HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 California Drive - Staff ReportTO
DATE:
v ciry
�� O� , ll t �. AGENDA
BURLINGAME I T EM n
q ����_��� STAFF REPORT MIG.
� � DATE 3L18�
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY _ i�l���a� il,c�� ��
FEBRUARY 21, 1986
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUAJEC T:
APPROVED
BY
REVIEW OF A 3PECIAL PERMIT FOR A THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA WHICH
WILL CAUSE BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCE'ED 35' FOR AN AUTO SALES/SER
F� 1�3Z`AL� ORNIA DRTVE, ZONED C-2, SUB-AREA D
E
RECOMiKEiVDATION :
Council hold a public hearing, review the application and take action.
In their action the Planning Commission required the following
conditions:
l. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and Fire Znspector's
memos of December 17, 1985 and January 22, 1986, the Building
Insp�ctor's memo o.f December 16, 1985 and the City Engineer's memo
of January 22, 1986 shall be met;
2. that there shall be 28 employee parkinq stalls designated on site
by notation on each space as shown in the plans submitte3 and date
stamped February 4, 1986 and that this number of employee spaces
shall be increased as the number of employees on site is increased
and that none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided
in a tandem confiquration; and
3. that this third floor addition and parking structure as built shall
be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped December 11, 1985, January 17, 1986 and January 29,
1986 as amended by the plans showing designated employee parking
dated February 4, 1986.
Action Alternatives:
1. City Council uphold.the Planning Commission approval of a special
permit for 43' height (35' review line) with conditions. This
action should be taken by resolution.
2. Council reverse the Planning Commission action and deny the use
permit for height over 35' (43' requested).
3. City Council deny without prejudice the request for special permit
for height. If this alternative is pursued Council should give
clear direction to applicant and Commission as to what revisions to
the project they feel should be addressed.
-2-
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Joseph Putnam represented by George Avanessian,
architect, is requesting a special permit for a 43' high (top of curb
to top of parapet) third story addition (35' review line) to a building
under construction fo.r an auto dealership at 3 California Drive, zoned
C-2, Sub-Area D(Code 5ec. 25.38.030). Currently Phase I of this
project is under construction. Phase I includes a remodeling of the
existing warehouse structure for a service center, addition of an auto
showroom and some office area (total height not to exceed 35').
The second phase of the project would include a third floor of office
area to a height of 43' and a one deck parking structure., to meet the
on-site parking requirements for the additional office space. The
third floor office area is over only the portion of the building
between the showroom (about 19' in height) and service building (about
30' in height). The three story (43' high) portion of the structure
extends 54 linear feet (25� of the site frontage) along Peninsula
Avenue side of the site. Because it will be located behind the
existing buildings, the parking structure is not visible from
Peninsula.
Planninq Commission Action
At their meeting on February 10, 1986 the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and voted 6-1 (Commissioner Jacobs dissenting) to
approve the special permit for height. In their discussion they
reviewed the height of the existing structure (about 20'), the positive
aspects at this location of putting a modern, attractive building with
adequate on-site parking provided; the fact that the neighbors were
concerned about the noise, light, etc. which were related to the use at
this location and that the use is permitted under the code and not an
issue in this proceeding; only 17� of the proposed building would be
43' tall, the proposed project incorporates 3,750 SF of landscaping and
a 4' front setback which are not required in this district, there are
two apartments on Highland taller than 43'. It was noted by one
Commissioner that the proposal represents a change from what is now on
California Drive, the building can be built under the 35' limit and be
consistent with the character of the area. Other Commissioners noted
that the precedent of 43' would be acceptable in other buildings if
they also provided landscaping, reduced lot coverage, met on-site
parking requirements and other considerations.
Five residents of Jefferson Court, which is across Peninsula Avenue
opposite the existing tilt-up building, expressed their opposition to
the height exception. Their concerns addressed the adverse imQact on
their residential area, the project would_encourage other buildings on
California/San Mateo Drive to be taller and change the character of the
area affecting their property values, the i.ncreased visibility of the
site, the potential glare from night lighting and noise from outside
public address systems as well as loss of privacy in yards overlooked
by offices.
.��
EXHIBITS:
- Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 1986
- Planning Commission Staff Report, February 10, 1986 w/attachments
- Notice of Council Public Hearing on Special Permit mailed
February 21, 1986 �
- Council Resolution for special permit for height, 3 California Drive
i�IM/s
cc: Joseph Putnam
George Avanessian
a
P.C. 2/10/86
Item #4
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED
TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING
DRIVE, ZONED C-2
HEIGHT FOR A THIRD STORY ADDITION
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 3 CALIFORNIA
George Avanessian, architect representing Joseph Putnam, is requesting
a special permit for a 43' high third story addition (35' review line>
to a building under construction for an auto dealership at 3 California
Drive, zoned C-2 (Code Sec. 25.38.030). 'rhe addition of the 3,922 SF
third floor would require 14 additional on-site parking spaces. As a
part of the second phase of the project which includes the third floor
addition, the applicant is proposing to add a parkinq structure. The
first floor of the structure would be used for storage of new cars
parked tandem. The top of the parking structure would be laid out for
conventional parking. The site will accommodate a new car sales
showroom and display as well as a car service center.
The applicant proposes to designate 28 on-site parking spaces for
employees (see plans date stamped February 4, 1986).
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed the application. The Fire Marshal and Fire
Inspector (December 17, 1985 and January 22, 1986 memos) note that the
entire complex, all buildings, need to be sprinklered and the garage
sprinkler system must be on a separate valve. The Building Inspector
(December 16, 1985 memo) notes that increasing the height of the
building would require meeting new UBC standards for electrical and
exiting. The City Engineer (January 22, 1986 memo) discusses the width
of the garage ramp, the limitations of the future (non-auto storage)
use of the first floor of the parking garage because of the placement
of the support posts, and the need to replace all damaged sidewalk,
curbs and gutters fronting the site.
Planning staff expressed two concerns at study, clarification of the
height of the building and designation of employee parking. The
finished height of the third floor is 43' from top of curb; thus the
applicant is requesting an 8' exception to the 35' C-2 district review
line. At staff's request the applicant has designated on the plans
date stamped February 4, 1986, 28 on-site employee parking spaces.
Since residents on Highland and other nearby streets complain about
on-street parking by employees of the other auto agencies in this area,
it is necessary to determine prior to approval where and how many
employees will be parked on site. These on-site employee parking
spaces should be labeled and thus reserved for this use. The applicant
shows 28 employees on site in the project application. This includes
sales, service and car jockeys.
-2-
Applicant's Letters
Mr. Avanessian, representing Joseph Putnam, submitted two letters
addressing the project, December 13, 1985 and January 27, 1986. In
these letters he states that the proposed project is to be used as a
full service auto dealership which requires a certain amount of square
footage to operate. The thir3 floor is necessary to have the required
square footage. The third floor area will be used for offices. He
does not feel that the addition will change the character of the area.
He points out in the second letter that there is a 2' variation in the
grade along the Peninsula Avenue frontage and that since they failed to
include the parapet in their measurement the structure is in fact 43'
tall.
Study Questions
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at study on January
27, 1986 (Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 1986). The concerns
expressed at study have been addressed by the applicant in his letter
of January 27, 1986 and in his revised plans February 4, 1986 (see
staff review section above).
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:
1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and Fire Inspector's
memos of December 17, 1985 and January 22, 1986, the Building
Inspector's memo of December 16, 1985 and the City Engineer's memo
of January 22, 1986 shall be met;
2. that there shall be 28 employee parking stalls designated on site
by notation on each space as shown in the plans submitted and date
stamped February 4, 1986 and that this number of employee spaces
shall be increased as the number of employees on site is increased
and that none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided
in a tandem configuration; and
3. that this third floor addition and parking structure as built shall
be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped December 11, 1985, January 17, 1986 and January 29,
1986 as amended by the plans showing designated employee parking
dated February 4, 1986.
� ` ��� �
Mar�aret Monroe
City Planner
cc: Joseph Putnam
��S George Avanessian
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
February 10, 198�
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA FOR A PROPOSED
AUTO SALES/SERVICE FACILITY AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHICH WILL CAUSE
BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 35' (43' PROPOSED), ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 2/10/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff concerns expressed
at the study meeting, applicant's letters. Three conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: Phases 1 and 2 of this project; height and location of the
parking structure which abuts the rear of the parcels that front on
Highland; concern that businesses in this area move often and a parkinq
impact could occur with some change; staff advised any new business
would be required to provide parkinq to co3e.; negative declaration was
prepared prior to determining the height at 43', this will not be the
only taller building on the street; concern that other dealers will now
ask for more height; parking on the mezzanine meets backup standards,
this will be confirmed with the final plans.
George Avanessian, architect representing the applicant, was present.
His statements: believe all staff's concerns have been addressed, the
three story structure is less than 17� of the total development, three
stories are needed because the site is limited and the applicant needs
open storage for car display, the first floor will be drive-through,
project is actually two floor occupancy, no employees will be added.
He did not feel the character of the area would be changed by this
proposal, the closest structure is 100' away, tandem parking provided
is not for required parking but strictly for storage, in future two
compact car spaces could be put between the columns although this would
exceed the compact parking ratio for the site; a five unit apartment
building is immediately adjacent to the west with a parking lot behind
it.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Diane Roth, 854 Jefferson
Court, San Mateo; Donald Dix, 866 Jefferson Court, San Mateo; Carl
Curtis, 872 Jefferson Court, San Mateo; Ross Bowling, 852 Jefferson
Court, San Mateo; Sheri Albert, 862 Jefferson Court, San Mateo.
(Jefferson Court is located directly across Peninsula Avenue from the
existing building on the site.) Their comments and concerns: this
proposal will adversely impact the surrounding residential area; none
of the existing buildings from Peninsula to Burlingame Avenue have
three stories nor do those on San Mateo Drive; existing building on the
site is 19' high; this development will be a change in the character of
the area, will impact property values; the building will overlook
backyards on Jefferson Court; have recently added a rear yard deck and
with a three story structure people,will be looking into the yard from
offices across the street; concern about increased customer parking,
street is impacted now, will employees actually use the parkinq
provided on site; concern about glare from lights on the parapet of the
building and noise, especially in summer when windows are open. There
were no further audience comments and the public hearing was �losed.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1986
Mr. Avanessian spoke in rebuttal: less than 17� of the structure is at
the 43' height; do not believe there are windows looking west from the
third floor; there are no lights on the building which would shine into
backyards across the street, only lights for the site itself; the °
building which stands between parking/outdoor show area and homes will
buffer outdoor noise, display and test driving will take place on the
California Drive side; the service shop is completely�enclosed; on-site
parking complies with the code, there are actually 91 parking stalls
instead of the required 69 some of which will be used for display; do
not feel an extension of the second floor would produce a hardship on
anyone.
Commission comment/discussion: height of existing structure is
approximately 20'; agree the development will have an impact but it
will be a positive impact, an attractive, modern building with on-site
parking provided; can appreciate the concerns of those speaking this
evening, but this is not a change in use, it is a permitted use, the
43' height is only a small portion of the building; if the applicant
had only two stories he could build it without coming to Commission;
concerns expressed by the neighbors are unrelated to this application
for height, they seem to be directed to the use, proposed application
is far better than what is there now.
Further Commission comment: do have a concern about height in
Burlingame but this request for 43' involves only 17� of the structure;
applicant is providing 3,750 SF of landscaping and has a 4' front
setback neither of which are requirements in this area; this proposal
would have far less impact than what could be put on the site. One
Commissioner did not support the application, stating it is a change
from what is on California Drive, buildings can be constructed 35' and
under, it will set a precedent; she believed the applicant could work
within the 35' limit and not change the character of the area.
Additional comment: there are two apartment buildings on Highland
taller than 43'; if approval does set a precedent and others come in
for 43' structures, trade-offs for landscaping, lot coverage, etc. will
be taken into consideration.
With the statement there would be more on-site parking than is provided
now, the development will improve the area and it will be an asset to
the city, C. Schwalm moved for approval of this special permit and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the
following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and
Fire Inspector's memos of December 17, 1985 and January 22, 1986, the
Building Inspector's memo of December 16, 1985 and the City Engineer's
memo of January 22, 1986 shall be met; (2> that there shall be 28
employee parking stalls designated on site by notation on each space as
shown in the plans submitted and date stamped February 4, 1986 and that
this number of elnployee spaces shall be increased as the number of
employees on site is increased and that none of the additional employee
spaces shall be provided in a tandem configuration; and (3) that this
third floor addition and parking structure as built shall be consistent
with the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
December 11, 1985, January 17, 1986 and January 29, 1986 as amended
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
February 10, 1986
by the plans showing designated employee parking dated February 4,
1986. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C.
Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 3 CALIFORNIA DR.
,\
(PTN. LOT 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 13, SUPP. TO TOWN OF BURLINGAME)
Re erence CE's agenda memo for Item #5. CE corrected description of
the5 lots in his memo and recommended the map be forwarded to Council
for a roval subject to one condition. C. Giomi moved to recommend
this ma to City Council for approval with the following condition:
(1) all c b, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site which is damaged
or displace be replaced by the owner. Second C. Graham.;�'motion
approved on a 6-1 voice vote, C. Jacobs voting no. F�-�"✓�
Recess 9:18 P.M.;�econvene 9:23 P.M.
ITEMS FOR STUDY �
6. SPECIAL PERMI'I' - AU
ILE RES'�P1�2ATION S�;RVICE - 50 STAR WAY
7. SPECIAL PERMI'r - AUTO DETA
NG SERVICE - 70 S'rAR WAY
Requests: data on availab parking, istory of previous actions on
this site. Items #6 an 7 were set fo hearing February 24, 1986.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- Planner's
Residence
PLANNER RE R'rS
2/10/86, re: 1108 Edgehill Drive�,'�lderly Care
CP Monr e reviewed Council actions at its February 3, 1986 re
meeti and February 5, 1986 study meeting.
ADSOURNMENT
Chairman Garcia adjourned the meeting at 9:55 P.M, in memory of
Commissioner Schwalm's granddaughter, Michelle Schwalm.
r
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy
Secretary
PROJECT APPLICATION �����TY °� 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLINGAME project addre55 -
AUTO DEALERSHIP
Application received
(12/11/85 ) �°'^����^•'�� Pro�ect name - if any
Staff review/acceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Joseph Putnam 342-4321
name telephone no.
50 California Drive, Burlinqame, CA 94010
applicant s address. street, city, zip code
_ Georqe Avanessian, Avanessian Assoc`s , 583-7344
contact person, if differentQ�O Oy��erSPo�11t B�Vd. �elephone no.
Ste z
*INCLUDES PARKING STRUCTURE
(PHASE II of PROJECT). See
attached comparison page
of phase I and Phase II
nrniartc
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION • , o. an rancisco,CA 94080
Specia.l Perr�it (x ) Variance* () Ccndominium Pernit () Oth�r
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SPECIAL PERMIT to allow a 3,922 SF third floor office area
addition to a buildin under construction whlch causes total hei ht
to exceed 35' (43' proposed). Fourteen (14) additional parkinq
s�aces are required which will be provided at grade. The project
meets all other code requirements for a project in the C-2 zone
(floor area ratio, setbacks). A foundation permit has already
been issued based on p ans w ic s owe a two story structure.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s) : ( 25. 38.030 )(
4. PROPERTY IDEPaTIFICATION � �Ot 2
( 029-242-080/ )(Ptn. 1� ( 13 )(Supp. to Town of Burlingame)
APN 090/100/110/ lot no. block no. subdivision name Mdp N0. 1�
c c-2 220 � c 56,200�+� �
zoning district land area, square feet
Joseph D. & P1ary L. Putnam, TRS 375 Mt. Home Road
land owner's name address
Woodside, CA 94062
Renuire�! Oate received city zip code
(��) (no) (12/12/85 ) Proof of ownershi�(con.firmed)
(�� (no) ( _ ) Owner's consent to a�plication
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Uacant lot with a small structure
Reo,ui red
(.ve5) (��)
(yes ) (�)
(yeS) (rc�j
(yes) (no)
(other)
Date received
(12/11/85)
R
� �� )
�12/16/85>
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on-site parking; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of us�`on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
7�tter of PXjLan�tinn
'`Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PP,�POSAL
Proposed censi:ruc i n �elow orade ( � SF) Second floor ( 1�,9�� SF)
gross floor area �b�Idg.011�j/�First floor ( 22�]QQ SF) Third floor ( , SF)
Project Codn Project Code
Pr000sal Requiremeni. Proposal Requirement
Front setback 4' 0 �ot coveraae 67%* 100%
Side setback � Q Ruildine height 3$' 35'
Side yard 0* 0 �ar.dscaoed area 3750 SF 0
Rear yarc; Q Q On site pkg.spaces 91* 69
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
Full tir�e emoloyees on site
Part tir�e em�loyees on site
Visitors/customers (��eekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trin ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
EXISTING
after
8-5 5 PM
28
� �
IM 2 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
IN 5 YEARS
after
£3-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential and commercial uses to the west; commercial uses to
the north, south and east• this use conforms to the General Plan
Required Date received
(3r2s) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
�'yes) (no) ( n/ a ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firris ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( X) Other application type, fee $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 (X j
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 X
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ()
TOTAL FEES $ 15�.Q� RECEIPT N0. ZZ45 Received by /�.Garefalos
I hereby certify under penal
true and correct to the best
Signa
te (2f11,c�•�s
' STAfF USE OP1LY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION Fi�e No. ND-386P
The �ity of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on January 6 , 1986,
completed a revie�v of the proposed project and determined that:
( X) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion: The h2lght, dellsity and proposed use for th1S
location is in keepinq with other developed 1ots in the area
Furthermore the area is fully developed Therefore this proposal
�eti11 nnt havP iinreasonablP arlvArca imr�act� on the environment,
�cj.lities or ad.iacent pro�erties
��I�►� -LUIU�1� C I TY PI ANN R <� �D. l�
Si ature of Processino Official Title Daie Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATIO^l OF POSTIPlG Dat;e Posted: �-� , a21, ����p
I declare under penalty of per.jury that I ar� City Cler f the City of Burlingame and that
I oosted a true copy of the above Neoa.ti�re Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to ih•a Council Chambers.
�xecuted at 3urlingame, California on ���_ oZ- � , 19 D(�J,
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
, �
�� ' � -
JUD �. MALFATT , CITY CLERK, CITY f'� oURLINGAPIE
erjury that the information given herein is
knowledge and belief.
STAFF REUI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIOfJ
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer ( 12/12/85 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( 12�12�$5 ) (yes) (�a)
Fire Marshal ( 12/12/85 ) (.ves) (�)
Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no)
memo attached
(yes) (no)
�YeS) ��g)
�YeS) E��)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOP! MEASUP,ES
Concerns Mitigation Measures
Does the proposal meet Fire and Request comments from the Fire
Building Code-requ�rements? Mar�hal and Building Inspector.
Do the plans meet the City Request comments from the
Engineer's requirements? City Eng�neer.
Will the addition have any Review application; make
adverse impacts on adjacent determination.
sites?
ill the addition have any Review application; discuss
adverse impacts on the traffic with applicant; discuss with
nd parking situation in the City Engineer.
rea?
3. CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Yes - see N.egative Declaration
ND-
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
RFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR accepted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
t
�
�
�
�
�
4. APPLICATIOPJ STATUS Date first received ( 12_�lj,f $5)
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( / )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 1 2]�$6)
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes (no) Recommended date (� � p �, )
Date staff report mailed aoplicant (� S�6)�ate ComnissiQn hearing (�� ���(o)
�/ J /
Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) ���o Counci� Y es) (�)
Date Council hearing ( 3 3 �'�p ) Apolication apor ved ( enied ( )
/ /
m � � . �,,
signed date
0
3 California Drive: Phase I(Building) and Phase II (Parking Structure)
Comparisons
Gross Floor Area
First Floor
Secon3 Floor
Third Floor
Lot Coverage
Floor Area Ratio
Height
Parking Required
Phase I Phase II
(Buildinq onlv) (Parkinq qaraqe)
22,700
13,250
3,922
39,872
(open lot area)
14,934
0
14,934
40.4�
.833
38'
69
26.6�
.27
not given
0
Total
22,700
28,184
3,922
54,806
67�
1.1
.•
Note: In a 1/3/86 conversation with George Avanessian he said
that both Phase I and Phase II are planned to be constructed
at one time.
HW/s
1/3/86
�ov
N � M
�o,�
�UaMo
_ u�
�o
�jU�
J �
T
ZZ v
a
a ". u'
W a �
�v�x
}=a
p�w
� J
O W
� N F
J L_J
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i�ECE1V�D
�El, 15 198�
pTY�� �� E
December 13, 1g85
The City of Burlingame
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Attn: Ms. Helen Williams
Dear Ms. Williams:
This statement is being written in order to clarify the need for the approval of
the proposal submitted.
The proposed auto dealership at 3 California Drive is a full service dealership,
which requires a certain amount of square footage to be built. In order to
achieve this requirement, we are asking the City of Burlingame to allow us to add
a third floor to the proposed structure which will extend beyond the allowable
height limitation.
This additional space will be used for offices for which we are providing additional
parking and amounts to only 17 percent of the total building area. We feel that
this proposal will not create any hazard to the public nor will it change the
character of the area.
On behalf of my client, Mr. Joseph Putnam, I would like to again emphasize the
need for that extension and I hope that you will look favorably �to this request.
� y,
--- �f_ �____� �..�___
Sincerely, �,
'( • �
4F- �-7
Ge rge S Avan �sian, AIA
i
��
nov
N O �
� � �
yU�
_�
�O
� U ^
Ju%�
r
ZZ ....
Q
a'L W
WQ�
F- t� S
�=a
O f"
w
� J
W
at�nF
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Burlingame City Hall
Planning Departsnent
D'Is. Helen Williams
Dear Helen,
Jan. 27, 1986
Reference is being made to the project located at #3 California Drive un�er
study at tonight's planning meeting .
In our original application we did not consider the grade difference and the
size of the parapet. To clarify this I would like to point out that the grade
difference between sidewalk at Peninsula Ave. ar�d the middle portion of drive
thnz area, which is the 3 stories section is two feet high.
In addition we neglected to count the parapet at roof making the 3 story -
structure 43 feet high.
If you have any questions regarding this ma.tter please contact
my office.
Sincerely,
ge Avar
GA/ab
December 17, 1985
T0: Helen Williams, Planner
FROM: Bob Barry, Fire Plarshal
SUBJECT: 3 California Drive
I have reviewed the plans submitted for this project and have
the following comments:
l. The building must have a complete sprinkler and fire alarm
system installed throughout. This system must be monitored
by an approved central station.
�O�j
Bob Qarry
� � � � � $/ � � January 22, 1986
.,� � N 9, � i98�
T0: Hel en Wi 11 i ams qTr oF eu�et.iac�
ruwHiNc o�t.
FROP�: Keith Marshall
SUBJECT: Parking Structure, #3 California Drive
In reviewing the above plan, the following recommendations are made:
1. Complex must be sprinklered along with the other building.
2. Garage sprinkler system must be on a separate valve so that it may
be controlled separately from the other building.
Keith Marshall
0
DATE: �Z�������
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR �
FIRE MARSHAL
-�R E-�--�� R#E�—
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ��e��r a�� ��,,.�� � 7`� r�� S�,-,.c �-�- Gt `���y-o� �' �;��., ��-�,Ce Gi-f"
,
� �'� � � ��-H . �— ,� r i 'ti'+` ..-'
.
Cli,.�l._ ;;� G'�IC�: !';�,,..��' . . �� /i �•�/ 'r0 G;' !_�.�td� �✓ �
C�
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �� %'f
at tf�eir���� � meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by ��� /�(�
-T_r-
TU . � L AI�l I� i ry GI �C I i.
Thank you. h�°,": 3`'„a'"' � �jC��--�—,
2� .� ,� ���,���,� �.� �2. .
!. Tl-ii�.D 5 � o�-� �FF�c� s�% 3�,4ziFo��.1,A- w rTN .� �-IE-i Eri% ��F 38 '
�xe�DS� �� 3�' M,ax/✓�'1tiM 1-Ic,�kT �o✓,2t �i��
�� ��.� ,��
13� 3L Jn� ,R%r .Yt �j.:. •-D.•.1C� C�� �ey TR Bi.E Sb �E�v, � a�d�
Hel en Towber Fa� T t'�c ��� P,t z- — MA'` �+T �F �,�0' ,�N� z s%o��C-s
Planner /-iO�t�Cv��� TNiS oF%�Co L.ic�v�..� f'� C�U�.SiSi[s� u.'?"N %y�E �-1 Nvo'��.
C�n;Sr,L'v�T'Un: ,�e CJv�2c •+A��� �JF /LliFl� Sl�� �,� �35'Tl�ef� -
S�
dtt. l� %� C/ C I-I T CF !� J i Z Din)6r 5 aIAL �,t1-G�e�C'T �ps � T� o� �F j/� SE.�'�,�c-
C°Oni �•/ VTo 2 s, A s�-� ��� �l ,t1�4-ri v N�t ��. c� � rr �c,4t Ca r.� ' i4,� i� c cr�"
Z 3 G- Z�.f � i</c=,2� s 1�,9c � 3c ,4 �t i..�, n� �M B' V��-'T / L �. C� c 6�az �a,� 4f_
_ 13c-'T��.v T� k�oc F An,'� -Tf-� ��°''� ^ a�UP CCNDJC7a �S ��,�C����,�
SA�,).
3. S� ll ou�-� -F+, s s� c �.�L ��M � r �.AP��o�a -T� �x�T��i �, .�,�J�
M.4��Q cs �G Cc%,�iS� ��c r��� L�e��� ��� u�rr�+ ,�G� d�r�- c �� .a�3�d rJ F,�.e .
StZ-ri D� S Ft�('c� /-1- f�' - Z d�.= � C c.
.-� �,`e ��,��
�-c����
�z - � c� �s
T0: Planning
FROM: Engineering
DATE: January 22, 1986
RE: Special Permit for Auto Sales Facility, Tentative and Final Parcel Map
for Lot Combination, 3 California Drive
I have the following comments on the site plan.
1. The proposed parking garage needs a ramp width of at least 18' (over 30 cars).
2. The structural support system at the lower level does not allow flexibility
for future use other than tandem parking. Without revision, the efficiency
for use for regular code required parking is not very high and would limit its
use as other than a storage type parking area.
3. Condition should be placed on any approvals requiring the replacement of
all damaged or displaced curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site.
The tentative parcel map as provided is sufficient to forward to the Council
as also a final map to facilitate processing time. The actual final map is in
process of review for signatures.
�
��� � � ��
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
FCE:me
, a
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
January 27, 1986
Commission discussion/comment: possibility of moving the gates farther
out to the left and right in order to provide room at the side for the
expansion; CE stated this would be a problem as visitors and city cars
and trucks park there during the day and night, need space for access
to the repair bay and maneuvering space on the side; possibility of
adding a loft; CE did not think this would be practical; have not voted
for any front setback infringement in this area, would rather see cars
parked in the front setback than a fence; CE advised there is a 2-1/2'
rise and parking cannot be located there; perhaps the city should set a
better example. CE commented they had studied the situation thoroughly
with the hope of putting the addition somewhere else; one big problem
was that the office area needs to be close to the telemetering
equipment for frequent access.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hear'ing. There were no audience comments
in favor. Tom Heaton, 1906 Easton Drive spoke in opposition: this is
an older area with structures built to the sidewalk; think it is a poor
plan for the city to add to the problem. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Stating he thought there were other ways to handle this addition, C.
Graham moved for denial of the varianc�s. Second C. Jacobs. Comment
on the motion: this whole area is built out to the curb, don't believe
the city should suffer with disruption of its whole operation; if City
Council decides it is a problem for the city they can make the
decision.
On roll call motion received a 3-3 vote, Cers Schwalm, Taylor, Garcia
dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Application effectively denied. Appeal
procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA FOR A PROPOSED
AUTO SALES/SERVICE FACILITY AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHICH WILL CAUSE
BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 35', PROPERTY ZONED C-2
9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 3 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE (PTN. LOT 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 13, SUPP. TO TOWN OF BURLINGAME
Staff had two concerns: a clarification of the height of the building
from top of curb to top of parapet and how the parking plan will work
for employee spaces is unclear. Employee spaces should be designated
and cannot be placed in a tandem configuration. This could lead to a
redesign of the structure. Applicant should clarify. Items set for
hearing February 10, 1986.
PLAiVNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 20, 1986 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:48 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary
� �,
���►�rr� ��
�_ � � � s_ ���s
Gir�N��E February 5, 1986
To: City Council Members
I James E. Minto have no objection to the proposed
height at 3 California Drive in Burlingame. I think
it would be in Burlingames best interest to approve
the varience.
d
Sincerely,
�
�� ��� ���j-'
James�. Minto
Property awner
88 California Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
f /a /. �..�
�" L � � .. � ^ �� ^ �. � J � t � .
(� w t'i. � � �r 1` "1 }' • /�t. t t, t�. , �
y Y,1 . � �.. �_ ...,� � � � �,�/' Y� Y ` � $ ,i
�`! C'
r�'" -� � ��� �` �
� �: .r� , , �
�' f ,. , �� �: : , � � �..' � �
� . • �'a�.,�,-` � ��� �t'�' ' % . c�`�� 'f '� t� •`'•�` � �
• �' 'r /� •, �. �O .' � ` , �,�",' .�,
, r' � ,•� l �
%., � �',''! r;.. *`�� .: ..�/� . �r � �' \ ' i�., , ' `♦ �' �t``�;.... ����
� , • /� �l� `� • . . � f . /� . ' i . .
, � ��� , -s-� � �� � � .�� � _ � ,, _ - , � �
• N� � C � .;i# •�< < . �' � ��;f � , O%� ' �;, , y �. . i ',
^ � � � ;. , � rL �� , vi � .: i � y
,. T" �' \ �,, � ' �' �.',�*� i ;;� , � .. r � .��I.�� `' � //�j� ,�=�F
T ��.t' _ * (�i I (,� / ',t O�. .. �� � !� � ,T'��. �f" ��J�. rx �'��
� ... r' ,�_� i. • f,, � —�'
l �:. '� �::.� � ' ,; � / � i ,9�?1' � !�� � / � �€
_ �°,,i� ~� � �,,, t � ' - /� %�
"`',.� ,`. ,,.� �� • r!�►yy.y ,��`.• � �'�C jR �.�,` . �
yf,'� ''k;� ., ; "'!R,h,�/'. ' � , / � ' '�`� ,�'1� ,� � /
�� , . , '
, "''^;�;.. � � � ,' � �' �' �' .
�,;,- -.. �" . °`,' ` % y /� � + , �p� , i �� f ! �
r _*� � �` -•R. ,.�' �� ! ��. ,f.' � , ' , �� �,�t�, f��, ` �//�f �
�� �' ` � � � � � ` ' . • _ � , � . r � a� �` x �'�, `��;` � f a
.
,'� ` � �\�; ,'� �,� r% �'�, %% � .,��'�
, '� �f f �' r'" ,
.
,, , t /�/� -•,` � `•;. � "''w�
, � rr 3 . ` , i � � x.
�. .''' � -�fr. �.� � � �` .. ��� K `/ /� ,t G `T� /,� ��, � ��''4'•.,�''- �� � '
���� � - �! �. � ,+, � `• !� .
t +c^ '
� � � �' '' ''t� �� ��� �� � 4 � �� • '";� e����� i¢r + � �� j� C , /� ��
� �t � � , +�� /. �.1� ^� `L�. F �.
� F_ r, '��2� E'i �f� .,!';�r � ,.f"�.c, ,/ y,
�, . - '", , J ,�'
,., .
� � , , .
�.�+'' ��' ., -„ ,. �� f►, ��, �� � �. �`
�,�� , � ,,, :.� �`����� i-�-�c' . . �'� '%�'� . ., '� N �
�, -,�.°'`�'� __ 'r{' •{ �aQ � � . � JE
: * ni � , {' • �
• � �� • —_ � •• I
t t
1 k •• �' � _ , l
���r y,���,,,��.��,�y �^� r^�+� �/�, � •, � ����`.• �- , r � � . � _ �
� "�W`• 'ti��V --• �! �r. �� '�•�• ' � . �� /'
+; �, ,�; \ .x : _ ��"� "° , E ,�` '• �'''-3 .
. . , "' � �+�.
(�; '�!''�.,. �. . . e � ..� i t ♦ �'! � %� � �. ���� r �r� � �
a ' !� � ��' �. � � � , � • �, . , `\ ,
,, ,,' � '•,;�'i- . • ;' �, � • Tr{�+;y � �.��4 .,: ' � a! f.
�.�" .� "'�,�' F� / �/.�'� � ��,,.�. , C'r � ~, . � ' � �"`
� �� � ; , . ' � � �,;' �� r~'�.- � � � : ' � a ''��� �� �'� ;; i
�.� ��' � - ' . , � _�
� �� � C . . � ��,/ ' � �� ,.� � t • •.` �� 1 t � .ti, �
i . {
� � , � � • . �� � f r � ' L.�
� r, �• � i'•' , �!' 1 ��f `;r• �,. �� �i
•. �t,• . , •}-. `� � • e , t , - t'� r,
M� � - jN I. � I`(
♦ . ' � ��' \ '�d • '�j�'�� z.• ' � .!` � i_ r R '
.�
� ���t.
� � �'r!� :
�: ''� ` %
�• 0 �
,•. .
.; .; A �
.
� � ' -�� L
���' � SJ ��
���
. .,7A p � , b
� � ` •
P�, .�� � � ��..
� ,
E:e,;
� j�, �� r,
a � �a
�' , ,� � f�^ "r
,e�`c •.<'' � .
\f
�
�
� ���: �rt� �
�`: � !��
� ,:.` .:. 4�J �
7 � � a� A�
%�����` . l �
�,
{4' ' �
���� ,�x'r�����-
�
C� �iP �t��1 II� �1Xi�tI�I��12tP
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- SOI PRIMROSE ROAO
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SPECIAL PERMIT
TEL: (415) 342-8931
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 3rd day of March, 1986 , 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 application to allow a third floor office area for
proposed auto sales/service facility at 3 California Drive which will cause
building height to exceed 35' (43' proposed); property zoned C 2
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
February 21, 1986
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERP�IT
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame
:hat;
WHF.REAS, application has been made for a special permit
�or a third floor office area for a proposed auto sales/servi ce
Facility which will cause building height to exceed 35' �
�t 3 Galifornia Drive
,nd
cAP:v 029-242-080/090/ �
100 110
� WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on said application on February 10 ,1986 , at which
itime said application was approved;
' caHEREAS, this matter was called up by Council and
i
�a hearing thereon held on March 3 �lgg 6
iN049, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERI�SINED by
il
ithis Council that said special permit is aPproved, subject to the
�
�conditions sPt forth in Erhibit "A" attached hereto.
��
j It is further directed that a certifed copy of this
Iresolution be recorded in the official records of the County of
j�San Mateo.
i Mayor
i
� I, JUDZTH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of
I
:Burlinqame do hereby certify tt�at the foreqoin9 resolution �vas
;introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
� 3rd _aay of ��a1"Ch ,1956 , and adooted thereafter by
; —
the fol.lowin9 vote:
AYES: COUNCIL;IF•.N:
NOES: COUNCIL:fEN:
�ADSEVT: COUNCILMEN:
I
I
City Cler
i
Page 11
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986
Commission discussion/comment: possibility of moving the gates farther
out to the left and right in order to provide room at the side for the
expansion; CE stated this would be a problem as visitors and city cars
and trucks park there during the day and night, need space for access
to the repair bay and maneuvering space on the side; possibility of
adding a lof t; CE did not think this would be practical; have not voted
for any front setback infringement in this area, would rather see cars
parked in the front setback than a fence; CE advised there is a 2-1/2'
rise and parking cannot be located there; perhaps the city should set a
better example. CE commented they had studied the situation thoroughly
with the hope of putting the addition somewhere else; one big problem
was that the office area needs to be close to the telemetering
equipment for frequent access.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
in favor. Tom Heaton, 1906 Easton Drive spoke in opposition: this is
an older area with structures built to the sidewalk; think it is a poor
plan for the city to add to the problem. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Stating he thought there were other ways to handle this addition, C.
Graham moved for denial of the variances. Second C. Jacobs. Comment
on the motion: this whole area is built out to the curb, don't believe
the city should suffer with disruption of its whole operation; if City
Council decides it is a problem for the city they can make the
decision.
On roll call motion received a 3-3 vote, Cers Schwalm, Taylor, Garcia
dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Application effectively denied. Appeal
procedures were advised.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
�8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA FOR A PROPOSED
AUTO SALES/SERVICE FACILITY AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHICH WILL CAUSE
BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 35', PROPERTY ZONED C-2
�9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 3 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE (PTN. LOT 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 13, SUPP. TO TOWN OF BURLINGAME
Staff had two concerns: a clarification of the height of the building
from top of curb to top of parapet and how the parking plan will work
for employee spaces is unclear. Employee spaces should be designated
and cannot be placed in a tandem configuration. This could lead to a
redesign of the structure. Applicant should clarify. Items set for
hearing February 10, 1986.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 20, 1986 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:48 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary