRIAL USES :��'�:�� INDUSTRIAL & OFFICE USE � Q SEWAGE DISPOSAL Q WATER STORAGE CIRCULATION proposed existing � FREEWAY �� MAJOR ARTERIAL �� ARTERIAL ---- COLLECTOR 8 FWY �� GRADE SEPARATIOP— r� RAILROAD ••••••••• RAPID TRANSIT F1�:INCISCJ BAY � .7�,�-r\ �!w��r��, ,� �' ,,:�. � , _ �` � .:, , � :�;� ,�,t F�„ ' �' f ,_, , ,, ��r; �: � ' , ,� \ t � �� ' � , • 3 ;z ;�'q ._, 'r �. _ � � OS :; � �, ;. c -c E i i:: : � M� r �• ` ' . .. �, :. .h�. „„'r 1.._y t ' 't 3� 3. � a -.J�,�' f�j< � • � : _. :.:. . 'i � ) 2 ''i �- - � �, t : � � _ ' _ �� - � ; ::�\ :j;� ryn��;� Si 4 };r T2� .a .�x ?; . .�� ,tt;T"` o- � - - _ - _- _ - • � '-a.=; I ._. °,,� � ,� � �i } n a n'� Y : .,�.j ii .* k ac �� r - - ,. 'n * j � � �� ^.L- .� ..: . .♦ -�.,.. ,� ti 3�:.. } � �7 - � � .,Y. . .i . S � %. �� '.._ t . .: '� . 'd �.�i q 2 �, � �a� . - t h •��-t:. � . �.: � . �. 3 �.> > � .,,> >e -. �,�`,�„+'i �'.p . . . •� ��.4 ._ �: � �,. ..�� y.;ii 3.c � ; . � : � . s. t � :_� � : .�� + �ii'� J ?Qt 3? � .: � � . �� rniit � . / ,. �,�.;' . - �� _a3^ a �'i. � :. �. � J � � � � .. ,;; ';. �• � `- f . �� :�, h.,... r +>r� � �-?,,«>.>vuv�z.:,.w i • r'1 /r ;` . ti� -..�.>, t j.:r1 i v..:Yy �:t ��• I� f . � ��'Gy �� a� . 'S�+a.. ._ � � .y.•� ; �� a . �• '� � � ��@ ;'Y� '1 � .. . •��.••. � � qySyoR , 2�h�r�� F�.��"'ra'w�:::i�jtBAYSHOREr�.o.�r�wi.is�T.�`evi3,?y,`+.'�i:fr��r;NFRWY ., , �.., i: ;: �. , . • � � F _ .,:, . - �,�+� w �� , � , c��/ o ` , 1 •..•, cqqoC „ , I ' , ; � e�v�_` - - _ _ - - - _ ,L / ' • �, �� q,y � � � � P,� m 's'� /, i � -✓ ••� � Q �o * ?'e ! '••• <'^ �2,T Q ��r ' 9 • �� . i�� , c�q� i " � •�•• � O - t � o ,; pC/� ••�'•. , o�� O�'� 90 � � "�, ' ,� dqN� •�� q�F GQ. � � �5�, � P Q . q F •�� n x � � O ♦ n, '. 'u� .1 •� .��,r`� � P . .. �P � . � _. � . � . - A , . •��• �'.`-��a� �r4n��7 �. 0Q P 9�p \' \ \c '` ••.••. �� r �� `F. � 1 - � ,.` � . . , . yq ;'` ^. .. . .� ��' �:fi,'�,.I ��,.�'• � . _: � ,'�` ��. ��.i �� 9., improve interchar� �` � �., i � i � ; , � �.I ` _ • � , ' � ;. . .� �+ � ��F�. ,f � �'., �' i � •. �� o^i '� -��/i � . � • - - _..... � ' l� � , � . r/��. , � � ' _�.:;� j ' -- 4 ' ., � ��,`� a �r'��R— w ^ '�, p � � - \,( � V� ( l \•\ o \ :�./ ' i�C. � V . � � � � _ ��' �`w. �,, A � � ' J � . � � \ b, / . \ > /`��T t � ��„ ., . r . �. � �\ / /. / `� ��11 � " � � � . '� .> f, � .: s� ��P '�` , ' . . . ' � /.^ • /y/r � � p �'• �.�� = . . �� : J� �` -��. r_ �_ � . � , o� �i /,"i �� . . �.�. , ��V� � � � �.+ � I . ...- t C"'� �% a / /'•� ( I % ' / �•" �i. . ` .. a I S\1 /�/. �' � I� i �• o- \ ' ) _�� ^.A �� -��,�I�` / ��I � �� "I, / �., . �:� 1 \�i!- ii . � . I � f / 'l � I � i � � r � ' /�,��,� � �\ � �� / - 4 y 'l � � a0o ' •a.'�\� ,�� i � , /�/�. � � V�' � '�. . . `' � i , .%' � � � �� jjj �� Yi M./J � �' J �\ %y��////` � � _ �� ._ ` yI � ' / ,'��r`��. � �v/ M1`.. f , �� e � r� ` �' � �� Y . p . . � p p �� N�/ , :/� � k � , ��a � � / � �- , „ : < �� ,� : _�; � ��,�, � �� = _ . Ix, ,� l � �,<<� � o- Y,,o/ � Q � � //J�N C ;�� C� � ��„ '>'t y�� . rt. 'i,. / ' " � !i C � _�� '( ,,, 'v �\I / : / „' / / ♦ �� P � �j'f' \ z ` � ' � ��✓ %��, � �;�i �' /��( � c a �`i / - � i � � H , � � . � � " i; � / � �� ' �)�% �4� � - �� i � • r� � �� J � 0 � ., TJ� rJ4,3. /- e o-�� 1'.:'�/� P ;:,� _�� . � j � ��//�� . d�� _ �� . � - ' i � "� ��, . 1 � f/�— �� .rM/j r �;'°� >� �� %�o-� /� � �� `� / � • i/,�'� �/j ld�� Zl �T'f�<�� '/ �� a; �^ _ % -' ' ,y'y'�S � J � . � o- \^'�'". � // e'r !/ \\ . ' � � `' /� i ' ,� i D i � / i , � � /�' /'� Q � a- , �, � � �• �� . 1 � �`/ . °�`�/ �h�� . /� u � '..�/�: / 1 /�\' / �1�� \ •��i,, � �,•X � .� / / � 1. �}� p / . \)J.l -� . �\ � � 1a U �' /// -,�� i�/f � \�� ✓� ,�/ y /�% (�a I� ^ .. . . . `'� i / / �� _ // � 1 � i�� / /- � /o- /\• � �� ` -�� 'r /i . /' \ �a / "�/L /F ��y� /I,��/�//'/Ci, �,�yo- ��\�`!�• . i //� / \`v. . . -,� A��' '� C" A�/Jt /�, L o- `' .. / i� , � � //a O �^y��/ i �•'/ry /j ;, � \\\ �, • -a ` �b ,' 'E'�. . �rk1'M1 Pa� � � �' �` �./ .��a/ /<\o- l�•!'. [y/// o- �C��j � //a o- � \' U /� // � /' � £�ol 5 .W , r4'�.Ci.�.� r �, i/ T ;� \��,�o- ^✓ ��' �1, /��!� � .� �tr\�� '` \ . f ' . r' . -�� 4't � ��/ �•• L �1 � ^T � � ��j / �y � .. i ,� �'l^�. / J � ' �1J� rt � � . . � r 4 �- �`, � �� o-// C�. // / . W �://�(. `,�Y ,.%'�/ `dC P �'�:A.� �/ �' ' /��?�'T` +.= q �I ,f�'`. ��/ �� /� \ �h.,,�< �� / P ' � P' ,a;I . ��` • �t � � � o. �� ,� �\ /; �. _� , a , -; � i ' ' .�� n i% - � �/'� - �/ � �°� / , � r � +� � ' ��'`C� /,y � �� G � /'' "�o- `Y ' '� ,� / j'I -- �� - _ ' �Fj�� o- /� % � " a i �. ��• s �� . 'r�. J' « � O � L � +'� ' � , ,� - � / �' �' . �. � , �� ' � � �� a �� -, �''�.� , ' � �� ,�� ' // � � �� ; � ; � • v, • ��.,� S , �•�•/. � � �� •/// ^ J' / �5 4,� �/o- • o- �� '/ /�-�.� � 5 � / � C � � e � n /! j'� � ' % s r � ti , ..^( o- '.. � �� ;`'. j� . �( ��/ / \ d• ��' ! `�Ka / ^ • \/ �p,/� ��—�� _� �i �� / ' _ � � �/��/�-S � \i �� i � a�` � " �r��` .,/ �� o �� . ' .. �= � s � , �� j� `�I / bu � : •? /o-P//�� ` l/ / (, - . 4:—��-\ � . t�' / � �SS I" •/� �� o- •~�L' )��J V/ o- �/ /� \\ � ' � ,,,,� �% .. � �� ...-. f � � , �.�,� / •y'� � , y� o- � i.,� . �� , � � �� :�,/� ; a� ,. . � . , � d. � �/ / U� � � � • \�' . a, � � o- �-�` � . '�'�' " � Oa a c � / ''L ,�ro,� ` ��.+' .' \ ��.•>�f r' `� � `. - `, `��' % �� . � � � \ r .; �'�r_ ' �'i ?'. �, r , l.: , � % ��, ' ./`^ a -, , cr �� ( - . ' ��,� , ��. � '��= �/i /� � r `PF•.�� 1 °�n � '!\�('�'\` � �� J °� � �\ S A �� \ � . " { R F" �'`\\\`;\ � �� _ \ \4� ��p '' i t �i �.FC/�� f�� ^� �\�:ia� i/�/�,c / -�aC� � a• /, � L� �19�•h'• `ta � �'��, �;•1�� 'c� � /�� ? ' �' �� \�, ��'�,, � �, / � � , � �/�� 7 � , '�� - '� �\ . ��'_�. . � �� /� �'' /).^ � � �/^� J \ '�p o-r;i. � - ��. \� �\,�\ � ��G y s .-� ., V �! ��. �-_�� /+ ?� ;\ ��I / �.a /� \\\��,__\` � Ft� P / a' `}�� \6 -{L��,� 1 ��, I Q + � ;.p� �° �� ,, � ,, / �� p � �� Pa � � i � � � , �y� ( ;' � � � � �' ,- t �"��` � �� '�C� _ �� '�� + � ,�`� F � 1 �•..�Y �� /5 a � r � � �/ - �� . A� �� ' , � � � �/ �' � �r,� � �7 � . �� _ /� �- �' � S � . �. , �r� i � j�l , �� 1�`� \y • �P�1 ��•• � . ! � 4 � .�� . ✓ ��» "> ` � \��`• >�! L� / ��`'� � , �{� ' - '�', \� ' /`�; ��. � � � � �� ,'%� � �� ' � /� � � � �Pt� ��', �i � �\ /� � �,1/ � .' ij \�'6• '� � _ � ' .�. � . � �l'. V ��; /� � ' - Y Y� K � Q • �y . �/ / �� /� o ryt� / - � � 4 •,� .. ` �1 ��: .. � - � ,,�' r'a � \1 SP` ' ♦ \ �' 'r ' � J i� / /` �/�� _ �j �• � .. o- � Q /� _ . � _',� �;• �°' �I I t� ^ �z�. �� ".\,y� �• _ . •4- F -- � /� ' . r ,.. '� i 1,` F J / � f �� ' 4a!'e �� .. �d; . - � . "�_ i' ., �. ' ,�� ^ � �ti��1 0 P1ans for the Tentative and Final Parcel Map approved in 1986. Showing Parking layout on 1011 Cadillac Way and Spaces to be Leased from the Northpark Apartment Complex /� ! , I . / / �/ �9 � �0.� � ! . ��,.r .,� I 1� ��°� � ;�'15a%� � /-� f; �. ° �,,� �`� J� / 1� vA • � Q � � '� ��" �` � �' � � � '0 ��,,� � ��1°ecE � �,°°,o� y' � a SfRVICf STA.B�ICDINC � f � • �+� ;;a��' � � � � —� ' P" E1FC,',q•i �� { 3� , sor �x[Na4� C � u . ` , �0 j4..PiNE /. �- e� e' �, 8�x _, * , �� P5/f F(COD L;CN7 iD"P'Nf � � N%G� �J%� W LOO.9O�^ Q7 6uY A.4[NOR �� Ex�ST/N / - _ . . _ -__—_ - . . . .� `. � ..��\30 l, l 1 d � . --- - -- --- - --- - - _ ,��J�� I!Y�P1a` GfTl.!14 �\ _ _ � Bv��MG / / ' -- ' ___. �-."_ . p � `\' ' "F ' a ialiw � �q.i -- i� .fN 62° 26� W � `0'� i� '`° m� Q3ti i°�^�� o �12.0�� ,p.�9oi� �i�� XISTING BUKC�Ati �p� , �. � b,i� � � `��_ � I , b / �9 b; ��' °' r I � P/.2 � i�01� tb f , �Oy � �_�_ j � � ,, o � � ��O�D�i �� C�� '1K1N4'SP,4�ES � h � � IO p�fD �q l � � i . ,; �. / I , �i �� a �o . , , , �R' -"�--1 _ ,} _ __ 'SRRir� RPoRr ; 1 _11 �' Lt�• . ,� �' y".9fE r'C�At. S/D�IA� SCONC 5/DEWALY �LI I �' Sv'�Cp � � _ ,. � �� , I j o / �0• ,/' �" . I �� ' ' . ' ! c . � .'�P�,�NM I 3?l.RK.\NC.o-E�i�SPhCILS-g�aZo' �?�9� ^;,.- aaqv�rlr. �b��c^cs�fi�20 '��"� M 6�'%, � �w q t i� 5� _, l�' S cc 5S`ip17� ss �0/10 ° � yti 9�'Oo -✓ �" �/y,;�� '_ — _ _ ,`0. -._- ,� ,�; �9RICKPLANTfH-� ._ip. . `1Q• h W.V. .. (��ORro.I� ,��I 1 q�;,/ 1plb ;�%� 2 __ S $= y � .,...z.� / Gl �� 1�'P.G.Y� �JS¢MQ"+t �� Obpti '-- �_ � wv�, ,' �n i,�. � N 76° 57 ��/ —• . __ -� � � - - � -- _- ------_��-�k- -- �✓rss � " r[ss C.��..�.,c — � - 9�� iriAEE�_ �i � f �,�. �� by,`.t ��'Sa9� ro'FiM[ 0� ' i1� RfE � i , , U/ � � _ v ,\�o�ti3 � r��•fAcc � ��_rv�m � k� �` �N��-.� i � /S7RfE /17REf 1�' . L' N � _ T �' o t� , . . �� "c �z•rAEE �5" � � � ti �� iq99 �. � , � �� v�✓DfRGHOUNp� �� i �a'�5a /� / d"HNE .' � la'�ME / , PARh'!NG �: .9 , ; �� . WV—�[ �_� 9 �` .7�:,�/ -^�_"'� ` � �-__ 9•qg0 �oS�F/J / EX/ST/N6 BUILDING /,� / ; i r ' ! �J r+ � .'.'� � �._ J r � �'`. '�. .. � _ .'"� _ �,\ 1 ? � , 1 � - � �_ �� ,� �� HYDRANT I 0� O�� k � q,�F� �9Q, �5• \ lI v�� .� � s q945� iq C.O. 55�._ �ENTk.T�V� � :'— PARCEL M� 3E!►.14 h.5�6D�1'IS�::^� � :F V Ol. \3 PARC£l w�� ^E .� .. �-� �� .�. �. � -3- 5. that if Northpark should ever convert to condominium use during the 20 year term of the lease that they would make arrangements to provide eight permanent parking spaces for the office or make arrangements to allow weekday, daytime use to continue. �U �c-�` i "W' , � � Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Mike Chandler Eric Rath, Northpark Properties, et al David T. O'Neal, Jr., c/o Thomas W. Newman Joe Harvey OPDINANCE NO. 967 "An Ordinance Repealing Section 25.32.030 (3) Of The Municipal Code Permitting Offices Of PY�ysicians And Of Others As Conditional Uses Requiring Special Permits In R-3 (Third Residential) Districts" was given its second reading. On motion of Councilman Martin, second by Councilman Amstrup, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was adopted on the following roll call: � AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES : COUNCILI�IEN : ABSENT COUNCILMEN: CONiI�iUN I CAT I ON S Amstrup-Cusick-Mangini-Martin None Crosby 1. REQU�ST TO M,ODIFY NORTHPARK APARTMENT AGREEMENT. °Mayor Mangini acknowledged a communication dated July 31, 1972, on the letterhead of J.H. Snyder Company, South San Francisco, signed by Henry L. Richman for L. Burlingame, Inc., requesting the Council's consideration to modification of the contract, whereby the city consented to development of the Northpark Apart- ment complex, to allow remodeling of the existing office building located on the North�ark site. The communication stated that the exterior of the building is in poor condition and it is proposed to remodel both interior and exterior, primarily as a management office for the Northpark project, which would be a better arrangement than converting units in the apartment buildings to office space. 3 The communication stated furtha�kinatfor thetoffice buildingrfrom spaces will provide required p g 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., during the work week. The spaces will-be ,� released eveiiings and on weekends to quest parking. A report from the City Planner dated July 31, 1972, ad�os�emodel staff has received a request from J.H. Snydbecauseathis is a the building for use as their main office; ,� change in the plans approved by the Council, and the pr�7��modifi- sanctioned in the R-4 D�strict by agreement with the city, I� b a roval of the Council. Yn cation can be accomplished only y PP his communication, the Planner StlicationtforHamendmentcto the has been advised to submit an aPP a ublic hearing before the Northpark special permit, requiring P Planning Commission. This should precede final action by the Council. The City Planner, in response to the siderofatheJproPYertYtand building is located on the northerly shares a common wall back of the Union Oil sta�cifiedhbeyondding was shown on earlier plans, but the use not SP Wishes to occupy rental office and storage. Now, Snyder Company the building as its home office for the management of the local , project and any other proj ects in the bay�area. It was.the , Planner's recommendation thandtreturnedrto�thefCouncil�fcr� Plan- ning Commission for review consideration of a.change in the agreement, since the proposa is a totally new concept for the building. Councilmen Amstrup and Martin protested discussionse furthermore, to information given Council in earlie the parking arrangement fails to meet code requirements. . � lication has been made by contracting Commenting that the app parties with the city on an agreement that involves a variance, the City Attorney adviseddthif iteisunotcCouncil�sedesireatoas the agreement is concerne , ointed out, the applicant modify the agreement. However, he p has the right to make application for a variance or use permit to be processed in the norma��f �esolutionr of the agreenient will still come to the Council f Councilman Martin stated that to allow the building to be used as proposed will create a non-conforming use in two respects-- use and location; an office building on property classified R-4 becomes non-conforming as to use, a building on the property line becomes non-conforming as to location. Pointing out that he has consistently opposed the Northpark project since its inception, Councilman Mart�o remodelCtheaexisting to deny the request of L. Burlingame, Inc., office building at 1011 C�mdanlac The motionewasrseconded by ain office for J.H. Snyder C p Y Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried. (Councilman Crosby. . absent.) � � �1� . NORTHPARK APARTMENTS - 1972 �PROJECT - LINCOLN-PERSO� GENERAL FACT SHEET TYPE OF PROJECT - Designed for young adults between the ages of 21-35. �o minors will be allowed. The project will contain full amenities including at 5600 sq. ft. clubhouse, swimming pools, tennis courts and other outdoor recreational facil.ities. ` LAND AREA ACRES SQ. FT. R. Gross � . � 12.73 554,520 6. Commercial , 0.9I 40,000 C. Multiple 11.82 514,520 IIl.• COVERAGE SQ. FT. � ' A. Buildinys 146,989 28.56 B. Parking & Driveways 115,850 22.51 C. Landscapable 251,681 48.93 IV. IV. VI. PARKING RATIO - l.5.cars pe r dwelling unit. DENSITY - 504 Units ; 11.82 Acres = 42.64 Dwellings Units per Acre. TOTAL UNITS A�dD MIX TYPE DESCRIPTION E Efficiency I E-I Efficiency II A Jr. Bedroom/I Bath A-I I Bedroom/I Bath B 2 Bedroom/I Bath B-I 2 Bedroom/2 Bath C 3 Bedroom/2 Bath S l�ZE-Sq . Ft. 380 450 540 " 650 863 , 909 1131 Average 618 QUANTITY 72 72 104 160 24 48 24 504 UniTs �� G� � �� 0 ,� � � t '� '� < � � � 1 � .>'�� !�.t � �_ �� \� ,� � • � � �� -� . t � '� a�'�,:,.� . , . �;.' , : .. , ,, . . < < �; E r � ��'� � � � � b � � / ,1 ` ` . � ' � � ^�' .� ♦ _� �� : ' �t - � � �' �♦ � -� � �� a � _ �, , -� � � �_. �. � � � �;�.; , • � �� '+� .'�4 � t ` / , � • �' r � '� f ` i o � ` _. f f.�' . �,� �' �`� . , . ; � �� . ,. r � � � , ; ,, � . /� � ; ��t , , `.�_ , t � . 0/ i. � ."/ .,�ti. 1 � � �1 � �d, ti :� o . �, � J� , � y �i Pi ` � � � , � � �� * Y� c. � � � �i '_ � `�• 3 i' � � . � � � � J . } !� OQ � ��" �p J �p� \ � O ' �— ` • � � ,� � �� - - ��. ` ` � �'i_ � � � �` . .`` �t�v�'- , `� . '�� ,� i �'�' �; `t �\�` � �� fy., " ` �.- •,�r �� . ,`` ��,�. �, �. � �. � � � � � � , • � oo �� : �� ,. ```� �- . `` 1 ` � n . � +t. ` ' •+. _ . � _ , � ` �� j. C � �• � � ,� �� / � ,. �� • ti Tj ' � ` , � � . �'� • / �. � J !�« r` ' � � :� QI s � .� `� � '�� ti� . -�� (, .; ,,� �� q I ' � �" 1 '� � t `y�5c.�.� ` � �y � �'¢ s'i � � � O�� :: "�, . u �� . �.�Q lnZ.�� .Q".� ��iZ',�.��CxYCQ CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 NOTICE OF HEARING REZONING OF 1011 CADILLAC WAY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 27th day of November, 1989 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the request to rezone the 13,200 sauare foot property at 1011 Cadillac Wav (APN 026- 231-270) from R-4 multiple family residential to M-1 licrht ind�lstrial At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER PUBLISH ONCE: Friday, November 17, 1989 SAN MATEO TIMES �.�.E lnZ.�� U".0 ��Z"�Z�.��Cxi'C.E CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 NOTICE OF HEARING REZONING OF 1011 CADILLAC WAY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, the 27th day of November. 1989, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. , in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the req_uest to rezone the 13,200 sauare foot propertv at 1011 Cadillac Wav �APN 026-231-270) from R-4 multiple familv residential to M-1 liaht industrial. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER November 17, 1989 RESOLUTION N0. 57-89 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REZONING OF 1011 CADILLAC WAY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, California that: WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been proposed regarding the rezoning of that property known as 1011 Cadillac Way from the R-4 to the M-1 zone, and WHEREAS, it is the intention of this Commission to recommend approval of said Negative Declaration as set forth hereinafter: NOW,THEREFORE, it is FOUND, ORDERED AND DETERMINED that: On the basis of the Initial Study, the documents submitted, reviewed and addressed at the public meeting, and the comments received by this Commission it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Negative Declaration ND-428P is hereby recommended for approval. �, (� . CHAIRMAN I, PATRICK J. KELLY , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Planning Omission held on the 27th day of November, 1989, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS ELLIS, GIOMI, KELLY, MINK NOES: COMMISSIONERS JACOBS ABSENT : COMMISSIONERS : GRAHAM ,� - '1 '1 Secretary, Planning Commission RESOLUTION N0. 58-89 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF REOUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING 1011 CADILLAC WAY FROM R-4 DISTRICT TO M-1 DISTRICT RESOLVED, by the PLANNING COMMISSION of the CITY OF BURLINGAME, that: WHEREAS, pursuant to provisions of Chapter 25.1 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, an application was filed by Al and Jean Covarelli for reclassification of approximately 1.30 acres created by that Parcel Map filed in Volume 58 of Maps at pages 54-57, commonly known as 1011 Cadillac Way, (APN 026-231-270) from the R-4 Zoning District to the M-1 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fixed Monday, November 27, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, as the time and place for hearing upon said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the notice of time and place of said hearing has been given by publication as required by Section 65854 of the Government Code and Section 25.16.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, and by mailed notices to all affected property owners, and no other notice is necessary; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED that: 1. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the denial of the reclassification of approximately 1.30 acres created by that Parcel Map recorded at Volume 58 of Maps at pages 54-57, commonly known as 1011 Cadillac Way (APN 026-231-270) from the R-4 zoning district (multi-family and other uses) to the M-1 zoning district (light industrial). 2. The reasons for the recommended denial are as follows: The existing use of the surrounding properties is more appropriate to a commercial zone than an industrial zone, e.g., restaurant use, automobile sales and repair; the general plan service and special sales designation of the subject property is more compatible with the uses of the C-2 zoning district than the R-4 or M-1 zoning district; a larger area should be considered for rezoning to a district more effective in implementing the general plan designation of service and special sales and to provide a more compatible transition between uses over time. 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission be, and he is hereby ordered to transmit to the City Council a copy of the minutes of said public hearing as and for a summary of hearing as provided for by law. 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission be, and he is hereby ordered to transmit to the City Council a certified copy of this Resolution. " 1_ CH RMAN, Planning Commission I, PATRICK J. KELLY , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of November, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ELLIS, GIOMI, KELLY, MINK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GRAHA M\ � i l.."L� � _ ') � Secretary, Planning Commission �.C�$ U�S�� ,C ��'�.��i�.E CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD pLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 NOTICE OF HEARING REZONING OF 1011 CADILLAC WAY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Wednesday, the 3rd day of January, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the request to rezone the 13.200 square foot property at 1011 Cadillac Way (APN 026-231-270) from R-4 multiple family residential to M-1 liaht industrial. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER DECEMBER 15, 1989 �.�'$ ln%� .Q.0 ��Z'�.��Cxl"C.E CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING OEPARTMENT 6URLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 NOTICE OF HEARING REZONING OF 1011 CADILLAC WAY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Wednesday, the 3rd dav of January, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the request to rezone the 13,200 square foot Aronerty at 1011 Cadillac Way� APN 026-231-270) from R-4 multiple family residential to M-1 liaht industrial. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER PUBLISH ONCE: Wednesday, December 20, 1989 SAN MATEO TIMES RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION- REZONING OF 1011 CADILLAC WAY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, California that: WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been proposed regarding the rezoning of 1011 Cadillac Way from R-4 to M- l, and WHEREAS, it is the intention of this Council to approve said Negative Declaration as set forth hereinafter: NOW,THEREFORE, it is FOUND, ORDERED AND DETERMINED that: On the basis of the Initial Study, the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by the Planning Commission and this Council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Negative Declaration ND-428P is hereby approved. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _day of_ 1990, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE ZONING MAPS THEREIN INCORPORATED BY RECLASSIFYING 1011 CADILLAC WAY FROM C-2 DISTRICT TO M-1 DISTRICT The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 23.12.010 of said code and the zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 are hereby amended to reclassify approximately .30 acres created by that Parcel Map filed in volume 58 of Maps at pages 54-57, commonly known as 1011 Cadillac Way, (APN 026-231-270) from the Fourth Residential District (R-4 - multi-family and other uses) to the First Industrial District (M=1 - light industrial). Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. Mayor I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 1990, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1990, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA January 3, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Vice Mayor Gloria H. Barton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by City Clerk Judy Malfatti. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: BARTON, HARRISON, O'MAFiONY, PAGLIARO COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: LEMBI (recuperating from back surgery) MZNUTES Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 4 and the Study Meetinq of December 6, 1989 were approved. RESOLUTION 1-90 - APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-428P REGARDING REZONING 1011 CADILLAC WAY - REFER RE20NING TO PLANNING COMMISSION � City Planner reviewed her memo of December 14 which recommended council hold a public hearing and take action. The Planning Commission recommended the negative declaration as adequate and recommended against rezoning to M-1, feeling that the property uses in the area are more compatible to C-1 or C-2 zoning. The applicants, A1 and Jean Covarelli, are requesting to rezone the 13,200 square foot property from R-4, multi-family residential, to M-1, light industrial. The site is presently developed with an office building and the applicant wishes the rezoning in order to make the nonconforming office use conforming so that if there were a disaster the structure could be replaced and the office use continued. Under the present R-4 zoning, it would have to be replaced with multi-family residential use. Councilman Harrison inquired about whether the negative declaration referred to the maximum uses in M-1 as opposed to the present use. City Planner responded yes. Councilman Pagliaro noted that irregardless of what the zoning is they could rebuild to a height of 35 feet. He noted the presence of high school students and explained the meaning of the hearing and issues about various zones for the students' benefit. Councilwoman O'Mahony wondered if the parking would be adequate for the zoning changes proposed. City Planner noted the building has 10 parking spaces and requires 18 spaces; they are required to lease parking spaces from Northpark Apartments. Their parking spaces do not meet current city requirements for dimensions. Vice Mayor Barton asked how many residential units could be built on the site. City Planner estimated four to six, depending upon their size. Vice Mayor Barton opened the public hearing. A1 Covarelli said the staff report was accurate and noted he did not want to purchase the property if he could not rebuild his offices. Councilman Harrison inquired if further study and rezoning to C-2 or C-3 district rather than M-1 would bother applicant Covarelli, who responded no. vice Mayor Barton closed the public hearing. Councilman Harrison moved approval of the Negative Declaration by adoption of RESOLUTION 1-90, finding that on the basis of the initial study and any comments received there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant negative effect on the environment. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, carried unanimously 4-0 on voice vote of inembers present. Councilman Pagliaro stated he did not want to rezone this property M-1 because of the possible industrial uses that could go on the site; he would like to zone C-3 (office) district. City Planner noted the other uses adjacent to the site are not allowed in C-3 and that we had to rezone more than one lot. Councilman Harrison said those adjacent uses could be grandfathered into the C-3 district. Vice Mayor Barton said if she owned those sites she would object to being rezoned and made non-conforming. City Planner told council that the adjacent uses such as auto sales, auto repair and heavy retail would be allowed in C-2 district. Councilman Harrison moved to uphold the Planning Commission denial of rezoning to M-1 and direct the Commission to study rezoning of a larger area to C-2 district. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. Vice Mayor Barton was concerned about rezoninq and losing an R-4 lot when there is such a desperate need for housing and that area is a buffer zone. Councilwoman O'Mahony agreed but felt this lot is too small for multiple housing. Vice Mayor Barton asked that study include investigation of how many units could go onto the site. Councilman Pagliaro asked Covarelli how long a lease he had and directed that the Planning Commission make a recommendation by May. The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. Ci Manager reviewed his memos of December 18 and 22 which told of,i app 'cants to various commissions. Vice Mayor Barton noted that�l'n the a sence of the Mayor most appointments would be made at tkler next meetin . f Councilma Harrison said he had spoken to the Mayor reg�d ng appointmen to the Library Board and the Mayor had app �oved of his nominating ne Taylor to that position. Council uu�nimously approved of e appointment. J,�°'� Councilwoman O'1�hony asked that the Beautific�ttion Commission filing period be`�xtended until January 16. ,��ouncil concurred. Director of Public Wor s reviewed his,a`nemo of December 20 which informed council that t Commission'had unanimously recommended that the request to elimi ate two stop signs at Pepper and Ralston be denied; that the reques to corivert a 60 minute parking meter space to 24 minute at 1402 rl'hgame Avenue be approved; and that the request for red curbs and eight signs from 741-761 Rollins be denied. Staff will implemen� e 24 minute meter. Council had received an appeal which wi�l be considered later in the meeting from 741-761 Rollins rega�ding th ,�Commission's denial. `� 'i Councilman Pagliaro no ed a discussio� by residents on Anita at the Traffic Commission mee'ting regarding Putnam Auto parkin g problems. Staff is continuing>�investigation of th se problems; Putnam is required to provide employee parking on�te, it is difficult for staff to determige which cars are employee�and which are "for sale," Putnam has inst�'tuted a parking sticker sys m; City Attorney said offending par�,k�rs may also be employees of o er nearby auto dealers. Co�ancilman Pagliaro asked for a rep t on Putnam parking within a c�tiiple months. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Harrison said item E caused him to recall that the city had sold a water storage tank in the Hillside area du ing the 1970s and that he had discussed with the current owner the possibility of