The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff ReportITEM # 6 CITY OF B URLINGAME AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3, 922 SF OF OFFICE TO BE USED FOR STORAGE AND TO PROVIDE REQUIRED EMPLOYEE PARKING OFF-SITE Address: 3 California Drive Meeting Date: 9.9.96 150 California Drive Request: Conversion of third floor office area to storage and relocation of required (Special Permit March 3, 1986) on-site employee parking to an off-site parking structure at 150 California Drive. Applicant: 7oseph Putnam APN: 029-242-240 and 029-233-080 Lot Dimensions and Area: 56,200 SF General Plan: Service and Special Sales Zoning: C-2, Sub D, Auto Row Adjacent Development: Faces commercial on California to east, residential uses across Peninsula and to rear on Highland, commercial uses to north. CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section 15301. Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (a) interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing and electrical conveyances. Previous Use: 3,922 SF office, 28 parking spaces on second floor of on-site parking structure used by employees. Proposed Use: 3,922 SF storage area, 28 parking spaces on second floor used for new car storage, 28 parking spaces provided for employees on near by site in multi-story parking structure built to serve adjacent car dealerships on that site. Allowable Use: Auto sales and storage, auto repair and service with on site parking. Summary: Joseph Putnam, represented by Neil Martin, is requesting an amendment to his special permit granted in March 1986 to add a third floor of office (3,922 SF) with required on site parking for 28 employees at 3 California Drive, zoned C-2 Subarea D, Auto Row. The primary use of this site is auto sales and service. Mr. Putnam would now like to convert the third floor office area to storage, reducing the on site parking requirement for the office area from 14 to 4. In addition he would like to relocate all the required 28 employee parlcing spaces (one for each employee at peak employment on site) to an underused parking garage he leases with an option to buy at 150 California Drive. He is proposing to designate an area on the fourth deck of the garage for the employees at 3 California Drive to use. The 28 spaces on the 3 California site will be used to store new car inventory in order to support the sales and service operations occurring on that site. This item comes before the Planning Commission as a code enforcement item resulting from complaints of Putnam employees parking on Jefferson Court instead of on-site as required. -1- nmendmer�t to Spccial Psrmu �etbacks Front Side Rear Height Lot Coverage Landscaping On-Site Pkg Spaces* Proposed No Change Existing 4' 0' 0' 43' 67 % 3,750 SF 28 3 and 150 Cal{/'ornia Drive Allowed/Req'd 0' 0' 0' 35' 100 % 0 9159 * Requesting to provide 46 % of the required parking off site at a location half a block away. All other zoning requirements are met by the project. Staff Comments: City Staff have reviewed the request. The Fire Marshall, Chief Building Ofiicial, and Senior City Engineer had no comments. The Planning staff would note that if parking to provide an on-site need is to be provided on another site, even if the appropriate number of spaces to meet building requirements are provided on-site, it is mandatory that the arrangement be made in such a fashion that if the off-site location is no longer available, the permit for 3 California would be reviewed and room be made on that site to provide, once again, the employee parking. The City Attorney has assisted in crafting the conditions and any action will be recorded with both properties so that it is clear that any change to the use or ownership from Joseph Putnam of either site will require that the Special Permit for 3 California would be reviewed again by the Planning Commission. The site at 3 California Drive is the subject of code enforcement because of the impact of employee parking on Jefferson Court, opposite the site across Peninsula in San Mateo. Other problems have also arisen over the years resulting from lack of space on-site for loading and unloading cars, deliveries, and on-site lighting and noise which have affected near by residential uses. The lighting and noise issues were successfully addressed earlier. In his letter the applicant acknowledges problems arising from auto testing and lack of employee parking on-site and suggests solutions. The Police department is aware of the on-street loading/unloading issues and is assisting with enforcement. Planning staff would note that over the years enforcement of employee parking requirements for this and other auto dealership sites have been a problem. Generally code enforcement in these kinds of cases has been time consuming and marginally effective. One alternative that occuned to the City Attorney and to staff which might facilitate future enforcement would be to add a condition to permits for all such businesses that makes the review process more immediate and gives it more clout if employees do not use required on-site parking. One way of doing this is to add the following condition to each permit as they come up for review. The proposed condition would state: that if upon inspection by the Planning Department it is determined that the designated spaces are not being used for employee parking, the situation would be reviewed by the Planning Commission which could impose a monetary fne. -2- Ainsndinent w Special Psnws 3�nd 150 Ca/j%rnia Drivs Study Questions At their meeting on 7uly 22, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's request and asked for clarification on several points (Planning Commission Minutes 7uly 22, 1996). In his memo dated August 5, 1996 the applicant's representative notes that today the auto business needs a significant inventory of new and used cars available on site for customers to look at, so he needs the parking spaces of employees for display. He also has a need to use some of the on site parking for the vehicles he is servicing. The office space which was the subject of the 1986 Conditional Use permit has never been used for office. It was built in anticipation of future expansion and business consolidation; but the business did not develop as then anticipated. It has always been used for record storage. They expect to continue this practice. The pazking gazage at 151 California Drive contains about 600 parking spaces. Of these 15 aze assigned to the Saturn Dealership. The facility is used primarily to house new car inventory. The applicant anticipates no problem housing the 28 employee parking spaces since they will use about 5% of the spaces. No other employees are parking in the garage. In the memo date stamped August 5, 1996 the applicant summarizes his various car sales and repair operations in Burlingame. He indicates what services are offered at each location. Because of a problem with the applicant's representative's schedule this item was set for the meeting of September 9, 1996. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. -3- Msmdmsnt to Special PermA Planning Commission Action 3 and ISO Cal{/'ornia Drive The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. The following conditions should be considered at the public hearing: 1. that all the conditions of the March 3, 1986 conditional use permit shall remain in effect except for condition number two which shall be eliminated; 2. that if at any time 3 California Drive and 150 California Drive cease to be in common ownership either: (1) the owner of the 3 California Drive shall provide written assurance that the new owner of 150 California Drive will provide employee parking spaces as required by this permit; or (2) this permit shall be automatically revoked, without notice and hearing, and the required employee parking as required by this permit shall be provided on the 3 California Drive site; 3. that the car sales/repair business owner at 3 California Drive shall provide 28 parking spaces for his/her employees at 150 California Drive and that this number of employee spaces shall be increased as the number of employees on the site at 3 California Drive is increased and none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided in a tandem configuration; 4. that the 28 parking spaces provided for employees at 3 California located in the parking garage at 150 California Drive shall be locaterl together within the parking garage and clearly posted or marked on the cement that they are reserved for employees of 3 California Drive; and 5. that an aggressive program requiring employees at 3 California Drive to park in the designated spaces at 150 California shall be implemented by site management immediately upon granting this conditional use permit; and that this program shall include enforcement by the employer and a designation on each employee at 3 California's car to denote that s/he is parking in the designated area of the parking garage to facilitate inspections. Margaret Monroe City Planner /M 3150CAL&.396 -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 7uly 22, 1996 3. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE PARKING LOCATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES AT 3& 150 CALIF012NIA DRIVE, ZONED, G2, SUBAREA D, (JOSEPH D. & MARY L. PUTNAM, TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND �OSEPH PUTNAM, APPLICANTI. Requests: why can't they reverse the situation and have the auto storage off site and the employee parking on site; what do they intend to store in the office space; where will the office uses be relocated; what commitments for othei businesses is the 150 California already meeting; provide plan showing each dealership and how they relate to one another in terms of the usage, employee parking, inventory storage, etc. At the request of the applicant this item set for public hearing September 9. 1996. 4. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1218 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED, G1, SUBAREA A(M. H. PODELL COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNERS AND BANANA REPUBLIC. APPLICANT.) Requests: will Banana Republic use the endre tenant space, if not, how will the rear of the building be used, it will affect signage; how will the banners be stabilized so they will not blow in the wind; check number of sign exceptions on this block of Burlingame Avenue; Item set for public hearing August 12, 1996. 5. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO STORAGE ON THE WEST SIDE OF TI� CALTRAIN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF WAY NORTH OF BROADWAY, SUB7ECT PROPERTY ZONED UNCLASSIFIED, (JOINT POWERS BOARD, PROPERTY OWNERS AND RECTOR MOTOR CAR COMPANY, APPLICANT.) CONTINUED FROM JULY 8, 1996 WITHDRAWN. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. APPLICATION FOR 6 SPECIAL , PERMITS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 839 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (DEBORAH HALL, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). CONTINUED FROM THE TULY 8 1996 Reference staff report, 7.22.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Deborah Hall, 839 Walnut Avenue, the property owner was present to answer questions. She noted all structures will be exactly where they aze now. The rear will serve as a new fence. It was noted that electric heat and hot water would be provided in the structure. If an addition were made to the house it would be too close to the garage. 7eff Wall, 822 Newhall Road, asked questions regarding the location of the property line; it is unclear where the structure is; if it is set further back will she build a fence on property line; how long will construction take, does the city have any control over that? The applicant noted 14 feet of rear -2- JOSEPH PUTNAM USE PERMIT APPLICATION 3 California Drive, Burlingame RE+��,� AUG 0 5 1996 CITY" U� BURLINC;A�L. PIANNINC DEPT. Questions and answers raised at the Burlingame Planning Commission Study Session, July 22, 1996: 1. QLTESTION There seemed to be some confusion related to the location of the dealership whether it was Peninsula Avenue at California Drive or Anita at Peninsula Avenue. : ► _ .�_ : The dealership which is the subject of this application is at 3 California Drive at the corner of Peninsula Avenue and California Drive. 2. QUESTION A Corrunissioner asked that the applicant address the issue of why employee parking could not be located on the site and have new cars located offthe site. �� _ �/_ i The nature of the automobile sales business today requires a significant inventory of new and used cars directly available for customer viewing. It would not be practical for these vehicles to be stored off site at the 150 California Drive structure or some other location since customer service demands ready access to a large inventory of vehicles. In order to remain competitive, we must keep as much space as possible on site available for the display of these vehicles as well as vehicles being serviced in our service department. 3. QLTESTION There seemed to be confusion as to the use of the third floor office space. A Commissioner questioned what will be stored in the third floor office space and will that office space be transfened elsewhere. ANSWER The third floor area constructed pursuant to the 1986 Use Pernut was never used for office space. It was built for future expansion and possible business consolidation. However, the business development did not lend itself to the original concept. The space has always been used for records storage, and will continue to be used for records storage. Consequently, the change contemplated in this request would have no effect on the number of employees working at this site. As indicated in an attachment to the original application, the number of employees at this site is approximately the same now as it was in 1986. � 5 QUESTION There was a question about the lease agreement for the parking structure. Both the City Planner and the City Attorney indicated that Putnam controls both sites. The City Attorney was to address how the two sites can be legally tied together for the purposes of the Use Permit and if an interim solution was necessary during the time of foreclosure and when Putnam actually gains fee title. ANSWER The Putnam Dealerships have a lease for the parking structure. The lease was executed in 1993 for five years, with an additional five year option to 2003. It is our understanding that the City Attorney will be drafting a condition to satisfy this concern. QUESTION A Commissioner questioned the comment on the first page of the Staff Report that the parking structure site is built to serve adjacent car dealers on that site. The Commissioner wanted to know who controls use of the parking garage and who else has the right to use the garage. ANSWER The parking garage at 150 California Drive is located on a site with two adjoining dealerships. Mr. Putnam controls the use of the parking garage and most of the garage is allocated to his dealerships storage of new and used cars. Don Lucas Saturn Dealership is located at 198 California Drive to the north. This dealership has a lease and right to occupy 15 spaces on the first floor of the structure and these spaces are fenced o$'from the other parking spaces of the facility. The Putnam Buick Used Car Facility is located at 100 California Drive to the south of the structure. The parking structure is used for overflow storage of primarily new cars for the various Putnam Dealerships. / 3 1 � _ _ �_6 �GC� �.:, �,,� �t �kr�,�- 2 6. QUESTION A Commissioner asked for an explanation of the location of each of Putnam's dealership and what is housed in each dealership. How does this relate to the removal of office space at 3 California Drive. ANSWER See following table FACILITY BUSINESS NAME USE ADDRESS 3 California Drive Putnam Mazda Volvo New and used car sales, service, arts sales and business office 65 California Drive Putnam Mazda Volvo Used cars, service and parts stora e 50 California Drive Putnam Toyota New and used car sales, service, arts sales and business office 100 California Drive Putnam Buick Used Car Used car sales and parts storage Facilit 900 Peninsula Avenue Putnam Buick, Pontiac New car and truck sales, parts and GMC Truck Facilit sales, service and business office 925 Ba swater Putnam Buick Bod Sho Bod sho arts invento KENNETH M. DICKERSON ROBERTJ.LANZONE JEAN B. SAVAREE MARC L ZAFFERANO GREGORVJ.RUBENS LINDAJ. NOESKE M. CATNERINE GEORGE LAW OFFICES AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN & LANZONE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 939 LAUREL STREET, SUITE D POST OFFICE BOX 1065 SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070 41 5-593-31 1 7 August 14, 1996 ivieg �vionroe, i,iiy Pianning Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 3 California Drive - Putnam Application Dear Meg: __� ;� � '' MICMAEL AARONSON (RETIRED) OFCOUNSEL MELVIN E. COMN SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE / RETIRED FAX 415-637-1401 Just to follow-up on the questions that you indicated may not have been fully answered regarding the application for use permit modification. The parking facility at 151 California Drive contains approximately 600 parking spaces. None of those spaces are used by employees of the other Putnam dealerships. As you know, fifteen spaces are assigned to the Saturn Dealership. The facility is primarily used to house new car inventory. There should be no problem in using approximately 5°/a of the parking space for the employees of 3 California Drive. As indicated, it will not displace any other employee parking. You can be assured, also, that for good business reasons, new car inventory will not be parked on the street eiiher. Please let me know if there are any other questions. RJL/zic cc. Mr. Neal Martin Mr. Joe Putnam C:\W PDOCSS\RJ L\PUTNAM\MONROE.2 � c e , , G� ` -L / ROBERT J. LANZONE �� q ��°�„ ,. c� �-�C>' � �'"��, _ '`.; F9 �99 �` 'i V .:� •;;`�. 3 C:alif�ri�ia Urive July 11, 1996 Ms. Margaret Monroe City Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Putnam Automotive t3urlingame, California y401 U • (415) 347-4�00 I am writing this letter as a matter of clarification on the status of the entire block of property known as 100 - 198 California Drive in Burlingame. I recently purchased the First Deed of Trust on this property form General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC). This property has several liens, seconds and thirds. Back Real Estate Taxes were also delinquent which we have brought current. Upon purchasing the First Deed of Trust, I immediately started the legal process of foreclosure. One of the parties, holding a second on this property, managed to enjoin us in a lawsuit they have with the previous owners; thus temporarily delaying our foreclosure. I am, of course, pursuing the issue vigorously though all legal means. My attorneys have assured me that this is temporary and we will prevail and prefect the foreclosure on said property no later than this fall. Befinreen leases we hold and lease options, we have total legal control over the entire block of property for twelve years. This should be adequate to satisfy the City as to our long term control of the property. I hope this letter clarifies the status of the property and should you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, __ , �-� ' �� . �; -"� �-< < � �-c=-�. �. .� Josep utnam cc: Neil Martin „fi�l:ti1F �)� R[ I� C'��Rf'FT �E IZV'I(�� Buick • Pontiac • CMC Truck • Mazda • �I�!('F 1�)(;�;,, �� , � �H�� .-� . `�� F�'`' ,,, j�� - � ,. �: {, 996 `',�=5� ',?: J#.f`` Toyota • Volvo • Lexus /4�� CIT w aJRIJ,NQI.Mi CITY OF BURLINGAME �� APPLICATION TO THE PLA1�11�TING COMNIISSION Type of Application: X Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: 3 Cal i forni a Dri ve _ 3 California �riv� = 079-242-240 Assessor's Parcel Number(s):150 Cal i forni a Dri ve - 029-233-080 APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: Joseph Putnam N�e: Joseph D. & Mary L Putnam, TRS Address: 3 Cal i forni a Dri ve Address: 375 Mountai n Home Road City/State/Zip: Burl i ngame, CA 94010 City/State/Zip: Woodsi de, CA 94062 Phone (w): �415) 347-4800 Phone (w): _ rn�: N/A rn�: f�: (415) 347-1650 fax: ARCH�TECT/DESIGNER Name: Neal Martin * (Planner) , Address: � 640 ,Laurel Street City/State/Zip: San Carl os, CA 94070 Phone (w): (415) 593-1685 rn�: N/A Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. f�: (415) 593-4163 PROJECT DESCRIPTION• Amendment of 1986 Special Permit to allow relocation of employee parking to 3 California Drive (3 spaces) and 150 California Drive (25 spaces). AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of m ledge and belief. _� -` - - _--- , s _ �""-7- 2 -" l plicant's Signafure Date 6/26/96 I lrnow about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. , � — — j, - /, x__ - � � �rsper wner's Signature Date' ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------- � -� I ' .� , Date Filed: �' � � ��' / �%� � Fee: � �.; %:; '� �� Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: � � � ma�a June 26, 1996 Burlingame Planning Commission City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Commission Members: PUTNAM MAZDA/VOLVO "Home of Red Carpet Service" 3 California Drive, Buriingame, CA 94010 (415) 347-4800 I am applying for an Amendment to Condition No. 2 of the Special Permit granted to me on March 3, 1986, allowing the construction of a third floor office space which exceeds the 35 foot height review line, at our automobile dealership at 3 California Drive, Burlingame. Condition No. 2 states: "that there shall be 28 employee parking stalls designated on site by notation on each space as shown on 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." The third floor addition was constructed according to the approved plans and conditions. After the space was constructed, our operation changed and we found that the third floor space was more valuable for storage than for office use. Our operation is such that we do not need the additional office space and do not foresee a future need for such space. In addition, we have acquired other properties since 1986 and, although the number of people employed by the company has increased, we still have about 27-28 people working at 3 California Drive during peak shifts. The nature of our business requires certain employees to go from one location to another, but the number of people working at 3 California Drive is about the same as it was in 1986. Our original plan, as approved by the 1986 Special Permit, was to provide employee parking on the second floor of the parking structure constructed on the north side of the 3 California Drive sh�wroom. Our current operation, however, necessitates use of that space for new car inventory. As a consequence, we have allowed our employees to park on the first floor of the structure along with vehicles waiting to be serviced. This, of course, has created operational problems with the mix of service and employee vehicles as well as our need to store more vehicles awaiting service as that sector of our business grows. - . . .. Our proposal is to establish two new locations for employee parking. Three spaces will be dedicated for employee-only parking on the north side of our building at 3 California Drive. These spaces are adjacent to the 3 California Drive showroom and offices. An additional 25 spaces will be dedicated for employee parking only on the fourth floor of the parking structure at 150 California Drive. An elevator provides direct access to these spaces and they are within 800 feet of the 3 California Drive showroom and offices. In order to ensure that these spaces will be dedicated and used by the employees each space will be permanently labeled "employee parking only" and numbered. Employees will be required to park in the designated spaces when at work. The location of the proposed spaces are shown on the accompanying maps. We would be receptive to a covenant guaranteeing future maintenance of the designated employee parking spaces. I understand that the City has received a number of complaints from residents living on Jefferson Court in the City of San Mateo about non-residential parking on their street and certain aspects of our operation. I have taken certain steps in response to these concerns and also suggest additional measures to alleviate the noted problems. 1. Our employees have been directed not to park on Jefferson Court and that directive has been included in our Employee's Manual, as well as a handout given to each new employee. 2. Our mechanics have been directed not to use Jefferson for any test drives. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. Very truly yours, �-�' _ ; �� , � seph . Pu m President /�� ___ .�� BJRLJNGAME �•� t_- t�� Y/Y Y��Vo2��YVYL� ��0�� tivtl� �� Y �� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.0201. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Pianning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocatfon wi// not be detrimenta/ or. fnjurious to property or improvements in the vfcinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. SEE ATTACHMENT A 2. 3. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT How wi// the proposed pioject be compatib/e with the aesthet/cs, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining propertfes in the genera/ vicinityT � sre2 ap.frtn Attachment A The proposed new employee parking locations will provide the benefit of perma- nent dedicated parking locations for our employees at 3 California Drive. The spaces are located off site in an area away from the congestion and activities asso- ciated with automobile sales and service. Employee regulations will be issued re- quiring the employees to utilize the spaces provided. The surrounding area will benefit from the proposal locating dedicated employee parking away from residen- tial neighborhoods in the vicinity. Since the proposal does not involve any structural changes or additions, there would be no effect on public health. Public safety could be enhanced by separating employee parking from the sales and service functions. The general welfare would be enhanced by locating employee parking in a structure designed for that purpose. The employee parking area is handicapped accessible. 2. The property at 3 California Drive will be continue to be used for automobile sales and service uses which are consistent with the General Plan and permitted by the C2 zoning district. The proposed employee spaces would be located in a structure designed and used for parking purposes and is allowed as a conditional use in the C2 zoning district. Since no structural alteration or additions are proposed, the project would have no effect on the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. b''� �: � ai ��. � 1. 2. 3. 4. 3 California Drive CONiMERCIAL APPLICATIONS PLANNIlVG C011�IlVIISSION APPLICATION SUPPL,EMENTAL FORM Proposed use of the site. Automobi 1 e Sal es and Servi ce Days and hours of operation. 7 days/week Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). none during the day Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays Full-time 2g � 2 Part-time Weekends Full-time 10 -12 10 -12 Part-time � 5. Current and projected ma�cimum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays see att Weekends 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): 1 owner, 27 employees, 6 customers 7. �� 10. 3 spaces at 3 California Drive Where do/will the owner & employees park? 25 s p ac e s at 1� 0 C a 1 i f n r n i a nr; �� A Where do/will customers/visitors parl�? 6 s p ac e s at 3 C a 1 i f or n i a Dr i v e Present or most recent use of site. _ A u t omo b i 1 e s� 1 P s� n d SP r v i r P List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if necessary). none Response to Item 5 Typically, the service operation will accommodate appro�cimately 50 vehicles per day. Those vehicles are parked in the first floor on-site parking structure, in the service de- partment, or on our adjoining properties. None are parked on the street. We typically have ten to twelve customers per day come to the showroom. Our six on- site customer spaces are sufficient to accommodate the demand, however, customers often desire to park on the street. While we have made on-site customer parking convenient, we cannot control their selection of parking spaces. LAW OFFICES AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN & LANZONE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KENNETN M. DICKERSON ROBERTJ.LANZONE JEAN B. SAVAREE MARC L ZAFFERANO GREGORYJ.RUBENS 939 LAUREL STREET, SUITE D POST OFFICE BOX 1065 SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070 41 5-593-31 1 7 MICMAEL AARONSON �RETIRED� LINDA J. NOESKE M. CATHERINE GEORGE August 1, 1996 Ms. Meg Monroe, Planning Director City Hall �ol D:�� ::;,.:,:, Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 3 California Drive - Putnam Application Dear Meg: OFCOUN4El MELVIN E. COHN SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE / RETIRED i�l:CiBff�Y6CP3�. Neal Martin asked me to finalize the attached response to questions raised at the July 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting and forward it to you. Please let me know if you have any questions. We have the application hearing before the Planning Commission calendared for September 9, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. /=-` �Ve� y yours, � � � ROBERT J. LANZONE RJL:prs Attachment cc. Mr. Neal Martin Mr. Joe Putnam ��`� �� G1�� o r gU G�.0 `�,1 �1E P�PNNIN pU� � � 1996 C:\W PDOC SSRJL\PUTNAM`MMONROE.LTR 0 ROUTING FORM - DATE: IG ' � � ' ll � � TO: CITY ENGINEER '�-' CHIEF BiTILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB7ECT: REQUEST FOR �J, �� j� % ��L �� ,fi� T'� 1,;%�? � i'E�/� i � AT � �.y��: Il f�'i'l�l �;l '. %C �'Y,' Pyl� �? �-!�-•l�l f � /� � � ✓, � %Y� G�� `'�� SCHEDULED PLANTTING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: ��1�1 j� �� f �� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah � Date of Comments D C� � wu�� d 1 ROUTING FORM DATE: IG•"` � � � �� TO: C/ CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BiTILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUB7ECT CITY PLANNER/PLANNER REQUEST FOR �� `C' ��C �� 1 � -� �fia �QI�, , �;�,��,�?� r��r�� ,-�;�-�- -� �.�.�; T -� =="� ;�"�lt� �, AT � �,��%�� l �iTYY�� '� 1 `?�� '� �l {�i'I'�.� �� '�" / �� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY:_ �l��l�/ �� l�� ,p THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah �,w+� Z �� E: Date of Comments , V � � O bn fti�� L�� ROUTING FORM DATE: (G''` Z �' �% �� TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR `��1 �i� / � 1 T/' i� ��'�.�� .t%.�/�� %��I � � AT ...'? �� l ��'i'Z�l ��i �'- l `�� l� f�r, -� � r � / �� -!�--�i f �► .� � i�lr� h�� SCHEDULED PLAI�INING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: � REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: �C��l �l l r l'� �%� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah ( I - �� - �� ti�V��`�q�� -, � .�� Date of Comments � ��.� C�I�e C�z�� .� ��x.z�Zi1�.��xrt� SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PP.IMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-893i March 4, 1986 Mr. Joseph Putnam 50 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Putnam: At the City Council meeting of March 3, 1986 Council reviewed your special permit application for a third floor office area which will cause building height to exceed 35' (43' requested) for an auto sales/ service facility at 3 California Drive. Following a public hearing the Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval with the following conditions: l. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and Fire Inspector's memos of D�cember 17, 1986 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 sha11 be 28 employee pa.rking stalls designated on site by notation on each spac� as shown in the plans submitted and date stamped February 4, 1986 and that this number of employee spaces shall be increased as the numbe.r. of employees on site is increased and that none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided in a tandem configuration; 3. that this thir3 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, 1985 and January 29, 1986 as amended by the plans showing designated employee parking dated February 4, 1986; and 4. that the dealership operation shall install a public address system whose speakers shall be oriented only toward California Drive and a system of such quality that the amplification be the lowest level of sound possiblz; that in no case shall the public address system be used after 7:30 P.M. 3aily and that the operator shall be responsive to complaints about amplification levels by adjacent residential neighborhoods. Mr. Joseph Putnam Page 2 March 4, 1986 All site improvements 3nd const.ruction work will require separate application to the Builaing Department. Sincerely yours, �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s att. cc: George Avanessian, Avanessian Associates (w/att.) City Clerk Chief Building Inspector (w/att.) Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Ptn. Lot 1& Lot 2, 31ock 13, Supp. to Town of Burlingame Map No. 1; APN 029-242-080/090/100/110/220) December 17, 19II5 T0: Helen Williams, Planner FROM: Bob Barry, Fire P1arshal 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. ?J O�j Bob Qarry ��3 � �: � � �1 ;� � � �� FRO�� : SUBJECT ..� A N 9, a ►gSo Hel en Wi 11 i ams c�rr of euR��r�c,�+� PUKHiNc o�r. Keith Marshall Parking Structure, #3 California Drive January 22, 1986 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 � (a��' DATE : �2� / f > MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL —$�R E�$�-��-R RfE�— FROM: PLANNI�dG DEPART�IENT $ UB J E C T: ��e��r 2� �i✓ �,,� i i-- i�'j ('�yi S�,-r.� c-� Gt `�� 'r-.% �" i-. ;�. ,�.- � Ij� C.0 GL_f�" /� �tLi�,�'�'_'r'- ,..�Yi:�r / , - �•-�t__ �,��%, �.�r.,�: l^9�! ��•� �? G'•- ',.^.�'.%! "``� � L; An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �% ��;� at their i�l�%�c'!r meeting. We would appreciate having / your comments by r/c i�?C� TU . {�L .�ni n� � ry �'1 �C P i Thdnk you. t-�``": r��a i.,� �i �jer � o�,ti�s� 72. %t .' L'. ,AC.� F �Fri�N,-�a- w �-rr+ .-� �-��-� E ti � �}F 3 f3 ' i. TN �z � s � o�� o�F�eE �+% 3 c�.a�- -� , �� .� -.�� G`� X C�� 5: �4� .3 �� M A K� r+� �.n I-1 � � � ra i t� v✓, �Z�" iL7E:nl a) S2. vN„2�,n �3.,�. ��,,..,y ��>>ti rA e�r sa ?E��, z� �e�rr- Hel en Towber Fa� T Y�c �� P.�" Z- ' M A':. �" -r' �F `,�o' a,•,� z. yo�-��-5 Planner /-�v��'�v�7�-� T�F�S o�%�Co' ��D uc ��'x; ['�,VS� S � c-� c�.' rTN T,✓�E S�-1 f/o��iZ_. C � n%sr,C � e-r � V,L� L7E� Ci��i 2c �uG.l� V� /L9 i� �' Sl� �,ar� a� .-3 5T?� 2�e7`Y • S� dtt. l• ��:i G r-r T CF �� Z D��J6, S a/AL�. ,4-G��cT �p5 � 7i c-,�1 �F %�� E.�v,C�. �O.v 7� CiT�2S A S � r'--- ��-'� �V-�-r� ons ,� � £.c £ �'TI� �c .jt Co r1.E" ,c}�Ticc� Z_ .3 G- "L �.// T"</�: ,�� s i1A� L /�c -� M�,�i, M v,v� 2' b � rZ ?� L <�L C� c s, a•z ,a>.; Cc'_ . �cJTG�-Cti�J 7�F-�"� l�U C h i`lx,'� -T N� ��'�Cr" = D�'c; /� CC^-' t�✓ CTC � S�i �v C C. �J._ S�c�). 3. S� �� L�U�� i 1-� 1$ .S� C i.4L �`�.tt rT �' =P'.�tiC..�� -1"/�F� �'+C/Ti/uC� <hli� M�1'rt.L� � tt L 5 cGF [' �',vS% iZ ..� C T i v�1 C�G i�t 7�C. ,✓ �t; �-t-f4 ..k �, �. ,�i j�� C r C.rf3C c L% g. C. St�T / L' ��; S FC 1� /� �- � �� C c', �/� (,�� ✓Q;�G'✓�tiCQ� "tjZ« Ld� �Z� � �" �Z - � Co t�5.— �� j ♦ . � 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 supoort 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 pr�cess of review for signatures. �' �-C�� Ct'G-�.r� � �� Frank C. Erbacher City Engineer FCE:me TO DATE v ciTr ' t` " �� AG�Nf�A BURLINGAME t 1� Er.� n , STAFF REPORT M,�. OATF 3f 3�86 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI.L /, I,� BY6MITTED �'� n,,( I�� ,Y'AQ�j /� FEBRUARY 21, 1986 FROM: �-ITY PLANNER APPROVED BY S�A�E�T: REVI�W OF A 3PECIAL PERMIT FOR A THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA WHICH WILL CAUSE BUILDING HEIGH'1' TO EXCE'ED 35' FOR AN AUTO SALES/SERVICE F'A�ILT!''Y�I��IFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB-AREA D RECON1iKE�VDATION : Council hold a public hearing, review the application and take action. In their action the Planning Commission required 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 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 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 tand2m 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, 1985 as amen�ed by th� plans showing desiqnated 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 ap�licant and Commission as to what revisions to the p.roject 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 Sec. 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 �f 43' and a one �3eck parkinq structure, to meet the on-site parking requirements for the additional office space. The third floor office are� 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 hearinq 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 chan_qe from what is now on California Drive, the building can be built unde.r the 35' limit and be consistent with the character of the area. Other Commissioners noted that the �recedent 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 opposit.ion to the height exception. Their concerns addressed the adverse impact on their residential area, the project would encourage other buildings on California/San Mateo Drive to be taller and change the character c�f the area affectinq their pr.operty values, the increased 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 of£ices. -3- 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 MM/s cc: Joseph Putnam veorge Avanessian P.C. 2/10/86 Item #4 MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: SUBJECT: CITY PLANNER SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED HEIGHT FOR A THIRD STORY ADDITION TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 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). The 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 parking 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 nee3 to replace all damage3 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 noints 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: l. 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. �l ��u.�� Ma�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 A'I' 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHICH WILL CAUSE BUILDING HEIGH•r TO EXCEED 35' (43' PROPOSED), ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 2/10/80, with attachments. CP �Ionroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff concerns expressed at the stud_y 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 narkinq impact could occur with some change; staff advised any new business would be required to provide parking to code; 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-throuqh, 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 Mat2o; 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 buildinq 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 ou�door 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 �he required 69 some of which will be used for display; do not feel an �xtension of the second floor would produce a hardship on anyone . '`�4 Commission comi�ient/discussion: height of existinq structure is approximately 2'0'; 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, i� is a permitted use, the 43' height is only.a small portion of the building; if the applicant had only two storie'� he could build it without coming to Commission; concerns expressed � the neighbors are unrelated to this application for height, they see�i�to be directed to the use, proposed application is far better than wh�� is there now.' Further Commission comment: do have,'a concern about height in Burlingame but this reque�t for 43:' involves only 17� of the structure; applicant is providing 3,�50 SF of landscaping and has a 4' front setback neither of which ar'ae requirements in this area; this proposal would have far less impact than what could be put on the site. One Commissioner did not support �he application, stating it is a change from what is on California D�i�e, buildings can be constructed 35' and under, it will set a precedg�nt;`.she believed the applicant could work within the 35' limit and n�t chai�,�e the character of the area. Additional comment: therefare two apartment buildings on Highland taller than 43'; if appr,oval does s�t a precedent and others come in for 43' structures, tr�,c�e-offs for l��ndscaping, lot coverage, etc. will be taken into consider�tion. �,, .��, With the statement �here would be more o�-site parking than is provided n�w, the development will improve the are�. and it will be an asset to the city, C. Schwalm moved for approval of�'�his special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving`S,,pecial Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions'�of the Fire Marshal's and Fire Inspector's memos of December 17, 1985 anc�`,January 22, 1986, the Building Inspector's memo of December 16, 1985 ai�ci the City Engineer's memo of January 22, 1986 shall be met; (2) that th`�re shall be 28 employee parking stalls designated on site by notat n on each sPace as shown in the plans submitted and date stamped Februar , 4, 1986 and that this number of employee spaces shall be increased as tYi� number of employees on site is increased and that none of the additional employee spa�es shall be provided in a tandem configuration; and (3 that this third floor addition and parking structure as built shall � consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 11, 1985, January 17, 1986 and January 29, 1985 as amended 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 cominq 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 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 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 10, 1985 4. 3PECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA FOR A PROPOSED AUTO SALES/SERVICE FACILITY A'r 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHICH WILL CAUSE BUILDING HEIGH�r TO EXCEED 35' (43' PROPOSED), ZONE�"C-2 Reference staff report, 2/10/80, with attachments...,CP �onroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff concerns expressed at the stud_y meeting, applicant's lett�rs. Thr�'e conditions were suggested for consideration at the public heazing. Discussio�: 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 parking to code; negative declaration was prepared prior��to determining the h�ight at 43', this will not be th� only taller bui��ding on the street;�concern that other dealers will now ask for more hei ht; parking on the mezzanine meets backup standards, this will be con 'rmed with the .final plans. George Avanessian,��architect p�epresenting the applic�nt, was present. His statements: bel eve all �taff's concerns have been addressed, the three story structur is less than 17� of the total development, three stories are needed be ause�the site is limited and the applicant needs open storage for car d s play, the first floor will be drive-through, project is actually two'��loor occupancy, no employees will be added. He did not feel the char�cter of the area would be changed by this proposal, the closest strli�cture is 100' away, tandem parking provided is not for required parking�+,but strictly for storage, in future two compact car spaces could be �ut between the columns although this would exceed the compact parking ra�io for the site; a five unit apartment building is immediately ad�acer� to the west with a parking lot behind it . i,,� •, Chm. Garcia opened the public heari'r�g. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in oppQsition: Diane Roth, 854 Jefferson Court, San Mateo; Donald Dix, 866 Jeff`A�,�son Court, San Mateo; Carl Curtis, 872 Jefferson Court, San Mateo;�`'�oss 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 commerrts and concerns: this proposal will adversely impact the surrounding�;residential area; none of the existing buildings from Peninsula to Bur��ingame Avenue have three stories nor do those on San Mateo Drive; e��isting building on the site is�19' high; this development will be a chang`�,.in the character of the area, will impact property values; the building``will overlook backyards on Jeff erson Court; have recently added a rear yard deck and with � three story structure people will be looking into the yard from offi�es across the street; concern about increased custbmer 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 closed. 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 A�D FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COiyBINE LOTS AT 3 CALIFORNIA DR. (PTN. LOT 1 AND_LO'I' 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 ap�proval subject to one condition. C. Giomi moved to recommend this ma�,to City Council for approval with the following condition: (1) all c�rb, 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. Recess 9:18 P.M.;~�xeconvene 9:23 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY ��.,� .� 6. SPECIAL PERMI'I' - AUTO ILE RES'�ORATION S�RVICE - 50 STAR WAY 7. SPECIAL PERMI'I' - AUTO DETA�NG SERVI Requests : data on availabl,�' ��parking ; this site. Items #6 anc�=�7 were set ,� ACKLVOWLEDGMENT - 7 0 S'rAR WAY istory of previous actions on �hearing rebruary 24, 1986. - Plann�r's memo�; 2/10/86, re: 1108 Edgehill Drive;.�lderly Care Resi3ence / �`��... PLANNER REP�bR'I'S � ,. CP Monr �e reviewed Council actions at its February 3, 1986 regu�ar meetir�(3 and February 5, 1986 stu3y meeting. ;` AD,TOURNMENT Chairman Garcia adjourned the meeting at 9:55 P.M. in memory of Commissioner Schwalm's granddaughter, Michelle Schwalm. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary PROJECT APPLICATION .��'��T� °� 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE �r CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLINGAME project address AUTO DEALERSHIP �+b,.T1eJVry�•°� Project name - if any Application received (12/11/85 ) Staff review/acceptance ( ) *INCLUDES PARKING STRUCTURE (PHASE II of PROJECT). See attached comparison page of phase I and Phase II projects. 1. APPLICANT Joseph Putnam 342-4321 name telephone no. 50 California Drive, Burlinqame, CA 94010 applicant's address: street, city, zip code George Avanessian, Avanessian Assoc's., 583-7344 contact person, if differentQ�O Oy ter Point Blvd. �elephone no. 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION $te. L��, S0.$dll FY'd11C1SC0,CA 94080 Special Perr.�it (X) Variance* ( ) Ccnc�or;inium Permit ( ) Other *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 building under construction whTch causes total hei ht to exceed 35' (43' proposed). Fourteen (14) additional parking spaces 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 ) ( ) Joseph D. & P1ar_y L. Putnam, TRS 375 P�t. Home Road land owner's name address Woodside, CA Reauired Date received city (3��s) (no) (12/12/85 ) Proof of ownershig(con.firmed) (�r� (no) ( _ ) Owner's consent to a�plication 4. PROPERTY IDEhITIFICATION R L 0 t Z ( 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 94062 zip code 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Vacant lot with a small structure Reo,ui red �YeS) ��) (yes) (�) (yes) l,rr� (yes) (no) (other) Date received (12/11/85) � � �� ) � ) �12/16/85� Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall;s and c�!r�as; all structures and improvements; paved on-site parkino; 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). �ettar nf exnl�natinn *Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT Pf?�IP�SAL Proposed cnnsi:ruc i n �elova qrade ( � SF) Second floor (1 ,2 Q SF) gross floor area �b�idg.011��/�First floor ( 22�]QQ SF) Third floor (�,g�L S�) Project Code Project Code Pr000sal Requirem�nt Proposal Requirement Front setback 4' 0 Lot covera�e 67%* 100% Side setback � � F:uil:;?n� height 3$' 35� Side yard 0* 0 �andscaoed area 3750 SF 0 P.ear yaru Q Q nn site pk�.sn�jce�• 91* 69 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) Full tine emoloyees on site Part tir�e employees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) 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 � � IP! 2 YEARS � after 8-5 5 PM IPl 5 YEARS after 8-5 5 PM *Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAfJD 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 Fy2s) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties. �yes) (no) ( n/ a ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. firms ( ) 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 Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 (X ) Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ () TOTAL FEES � 15�.0� RECEIPT N0. ZZ45 Received by A.Garefalos I hereby certify under penal true and correct to the best Signa te ( 2 �1 1 /o S � STAFF USE ONLY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-386P The �ity of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on January 6 , 1986, completed a revie�•� of the proposed project and determined that: ( X) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) No Environmental Imoact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: _ Th2 height, density and proposed use for th1S location is in keeping with other developed lots in the area Fsa�hermore the area is fully developed Therefore, this proposal �ill not havP unrPas�nabla arl�Pr�P imnac+� on the environment, ��il_ities or adiacent properties �J��V��I�� jI11N�'L CTTY PI ANN R �� .(�. l� Si ature of Processing Official Title Daie Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the c��te posted, the deternination shall be final. DECLAP,ATIO^1 OF POSTI^1G Dai:e Posted: �Q: � i_ k'. � �' �%- - ,i I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerh of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negati��e Declaration a� the City Hall of said City near the doors to ih� Council Chanbers. ,- � / �li . cxecuted at 3urlingame, California on ��-�-�� _ , 19 � Ao�ealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o ` �. �_ , / � : � � �' , `� � � r --� (f ,i`i�' L ; �i � � �'t.. -t ��i't r . JUD� MALFATTI, CITY CLERK,,CIT`i �F �URLINGA E , - perjury that the information given herein is knowledge and belief. STAFF REUIEW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIOfd Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply received City Engineer ( 12/12/85 ) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( 12�],2�$5 ) (yes) �) Fire Marshal ( 12/12/85 ) (.ves) (�s) Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOPI MEASUP.ES memo attached (yes) (no) �YeS) ��) �YeS) ��) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Concerns Mitigation Measures Does the proposal meet Fire and Request comments from the Fire Building Code requirements? Marshal and B�ilding Inspector. Do the plans meet the City Request comments from the Engineer's requirements? City Engineer. 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 REQUIREf4EPlTS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject: Is the project subject to CEQA review? Yes - see Negative Declaration ND- IF APJ EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study comoleted Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed 2FP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR acce�ted by staff Circulation to other agencies � � � � � � � � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Study by P.C. Review oeriod ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � � � � � � � 4. APPLICATIOP! STATUS Date first received (12/11/85) Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to applicant advising info. required ( ) Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 1/27/86) Is a lication read for a ublic hearin � ' pp y p g.t_ (yesZ; (no) Recommended date (;� �p �e, ) Date staff report mailed aoplicant (�lS%�'�) Date Corrmissi�n hearing (�� Q�(�) Pp PP � i ) � �� / � `�� ) ino) A lication a roved ( ) Denied ounci es Date Council hearing ('3/3 ��j ) A�olication apor ved (� Denied ( ) �r I 1 •� signed date C 3 California Drive: Phase I(Building) and Phase II (Parking Structure) Comparisons Gross Floor Area First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Lot Coverage �'loor Area Ratio Height Parking Required Phase I Phase II (Buildinq only) (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 RECEIVED` DE� 16 i985 �w,�wNc "o��. December 13, 1985 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 favorab�_to this request. Sincerely, � ` �.�. -� .� �:�-- - �� Ge`orge S; Avan¢Ssian, AIA rr • Mr ��-.cr nh Piitnam Burlingame City Hall Planning Department Ms. Helen Williams Dear Helen, Jan. 27, 1986 Reference is being made to the project located at #3 California Drive under study at tonight's planning meeting . In our original application we did not consider the grade difference ancl the size of the parapet. To clarify this I would like to point out that the grade difference between sidewalk at Peninsula Ave. and the middle portion of drive thn� 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 matter please contact my office. Sincerely, \ � ge Avar GA/ab 0 � C��`� r�`�� . • � t � December 17, 1985 TC: Helen Williams, Planner FROM: Bob Barry, Fi re �1arshal 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. �J O�j Bob Qarry R E C E 1 V�[� January 22, 1986 .� A N � 3 1986 T0: Hel en Wi 11 i ams cm oF suaiac,ru� n�i�c oFrr. FROP�: Keith Marshall SUBJECT: Parking Structure, #3 California Drive In reviewing the above plan, the following recommendations are made: l. 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 DATE: fZ��,/ ��> —r-� MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL -�R Ei�$�--�T�=� R#E�— FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT � r / - %,I SUBJECT: `�r�P`� `� � � � '� � � - �- G�i�" � fiv :;! i �j r�i� S f v,a c G[ �� i:�� r`-� ti. � j ,��j � � r �—f�/-�' r`— .� Y i .' � - �•�(�l„ [�'�'/ �I' ' �li�• `'9A� [��Y -!n fi`._ "n�r'(, ^;� ! �i. An ap�lication has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �-�:�'; at their l�i �j�� meeting. We would appreciate having ! � your comments by � �� / �� —_� % To . �� .�r� nl ; ►v �7 �c P � . Thank you. r��"": 3�"�'"' � �e�' . �.� ,3�s�c.�Go�rv,� �rL., � ,� /. Tl�li�.t� ST�R-f oFF�c� s�% 3 E,4LIf�`��-'ti,-� �� -�� ,.} l-lb�i C' N i .., ,- .� i' � � :i � .�.� ,..1 �i f x C'�� !� S; �1) 3 5' n�,n K, rh �.n �-I c, b r� T �v�: ,z� n��n�% f3) 8z Jnr,Fa�.-n 3�. ��..SC� C'..>>ey -fA e�.E Sp �E��,� a-rb�a� Hel en Towber F�� T s'�c �^1� P..�' Z� MA'` E-�- �' �F `,<o' �-N� zy ou�� Planner /-�Ci,� � v�-I�'� T NfiS oF��C'c' �%C� uL �_P� C!ONSiSrC�•IT u: rTff Ti?E �-1 NvviZ. Cc'NST�vI'.T�U�L,�� E' O�%i 2c �o/6nJ%S o?C M�+� S(�� ,4ND � 5-T�e>� ' s� if� 5��— att. ! r�L�l�h+7 0< f3✓iz.Di..�6, s�f�AL� ,a-��4cT �osiTi��► �F 7 ('on1 �e�o2s . AS `� ,2 ��1 j1/�.-riv.a A� �-c £ �'77� •c,.�t Lfo�G' ,q,eT�cc� Z 3G - Z�-% T<l�,�� sf/Ac � 3C ,4 M i.J� in u�vr 8� Ve-R � i��- f c E.�z.a,� Ce� _ ��'Tc�c:v Tf-l� k�o c F Nn.'� -T N� .�-��,c� -- a�'v P Cc..% D� eTc � S C� ti: C� � t S.ac-�). 3. S`ll �u�� s s��c�,a-L i��-,u�r � AP��o�-a Tr� �',��T�n�� A�J� ML��/A LS �i� C�iNS%/L•wC T�uN L�EH'l �[�!� w'�'I�J� fkis� �l�/�� L •�Co (J g C StZ' -ri U�v S ��t�'c� f-�- t.�' - Z �� C t, , -�,�,��✓ �� c� �' �le �"' �z-,c�-1�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 supnort 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 pr�cess of review for signatures. > � �� .� Frank C. Erbacher City Engineer FCE:me 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 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 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 sidewal�; 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 oth�r 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. $. 9. 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 TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS A'r 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 �"� r��.�:�.ri �r.�► F t � 1 �_ 19�� C�� 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. Sincerely, ,r-- �,,,"�,, , � �'/lj . James—E� Minto - Property pwner 88 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 , � , 1� , y . � . �, -� y �� - � � �� :* T . � , '�� , ,.�:�� r; � •� : �� . � `., , , i,R. �� , �� ' �^, \ � . � �. f; �' �� \ �,0� �.r- , r•,,.'.t 'r —� � ,��,* ''y � � ; ' , "' ''._ �` �� . �� _ �. ' i �, r, `� ,� � � � � , ,,' � � . ` � � � �� k ' � �`r�,� ,� f �« r �• �'� R, f /'��/�' r �► � � . /" � " i' �� . t� av� i�� , �/ ,- � c �' � f `'�f�� * � � �`��'�' �! � / �.,� eC� �• �"� �� , - ' f / ., �,, ;--�,�,xf'� ;� C * �, , . , , , .. . . � �.l�:, /f�, / / !. ��: . �� ' �� ,, ��/� � , � ij'v4 .l� s � '��/1 i F, ��l►� � !�' , f�,�� ,` ,/_�' � � � • 1�. , . �� , � ' �A . I' Y �%� / , ,' �•! �^.��• � � �, �!� �� 1 ' I /r� ^ � / �� • �, /�. ' � 'S�� _ //'�� — /� , ,. ; //�� ' � � � � .` � � � �O � r ' /�� —� � � � � O ;' . . yT'+�i�/y � � ::- '� � . f�t.� / .:t� / � � .•� ' � � � _ �'" �', . •.� ' • . ' . " ^r � , ' � '• ..• � ! ` t• �, 1Y , ��. .�� 7 �.s� l A '. � I � � �• � ` `rG .� � � r .�. �; •. � n �r ' r. � �,• � , ••., z ► . , `� .. �, ;, f ••. ��:. ,�.b'' , � .,�.w• /,,�� '•• 3 ,* . •. . • . l •. � ; � � • '-� � � ��, ••��'• . , , . : ' ' � �s,�'`� �� r''.1 : � � � -�' �'i _ � � : ,1' ' ��: � '�`'� _ � � L . •. � ; ' � • : C.�` / : , i f •'•��• • •••� � � � '�� , �c� �. i � � • � �� i � '. � , jt �/ • . � �� i � r'r , � � �' . �� • �`' -�� • r J � � � - %�� • � • • A -� - . ..� ; •. : - a , , ,. . , •' L �� '��. .., , � �,'� � r ' � G�'�'� f , • � o�° 5J � . �` . `' `'�'` � :�. 4 f 1 � � � I ��;, �, � � �I I � ' ' +� \ � . v�► 0 ♦ �, � .,, " �q. , � � �+ � �, J'w� j' .:' ' �. , , a , , ," � , �` ' ,•' •, ,•.� .�?' , . .' , + , �:' � �� / 'd+'.� ' �` �* , . .'� .� � .. �� . P �� , �- � . � ' � +� � . -.��.. � . , - , �� . � � � � ,'� � r '�. �� a � � ;�� , r t � � � � � ` � , ♦ 1� .. . ��.. w �� ( � '� '� \,i .• ` � , i '�°�"" � . � � r �' . ,�..,�' .�� ,,�%� + � Y � . �. T ��I��'�'C � �: . �. ; � r � \ � . ,� ' '` ��:- . � ,►� r►►.: '�.,�. , w� � �� a � Z / Xr ;! � � • r � � �` � \ ! y� , � " '_ / ^� t ' � . �; �� - - � - ,� � '� .� � � � � � - �,. , f � RLlNGAME o° r -„ JVHib� U,�tP �t��? IIf ��1t1��cSTItP SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLWGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 TEU(415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SPECIAL PERMIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that ��londay, 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 al1o�N 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); 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 PERMIT that; RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame � WHF.REAS, application has been made fAr a special permit �fora third floor office area for a proposed auto sales/servi ce Ifacility which will cause building height to exceed 35' '�at 3 Galifornia Drive I and cA�:v 029-242-080/090/ � 100 110 �j � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 10 ,1986 , at which �time said application was approved; I; �� 4dHEREAS, this matter was Cdl l Ed up by Counci 1 ancl �a hearing thereon held on March 3 ,198 h i, N06V, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERbfINED by i' Ithis Council that said special permit is approved, subject to the � ;conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. �� I It is further directed that a certifed copy of this Iresolution be recorded in the official records of the County of I; San Mateo. � I ; Mayor i � I, JUDITH A. MALFATTZ, City Clerk of the City of I Burlinqame do hereby certify that the foreqoing resolution was ;introduced at a reqular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd _aay of ��dY'Ch ,1986 , and adopted thereafter by � — the fol.lowinq vote: AlES: COU:ICIL;IFN: NOES: COUNCIL.'IEN: �ABSEUT: COU;VCILMEN: I ; ; i I i City Clerk �i , . , ,� •� '^ . �. . -� �'�`✓ - �'� �° �Z �-� _ ,�n.✓�-� ,�� 1 1-J��.� � � � , � �� - G ` �� --� s � � � D �. � ��,��i � t � r �� Y *� � . �� 1 � _ f �i � � ( '� � ' T� � . �, I ;� � t a� �' A �► � � '� Y ,� �►� . ` ` 15D 1 � . r: ' . _ � ;�. � ,... � , �t . f • � �i .� � � M 1 ►� ; � � ; , `� � �''_ ` �' � �`� � � ��- ' � �A � ►� � { .� � , � � i.� �� r�� - �, � - �; "''� � ; .. 1 k;-,;a,�� - w � - • � ''1, _. � � , „r� "' � _� � �� :. ^�''; � �----_ , � . � . � 'y,.. r . ."r t . r I , ' � � 5. • � 1 *' �;r :�.;p4.5 1,' ., � f ; ► .` .! ._. � 4:�7 � '�Y�r��' y� a :iL ` � a.�« , '+� � � i � � � '� r. . �; \ .t-' . . ;� 1 �� -. ` . � � + � � � ' ' � i� ` Y' ��BAySW�T�R '�� 14�EN�E . '' � _ . _�,� "�F' � �� --T � �� ►'� �c '� � '� � � , � � � � � . '. T� • * 1 9 � � L __ ' � ��-�, � 8 , ., • � , ,,,�,.�` R�9 w : r�'-. - . � : �.( � 1 � i ..�� -� � � � � �� . y A :' ' � � v r � , • �i � � � OL � , � � � i • W � � � al; �.�r Q �,� - � � d.P . �, � �-� � i 50 , � �_ � . '�� ° � �'�� v � �i ✓ .i -1 ' t � � ""• . I +�� .c '� � . � ��., ��,�.. ,, o � .�r � � ' � � - ,,�� y, ,�. , . � J � � --� Z _ � I .. � ', � � � � J�� i � �� '�' '��► �c � ;�-- .: i�' � �} ,i �i�t .; rte -� . � , � . - -� � . � ` '�", � -s � . � � i� T � � - - t ' � •�_ ,�►w_ � ,• � � F� �•' � { � �` �� 1 � � ; ► • �# . � y � �� i • i � "� �� si� - s �� ' _� �i� I� j''"'`"� �`�'' _,- _- ' . �, � � ��_ � , � - � - -. �. ,; 3 2 �s• I � .. . •• G CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRI1VIItOSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMNIISSION announces the following public hearing on Monday. the 9th day of Sentember. 1996s at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 3 & 150 CALIFORNIA DRIVE APN: 029-242-240 029-233-080 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3,922 SF OF OFFICE TO BE USED FOR STORAGE AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND TO PROVIDE EMPLOYEE PARKING OFF-SITE AT 150 CALIFOItNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. Please note, when possible, and when multiple family or commercial development is involved, this notice shall be posted in a public place on the project site and on neighboring buildings with tenants. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER Au�ust 30. 1996 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERNIIT FOR 3,922 SF OF OFFICE TO BE USED FOR STORAGE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED EMPLOYEE PARKING OFF-SITE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an amendment to a s�ecial permit for 3,922 SF of office to be used for storage to provide required employee nazking off-side at 150 & 3 California Drive, zoned C2, Subarea D, Auto Row APN• 029- 242-240 and 029-2233-080 ; 7oseph Putnam. property owner and applicant • WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 9. 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed 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 Categorical Exemption per Article 19. Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1, consists of the operation, repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (a) interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing and electrical conveyances is hereby approved. 2. Said amendment to special permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such amendment to special permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Karen Kev , 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 9th day of September , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and amendment to special permit 150 & 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE effective SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 1, that all the conditions of the March 3, 1986 conditional use permit shall remain in effect except for condition number two which shall be eliminated; 2. that if at any time 3 California Drive and 150 California Drive cease to be in common ownership either: (1) the owner of the 3 California Drive shall provide written assurance that the new owner of 150 California Drive will provide employee parking spaces as required by this permit; or (2) this permit shall be automatically revoked, without notice and hearing, and the required employee parking as required by this permit shall be provided on the 3 California Drive site; 3. that the car sales/repair business owner at 3 California Drive shall provide 28 parking spaces for his/her employees at 150 California Drive and that this number of employee spaces shall be increased as the number of employees on the site at 3 California Drive is increased and none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided in a tandem configuration; 4, that the 28 parking spaces provided for employees at 3 California located in the parking garage at 150 California Drive shall be located together within the parking garage and clearly posted or marked on the cement that they are reserved for employees of 3 California Drive; and 5. that an aggressive program requiring employees at 3 California Drive to park in the designated spaces at 150 California shall be implemented by site management immediately upon granting this conditional use permit; and that this program shall include enforcement by the employer and a designation on each employee at 3 California's car to denote that s/he is parking in the designated area of the parking garage to facilitate inspections. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3,922 SF OF OFFICE TO BE USED FOR STORAGE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED EMPLOYEE PARKING OFF-SITE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an amendment to a special permit for 3,922 SF of office to be used for storage to provide rec�uired employee parking off-side at 3& 150 California Drive zoned C2, Subarea D, Auto Row APN• 029- 242-240 and 029-2233-080 ; Joseph Putnam, property owner and applicant • WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 9, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RFSOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a signiiicant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption per Article 19. Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1, consists of the operation, repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (a) interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing and electrical conveyances is hereby approved. 2. Said amendment to special permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such amendment to special permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Karen Kev , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introducerl and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of _September , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY e �; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and amendment to special permit 3 & 150 CALIFOItNIA DRIVE effective SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 1. that all the conditions of the Mazch 3, 1986 conditional use permit shall remain in effect except for condition number two which shall be eliminated; 2. that if at any time 3 California Drive and 150 California Drive cease to be in common ownership either: (1) the owner of the 3 California Drive shall provide written assurance that the new owner of 150 California Drive will provide employee parking spaces as requiretl by this permit; or (2) this permit shall be automatically revoked, without notice and hearing, and the required employee parking as required by this permit shall be provided on the 3 California Drive site; 3. that the car sales/repair business owner at 3 California Drive shall provide 28 parking spaces for his/her employees at 150 California Drive and that this number of employee spaces shall be increased as the number of employees on the site at 3 California Drive is increased and none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided in a tandem configuration; 4. that the 28 parking spaces provided for employees at 3 California located in the parking garage at 150 California Drive shall be located together within the parking garage and clearly posted or marked on the cement that they are reserved for employees of 3 California Drive; and 5. that an aggressive program requiring employees at 3 California Drive to park in the designated spaces at 150 California shall be implemented by site management immediately upon granting this conditional use permit; and that this program shall include enforcement by the employer and a designation on each employee at 3 California's car to denote that s/he is pazking in the designated area of the parking garage to facilitate inspections. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ber 9, 1996 Building C, 45.6' and Building D, 46.6 as shown the plans date s ped August 15, 1996; 2) that the project shall meet all of the requirements the California ding and Fire Codes 1995 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C alligan and ap ved 5-0-2 voice vote (Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent). Appeal procedures ere advised. 8. APPLICATIO OR A FIN CONDOMI1vIUM MAP FOR THREE UNITS AT 612 PENINSUL __AVENUE, Z D R-3, (ROBERT 7. RUSSELL, JR., PROPERTY OWNER Referen staff report, ..96, with attachments. Sr. Eng. Chang disc the request, reviewed crite ', comments, d study meeting questions. C m. Ellis op ed the public hearing. There were no c ents and the public hearing was closed. C. Key oted the conditions relating to reco ending approval of this Final Conc� � have been met. She then made a motion Map to City Council � iT`he motion was seconded by absent). ' and passed 5-0-2 voice vote (Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink � . APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE PARKING \ LOCATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES AT 3& 150 CALIFORI�TIA DRIVE, ZONED, ZONED, G2, SUBAREA D, (JOSEPH D. & MARY L. PUTNAM, TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND JOSEPH PUTNAM. APPLICANT) Since the applicants were not present at the beginning of the action items C. Ellis again noted for the record that only 5 of the 7 Commission members were seated this evening. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes of the whole commission in order to pass a motion on action items. The Chair asked if any of tonight's applicants would like to delay their action until a full commission is seated. The applicants stated they had been previously notified and would like to proceed. Reference staff report, 9.9.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request,reviewed the conditions and study meeting questions. She described a possible condition which would allow the Commission to impose a iine if the off-site parking area proposed here were not used by employees at 3 California. The CA commented that they would prefer the condition, if added, require the applicant to reimburse the city for the cost of inspections if they were found to be non-compliant. Commissioners noted that some of the information requested regarding employee parking for other car sales businesses in this same ownership in this area was not provided. It was noted that this code enforcement item resulted from a complaint from a neighbor affected by on street parking by employees at 3 California in front of his house. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Bob Lanzone, 939 Laurel Street, San Carlos, attorney for the applicant, Meal Martin, 1640 Laurel Street, San Carlos, planning consultant for the applicant, Kent Putnam, 1435 Cortez, store manager and Joe Putnam, owner, were present to answer questions. Mr. Lanzone suggested that rather than have the commission impose monetary fnes for non-compliance, a more effective approach would be a code enforcement ordinance which would impose fines based on a schedule on violators. He noted that this was a code enforcement item, and that they were trying to find a solution when they suggested the parking at 150 California. This site has space for the 25 to 28 employee cars and gets them off the site where there is not enough room to accommodate them. It is a block away. They asked if they could mark the employee cars with a mirror or dash tag since driving a new car is a perk that they give the employees. Their presentation went on to note that this requirement for 28 employee parking spaces on site was the result of a change in use on the site (addition of office area); an area which has always been used for record storage. They will do all they canto get employees to park in the 150 California garage including put it in the employees manual, have the manager on site remind them, and instruct new employees to use the area. They addressed concern about employees not using 150 California when weather was bad; manager indicated that the use will not be an option, for employees the distance is a minor issue and they will have an easy place to park which is secure. Peter Young, 825 Jefferson Court, spoke in opposition. He thought that this unusual arrangement would increase the problem in the neighborhood since the employees would have to park further away. He felt that the proposed conditions did not address the issues of road testing, leaving the roll up doors open late at night, sometimes on week-ends, with bright lights on and noise; and off loading vehicles in the travel lane on Peninsula Avenue. Solutions to these problems need to be included. Signage on the building is not adequate and customers for parts also park on Jefferson, although there is some customer parking on site. Finally the applicant has not demonstrated an ability to comply with the city and he is certain there will also be a problem with this permit. He feels violations should be strictly enforced with monetary fines beginning now. In response to a commissioner's inquiry he noted that the residents do not want a neighborhood parking permit system because of the inconvenience to them (they only get two permits); they should not have to pay a price for these employees using their street. In response the applicant noted that if they complain to management they do their best to respond. Other car dealerships employees in the area also park on the street. They noted that they do not have a lot of control over where the delivery trucks choose to off load their vehicles. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that people who live next to a commercial area often have a problem but that the commercial area was there when he bought his house. The delivery truck should not be off-loading in Peninsula and the applicant's attorney should suggest how the applicant can get this to stop. Off site parking is usually viewed as a problem when the use on a site is increased beyond the pazking available on the site, this is not the case, on site parking is provided as required. It is inappropriate to vest the Planning Commission with the ability to levy monetary fines, this should be a part of a code enforcement ordinance. There are strong business reasons to transfer 25 parking spaces down the street to insure that employees are adequately handled and the business owner assures that they will be used. Therefore, noting the facts in the staff report and the conditions stated including amending condition 3 to be that there would be designated 3 employee parlcing spaces provided at 3 California .�.• � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 and 25 employee parking spaces provided at 150 California and that each employee vehicle will be denoted as such, he made a motion to approve this special permit amendment, by resolution,with the following conditions: 1) that all the conditions of the March 3, 1986 conditional use permit shall remain in effect except for condition number two which shall be eliminated; 2) that if at any time 3 California Drive and 150 California Drive cease to be in common ownership either: (1) the owner of the 3 California Drive shall provide written assurance that the new owner of 150 California Drive will provide employee parking spaces as required by this permit; or (2) this permit shall be automatically revoked, without notice and hearing, and the required employee parking as requirerl by this permit shall be provided on the 3 California Drive site; 3) that the car sales/repair business owner at 3 California Drive shall provide 3 parking spaces for his/her employees at 150 California Drive and that this number of employee spaces shall be increased as the number of employees on the site at 3 California Drive is increased and none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided in a tandem configuration; 4) that the 25 parking spaces provided for employees of 3 California located in the parking garage at 150 California Drive shall be located together within the parking garage and clearly posted or mazked on the cement that they are designated as reserved for employees of 3 California Drive; and 5) that an aggressive program requiring employees at 3 California Drive to park in the designated spaces at 150 California shall be implemented by site management immediately upon granting this conditional use permit; and that this program shall include enforcement ,by the employer and a designation on each employee's vehicle at 3 California's car to denote that s/he is parking in the designated azea of the parking garage to facilitate inspections. The motion was seconded by C. Deal and approved 4-1-2 on a roll call vote (C. Wellford dissenting and Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. A LICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATI N, ND-480P DESILTING AND CH L EXCAVATION, MILLS CREEK, MAI ENANCE REPAIR, ZOIVING UNCL IFIED CITY OF BURLINGAME PROPERTY WNER AND APPLICANT . A)NEGATIVE DECLARA ON Refer•ene report, 9.9.96, with atta ments. CP Monroe discussed the r uest, reviewed criteria, Planning Depart comments, and stu meeting questions. Chm. Ellis opened the pu lic hearing. The e were no other comments and the pu 'c hearing was closed. C. Key noted that on the b substantial evidence that the a motion to recommend avn The recommendation was Mink absent). s of the Initial Stu and comments made at the hearing ther 's no �ject will have a signi ant effect on the erivironment. She then de to the City Council. id C. Galligan and�prov -0-2 voice vote (Cmsrs. Coffey and -7-