HomeMy WebLinkAbout1123 Burlingame Avenue - Staff ReportItem # � ci .
Action Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
1123 Burlingame Avenue
_ ,ti Tn ��,
City of Burlingame
Comme�cial Design Review, Conditional Use
Pe�mit Amendment and Pa�king Variances
Item # � � .
Action Calendar
Address: 1123 Burlingame Avenue Meeting ]Date: 6/27/OS
Request: Commercial design review, conditional use permit amendment and parking variances for changes to
an existing food establishment in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area at 1123 Burlingame Avenue, zoned
C-1, Subarea A(C.S. 25.36.042(h); C.S. 25.57.010(b); and C.S. 25.70.040).
Applicant: Joel Campos APN: 029-211-260
Property Owner: Salma Family Limited Partnership Lot Area: 15,400 SF
Architect: J. Mark Cronander Zoning: C-1, Subarea A
General Plan: Commercial, Shopping & Service
Adjacent Development: Commercial— Retail and Food Establishment
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a), interior or
exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances.
Staff Comment: At June 13, 2005 Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to work with the
applicant to reduce the mezzanine area in order to reduce the on-site parking requirement to one space and
directed the applicant to show on plans and document the property owner's agreement to dedicate one on-site
space to this use because of the replacement of the mezzanine. The solution proposed by the applicant requires
an additional variance (backing from a required on-site parking space into the public right--of-way in a
commercial area). Since this variance was not considered by the Planning Commission at the public design
review comment and no direction was given for findings this item was moved from consideration from the
consent calendar to the action ealendar.
Summary: Joel Campos, the applicant and business owner of La Corneta Taqueria, is requesting a conditional
use permit amendment, commercial design review and a parking variances to combine the two food
establishments at 1121 and 1123 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue commercial
area, into one full service restaurant.
This proj ect includes the combination of two existing restaurants (tenant spaces) into one full service restaurant.
Because one of the existing restaurants at this location was classified as a full service restaurant there is no
change proposed to the food establishment classification (full service).
The proposed restaurant wi11 be a full service restaurant with a full commercial kitchen. Food will be served by
wait staff on ceramic plates with metal flatware and cloth napkins. Payment will be at the end of the meal. The
restaurant will be open seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with a maximum of 8 employees during
the day shift and a maximum of 9 employees during the night shift (after 5:00 p.m.), for a total of 17 employees
including the business owner. The maximum number of people that will be on-site at any given time, including
the business owner and employees, is 73. Based on the requested operational changes a conditional use permit
amendment is required.
The combination of the two tenant spaces, 1121 and 123 Burlingame Avenue, will result in a single store frontage
of approximately 41 feet in width. Code section 25.57.010(b) states that commercial design review is required
for changes to more than 50% of store frontages that are greater than 25 feet in width. The applicant will be
making several changes to the facades of the two existing tenant spaces to create one combined fa4ade for the
new restaurant, therefore the proposal also requires Commercial Design Review. The new design will include
1
Conditional Use Permit Amend�nent, Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1123 Burltngarne Avenue
creating a patio area that will allow patrons to dine out side. There will be a low planter separating this area from
the street. The materials to be used on the fa�ade include stucco, plaster, tile, metal and wood.
Farking: Personal and retail services on the first floor in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area are exempt
from the vehicle parking requirements as set forth in code section 25.36.040(d). The total square footage of the
existing combined tenant spaces is approximately 3,181 SF, which includes an existing 482 SF mezzanine that is
currently being used as an office and storage space for 1123 F3urlingame Avenue (Nelson's Coffee Shop). This
proposal includes demolishing the current and reconstructing a new mezzanine. The new mezzanine will be 638
SF and will have a new footprint over the combined tenant space. Subsection 3 of code section �5.36.040(d)
states that new development, except reconstruction because of a catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide ori-
site parking except for first floor retail or personal service uses (see Burlingame Avenue Area Off-Street Parking
District section below). Therefore, the new mezzanine is required to have on-site parking to code. 7['here will be
454 SF of storage and 184 SF of office space. Code section 25.70 requires one parking space per 1,000 SF of
warehouse space and one parking space per 300 SF of office space. Based on these code requirements the new
mezzanine will require 1.07 parking spaces, rounding up as required by code, brings the required mzmber of on-
site parking spaces to two.
There is currently a paved area at the rear of the buildings, on the south east corner of this parcel that is 31' by
60' (1,860 SF) and is accessed from Hatch Lane. The area is currently used for trash containers and informal
parking by the various tenants located on the site. Aerial photos of the site show that the space has been used in
the past for parking for up to six cars parked in tandem. Code section 25.70 requires that on-site parking spaces
meet the following criteria:
1) have a minimum dimension of 9' wide by 20' deep, and if next to a wall or post a 10' wide by 20' space
is required;
2) each space must be independently accessible and if 90degree parking is provided there must be a 24 foot
back-up space; egress into a public right-of-way must be in a forward direction.
The existing parking on-site is not code complying and does not count toward meeting the on-site parking
requirement for any use currently on-site. However as part of the revised plans, dated June 1 S, 2005, the
applicant is proposing to stripe a portion of the existing area off of Hatch Lane to have one 10' wide by 20' deep
parking space on the site. This parking space will be labeled for use only by 1123 Burlingame Avenue. The
parking space will be 90 degrees and will be accessed in a forward direction from Hatch Lane and for egress will
back out directly onto Hatch Lane. Backing into a public right-of-way requires a parking variance L ecause code
section 25.70.025(2c) requires that egress into a public right-of-way be only in a forward direction. Since there
will only be one on-site parking provided where two off-street parking spaces are required another parking
variance is required for one parking space.
In 1962 the City Council levied an assessment for parking and created the Burlingame Avenue Area Off-Street
Parking District. The assessments were collected from property owners to build public parking lots in the area.
The property owners paid 60% and the City paid the remaining 40%. Properties with existing on-site parking
could apply for a credit for their on-site parking so that their assessment would be based only on at the portion of
the property which was not devoted to parking. Property owners who took such a credit were obligated to keep
that land area in parking use. Property owners who did not take a credit, but paid the full assessrnent, were
allowed to use the entire site for commercial use. In the case of this property no credit for this vacant area used
informally for parking was taken against the assessment.
2
Conditional Use Permit A�nendment, Commercia[ Design Review and Parking variance 1123 Burlingame Avenue
Therefore, if at some time the property owner decided to expand the first floor retail uses into the rear south east
corner of this property, this could be done with no additional parking required. However, because the new
construction on this site is on the second floor (mezzanine), it is not exempt from the parking requirements and
the two variances are required.
This proposal includes the following request:
• Amend the conditional use permit for the full service food establish to include:
- extending the hours of operation to allow the business to be open seven days a week from
10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (seven days a week, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. currently allowed for full
service restaurant at 1123 Burlingame Avenue (Nelson's Coffee Shop);
- increasing the maximum number of employees on site at any one time from 3(for Nelson's, 8
combined for Nelson's & Sweet Treats) to 17 employees; and
- increasing the seating area from 492 SF for the currently allowed full service restaurant at
1123 Burlingame Avenue (Nelson's Coffee Shop) to 729 SF (including patio dining area);
Commercial design review;
Parking variance for one parking space where two are required because of the reconstruction and
reconfiguration of the second floor mezzanine space; and
Parking variance for backing into a public right-of-way for the one on-site parking space provided.
Proposed Existing Allowed/Req'd.
Use:
Food Establishment Food Establishment Food Establishment with
a Conditional Use Permit
Combine 1121 & 1123 1121 Burlingame Ave-
Burlingame Ave for one Limited Food Service
Full Service Restaurant (Sweet Treats)
1123 Burlingame Ave-
Full Service Restaurant
(Nelson's Coffee Shop)
Combine 1121 & 1123 1121 Burlingame Ave-
Seating: Burlingame Ave for 249 SF seating area
729 SF seating area'
1123 Burlingame Ave-
492 SF seatin area
Hours of Operation: 1121 Burlingame Ave.-
10:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m.' 11:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m.
7 days a week 7 days a week
1123 Burlingame Ave.-
9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m.
7 days a week
Cond[tional Use Permit Amendment, Commercial Design Review and Parking Varimzce 1123 Burlingame Avenue
Max. # of Employees: 17 (including owner) 1121 Burlingame Ave. —
5 employees
-8 day shift
-9 night shift (after Spm) 1123 Burlingame Ave.-
3 employees
Parkin : �Z 1 on-site parking space 2 for new mezzanine
' Conditional use permit amendment to: 1) expand seating area; 2) extend hours ot operahon; 3) increase number
of employees.
2 Parking variance for one parking space where two are required because of the reconstruction and
reconfiguration of the second floor mezzanine space; and Parking variance for backing into a public right-of-
way for the one on-site parking space provided.
History of Restaurant Use at This Site: In October 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1619 which
makes all food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, Subarea A, and the Broadway
commercial area conditional uses. The City Council also adopted Resolution 111-1999, which includes a Food
Establishment by Type Table establishing the location, type and seating area for each food establishment in each
commercial area. The ordinance required that each establishment obtain a conditional use permit to reflect the
requirements of the new ordinance, and to define the type of restaurant and its operating characteristics.
In this case there are two existing food establishments (tenant spaces) 1121 and 1123 Burlingame Avenue that
are proposed to be combined to create one full service restaurant. A history of each site is provided below.
On February 24, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for an existing food
establishment (Sweet Treats) for 1121 Burlingame Avenue as required by Ordinance 1619 which makes all food
establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, and the Broadway Commercial Area
conditional uses. This food establishment was classified as a Limited Food Establishment with 249 SF of on site
seating, At the time the conditional use permit was approved, the conditions allowed the business to be open
from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week with a maximum of five employees on site at any one time.
Also at the February 24, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for an existing food
establishment (Nelson's Coffee Shop) far 1123 Burlingame Avenue as required by Ordinance 1619 which makes
all food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, Subarea A, and the Broadway commercial
area conditional uses. This food establishment was classified as a Full Service Food Establishment with 492 SF
of on site seating, At the time the conditional use permit was approved, the conditions allowed the business to be
open from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., seven days a week with a maximum of three employees on site at any one time.
Staff Comments: See attached.
June 13, 2005 Design Review Study Meeting: On June 13, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for commercial design review (see attached 6/13/OS Planning Commission minutes). The Planning
Commission asked staff to clarify how the parking requirement for the mezzanine was determined. Staff
explained that the code requires fractional numbers for parking calculations to be rounded up. There was
discussion about existing informal parking spaces on the property and if any of the spaces count toward meeting
the required parking for the new mezzanine. The City Attorney noted that the existing on-site parking space can
�
Conditional Dse Perrnit Amendment, Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1123 Burlingame Avenue
not be counted, however the proj ect architect, property owner and staff would work on clarifying tlhis issue and
bring the information back to the Planning Commission at the action meeting. The Commission asked if the in-
lieu parking fee could be paid for the required parking space. The City Attorney explained that the in-lieu
parking fee is only for retail uses and has to be offered by the applicant. The Commission felt that the project
was tastefully done but was concerned about justifying the parking variance based on hardship on �he property,
moreover this would add to the existing parking shortage downtown.
The Planning Commission also had the following comments and concerns:
• Need to clarify parking requirement, is there a parking space dedicated for this restaurant �only on-site,
need to show on plan;
• Concerned with hardship for parking variance, should submit findings; and
• Consider reducing size of inezzanine to reduce the parking variance to less than 1.5.
In response to the Planning Commission's concerns the applicant submitted revised plans and letter of
explanation dated June 15, 2005. The applicant also submitted revised parking variance applicatic�ns with new
findings. The new findings are attached with the application materials in this staff report. The revised plans
include a new mezzanine floor plan. The size of the mezzanine is approximately the same at 638 SF, however
the allocation of uses between office and storage have been changed. There is now 454 SF of storage (originally
219 SF) and 184 SF (originally 409 SF) of office space. Code section 25.70 requires one parking space per 1,000
SF of warehouse space and one parking space per 300 SF of office space. Therefore the new mezzanine will
require 1.07 parking spaces, rounding up as required by code, brings the required number of on-�site parking
spaces to two. The applicant notes that the mezzanine will be used primarily for storage and that tlne office will
only be used on occasion by one person, maybe two for meetings.
The revised plans now show a 10' wide by 20' parking space at the rear of the parcel with no on-site back up area
dedicated far use exclusively by 1123 Burlingame Avenue. The parking space will be striped and will posted as
reserved for the proposed business. The applicant has also included a copy of the lease agreement with the
property owner that dedicates to the restaurant at 1123 Burlingame Avenue one 101 x 20' parking space in the
rear parking area as sh�wn at the rear property line with no back-up area on-site.
Design laeview Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 ad�pted by the
Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows:
1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commerci�l areas;
2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of
the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street
frontages;
On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development;
4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bu1k, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby;
Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among
primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features,
Conditional I�se Permit Amendment, Cornmercial Design Review ar�d Parking Variance 1123 Burlingame Avenue
and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and
Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a parking variance the Planning Commission must find that
the following conditions exist on the property (C.S. 25.70.020, 2):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property xnvolved that
do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application 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; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an
potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Commission Actione The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for the commercial design review, conditional use permit
amendment and parking variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the
public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
June 15, 2005, site plan, floor plan and elevations with 208 SF of outdoor patio seating; and shall adhere
to the color and material sample of the exterior materials of the building as shown on the materials board
date stamped March 25, 2005; any changes to the colors or materials shall require review by the Planning
Commission;
2. that the full service food establishment, with 623 SF �f on-siie seating may change its food establishment
classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the
establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be
approved;
3. that the 623 SF area of on-site seating of the full service faod establishment shall be enlarged or extended
to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit;
4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the
streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any
additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
5. that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and wi�hin fifty (50)
feet of all frontages of the business;
6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared fc�od from this
premise;
6
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1123 Burlingame Avenue
7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of
the property line;
8. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment
shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void;
9. that this full service food establishment may be open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week,
with a maximum of 9 employees on site at any one time;
10. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior
walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof
height ar pitch, shall be subject to design review;
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Departmeni staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect has been built according
to the approved Planning and Building plans;
12. that deliveries to businesses located on this site shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. daily, except Sundays and holidays; deliveries to the site shall be limited to the
rear of the building on Hatch Lane, except BFI;
13. that the trash enclosure and recycling bins shall be covered and shall have a drain connecting to the
sanitary sewer system as required by the City Engineer in the memo dated March 28, 2005, and shall be
located on the parcel as shown on the plans date stamped June 15, 2005;
14. that one on-site parking space 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep shall be located in the paved area on the south
east corner of the property, and shall be maintained for use exclusively by the food establishment at 1123
Burlingame Avenue; the parking space shall remain free and clear of any trash cans, recycling bins or
other storage materials or debris;
15. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist and Fire Marshal's
May 26, 2005, memos shall be met; and
16. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the Califomia Building Code and California Fire Code,
2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Catherine Barber
Planner
Joel Campos, La Corneta Taqueria, applicant
J. Mark Cronander, architect
Salma Family Limited Partnership, property owner
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
June 13. 2005
10. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, 70NED C-1, SUBAREA A— APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARI�ING VARIANCE TO
COMBINE TWO TENANT SPACES FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE RESTALJR_ANT (JOEL CAMPOS,
APPLICANT; MARK CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNEI2SHIP,
PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
C. Vistica recused himself because of a business relation with the property owner and he left City Council
Chambers. Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff for the exact
number of parking spaces required, not the rounded up amount. Staff noted that based upon replacement of
the mezzanine and the proposed storage and office on the mezzanine that 1.57 additional parking spaces are
required. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Cronander, 1800 Laguna Street, San Francisco, project
architect, Joel Campos, 454 Hazel Avenue, San Bruno, business owner, and Mr. Kareem Salma, property
owner 1123 Burlingame Avenue noted that they will be doing a new storefront with this application, going
for a more progressive design, business owner has two other restaurants in San Francisco, is making an effort
to upgrade this Spanish colonial design building. Had some exiting issues with the Building Department,
could not exit at the rear of the store, so there are two exits onto Burlingame Avenue. The new restaurant
will have an open patio at the front at sidewalk level with plants, are planning to have a family restaurant.
Commission complimented design of building , like the tile base with the lantern and window sash. Have a
problem with the variance request, need only 1.57 spaces. Is the parking space on the this site communal?
Mr. Cronander noted that he can use one space for this business, but it is existing not an additional space.
Commission asked CA Anderson if this space can be counted for this use if it is part of the lease. CA
Anderson noted that the space can not be counted %r two businesses, this came up on a project on
Whitehorn Way. If the space is to be used as mitigation then it must be recorded with the approval. CP
Monroe noted that when the old mezzanine (which was non-conforming with no parking) is taken out, and a
new mezzanine is constructed that parking for the new mezzanine area is required to be provided on-site,
even if the new mezzanine is the same size. Commission asked if an in-lieu parking fee can be paid for the
required spaces. CA Anderson noted that the in-lieu parking fee is only for retail uses, and has to be offered
by the applicant.
Mr. Cronander noted that existing mezzanine does not work for this tenant and is not up to code, they are
trying to bring it up to code, not making it bigger, not sure how staff calculated parking. The mezzanine area
will be used only by one person, the manager, and there may be another employee up there occasionally
during interviews or meetings, but all of the accounting is done off-site. The mezzanine will not add to
traffic congestion. Commission stated that they could not find a hardship on the property to grant the
variance. Applicant needs to look at creative ways to eliminate this variance or come up with an in-lieu
parking fee. The variances for parking downtown accumulate over time, and we don't want to add to our
existing 160 parking space shortage and impact downtown. Commission asked if the applicant has a design
materiais board? Mr. Cronander passed up the materials board submitted for this project. Commissioner
asked if the size of the letters shown on the materials board is the real sign size? Applicant said he would
clarify that point. CP Monroe noted that sign permits are not included in this application. A separate sign
permit application will be reviewed upon submittal. Commission clarified if there is one parking space
dedicated for this restaurant use on-site? The business owner, explained that he has an agreement with the
building owner as part of his lease that he will have the use of one parking space. The property owner
confirmed that there is one parking space that can be used by this business. Commission asked if the space
is for sole use by this business? Property owner noted that there are seven tenants that use the area. CA
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
June 13, 2005
Anderson noted that staff will clarify the status of the parking issue with the property owner ar�d the business
owner before this item returns to the Planning Commission.
Caroline Serrato, 8 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame, is a new resident, recently moved from San Francisco.
Used to live in Glen Park where Mr. Campos had another restaurant she went to often. Encourages
Commission to approve, he has nice facilities, clean, well run with fresh healthy reasonably priced food. Mr.
Campos hired local people to work at his restaurant and was an asset to the community, donated to
neighborhood groups and became active in the community. There were no other comments from the floor
and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• Need to clarify parking requirement, is there a parking space dedicated for this restaurant only on-
site, need to show on plan;
� Concerned with hardship for parking variance, should submit findings;
• Consider reducing size of inezzanine to reduce the parking variance to less than 1.5.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions
have been made, and plan checked, and the parking status has been discussed with the property owner and
the business operator. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on motion: parking impact will be the restaurant not the mezzanine, but need to r�ake sure that
there is a parking space assigned specifically to this tenant, proj ect is tastefully done, think that suggesting an
in-lieu parking fee for a restaurant is tough considering how tough the restaurant business is; need mitigation
for the parking, no hardship to justify the variance; if one space can be dedicated for this tenant and the
remainder of the parking demand is less than .5 may be able to consider impact to be de-minimus.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been
revised and the parking issue is clarified and addressed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica
abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05
p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of May 16, 2005.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 16, 2005. The AutoR.ow Qmnibus
Zoning Amendment was adopted and will become effective July 6, 2005. The continued public hearing for
1524 Vancouver Avenue was also on May 16, 2005. The project was approved by City Council5-0. The
colonial style was retained but was changed to stucco with wood windows and flower boxes were added at
the front. The front wall of the house was moved back 4 feet on the lot, and the porch was made 1 foot
deeper. There was discussion about lowering the site 18" however there is a protected oak tree on the
neighboring property that would be damaged so this could not be done, however tree protec�ion measures
were added.
The Bayfront Zoning for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas was introduced to
City Council, and the second reading will be June 20, 2005.
The City Council cancelled their meeting of July 18, 2005 and are considering canceling their August 15,
2005 meeting as well. This will be determined at a later date. The massage regulations and �dult oriented
business regulations vvere also cleaned up.
14
:� ; �
r4rch�i�'�:t
June 14, 2005
To: Burlingame Planning Department
Re: La Corneta Restaurant
1123 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, California
To Whom It May Concern:
I have changed the sets of plans as per requests by the Planning Commission, using input
from Catherine Barber. I have done my best to interpret comments by the Commission and
Ms. Barber and incorporate them into the plans. If I have misunderstood any of this, please
understand that this is a difficult process for those of us on the outside.
My understanding is that the Planning Commission in the meeting of June 13, 2005 stated
that they wish to see the second floor plan revised so that it will calculate as requiring less
than 1.49 parking spaces, and that they wish the City Attorney to verify that a single parking
space is permanently assigned to this address in the lease contract.
My understanding through discussion with Ms. Barber is that the stairs, hallway, restroom,
and water heater room on the second floor were considered to be part of the office use
because they were adjacent to that use. Further conversations brought up another point. As I
understood it, the office was the primary use of the area because it was bigger than other
spaces.
To address these issues in the new plans, I have moved the Office to the previous Storage 1
area and changed the previous Office area to storage use. Now the office space is much
smaller than the storage, and is located as far from the stair and hall as possible. The stair;
hall, and water heater, are now adjacent to the storage, not the office which I believe would
make them storage under the "adjacency" concept. The total office area is now about half of
the storage area to address the "primary use" concept. Please keep in mind that adequate
storage is essential to tlie operation of a restaurant, and that there is inadequate storage on
the first floor for efficiency, thus storage really is a primary function.
In the attached plans, our calculations show that if the restroom and office are combined as
the Office Area, and the rest is considered Storage Area, we are well under the 1.49 parking
spaces calculation requested by the Commission. If the Water Heater closet is also included
in the Office Area due to its adjacency, my calculations show tliat the parking space
�� ���� �g� �
18C;U t.ar,ur�c. `:t��c�i
s:�:,Ff��r:��,::t<<�:.;:},�tr.:�f a�::� jUN 1 5 200�
F'h:1r?E; . .'.i :i(l,`i .`ibi:i' �,%�S`�/i=::X: � ... ,34.ri ?`.;2�c
rn ��rk;4.-c:, r::;z.;�r�e,::c}�`?,
C:ITY OF BURLINi.;AM�
PLANNING DEPT.
requirement is 1.19- still well under the 1.49 person occupancy requested by the
Commission.
Please also find attached copies of a contract addendum clarifying that there is a parking
space reserved for this address, and its location.
The Site Plan on the cover sheet of the drawing set has been revised to show the location
and size of the parking space, painted stripes, and painted lettering stating that this space is
for exclusive use of 1123 Burlingame Avenue.
Please call me if there are any questions, or changes that are required.
Thank you,
ark Cronander
(415)} 505-5607
i �'v'U I..ctc�uriC< �fr� c�t
S:��� Frc.r:.�;iscc C:c��:f��r:icF 9�: i5
f'hOr;�` �:;;i .`}l�:i 5fii;7 ?v'=.St�i(:.;;x: � i;> �4.f� 99?(a
rraurk�'� t:.=c;z:;r:.�.c:o��:
���������4���
�JUN 1 5 20Q5
�ITY OF BURLINC���iYi�
PLAfVh61NC� �E('i
.
� �- �, +
� , , &. ,� s ���`! ��` �.�
� ` �"� � � � _ � � . , �, �"`� } t �
� Y` � ; � �- . �
.;
��;"$ � � � ;' �� ��
� .��
�� �,
�_ � �
�`�.,, a� '�, ...,. '��
;� �.A �
��� � � � �, . ��. �f.5��
� � �.� z� `�:4— ��.�.� � e �'�
�, � �, � �.ti;r; ,
�� ��
�� � �
j . y 4x� � . �w'
� 4%<,.. �F � � �', J` ` �`� i� � �, � � v.�..4s'"+� .�^' � {.
r�,,,� � �`., � e� � lk � 3 � � � ' p, °
� Z.�� i� 2> ... �"� 6,.,�
� �� '� �"���_ �-�'`r�'E �.: � ��' �;�, �....f�'�
. r _. ,�`".. �_ , ,.. � � u� � �
��' .�. � ,, . �' �' �. �"' �' � �.`C
� � �' X Y .� �, �
��""11,,\\yy , � �.(
�{ \ N •,` 1 . ..f: tl`.y.. ; / �. 1
� � t � �, � � , . i# i.g*' «/ t . ^ .
� � �� �v, ,�
+ 4
�,
1 ��] \\ ��' '1i `
�� Y f . �;,% {J"'....:: 5or� .'' � `�� \ � ..�a�}'�I �-.`�
t
s ?
3 \ � 4 { `
�9 �.,�. "�""'� �, . �.. .
�t,`�,, ,� � �,�„ �� w•� ..
�
,��'� �.w� ��a ���t # � v� �
�� �r � �" ` §
�g �:� ..
�"� ��r i,,�� P ��, � ,
� r„ S,t
�� , ,��. � �
j} _�z-,� � � � . f".
1
1 '�-t
r � �,i I +.% ..✓
�.� � ~
� i� � y
9 s, .;'t` .���7„ax . `%)
, . ., �
6(15/2005 1:45 PM FROM: Fax (915) 346-9926 T0: 1 650 696-3790 PAGE: 001 OF 001
J. Mark Cronander
Architect
ATTN: Catherine Barber
June 15, 2005
To: Burlingame Planning Department
Re: La Corneta Restaurant, 1123 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California
To Whom It May Concern:
At the Planning Commission in the meeting of June 13, 2005, one of the issues was our request for
a parking exemption. I was asked if there were any special hardships which made our case
different than others. I had previously mentioned during my presentation, that this site was a very
di .fficult one for us. The California Building Code requires two exits from a restaurant of this
capacity. This is usually not a geat difficulty for businesses in the downtown area because most
business back onto a public alley. One required exit is from the front and the other is from the rear
into the alley.
In our case the rear door empties into a private alley that is slightly over 4 feet in width. The
buildinig code requires that the exits open onto a Public Right of Way. For this reason the private
alley doesn't qualify. We were forced to create a one hour rated exit corridor tunnel from the back
of the restaurant to the front. This tunnel not only takes valuable space that could be used for
storage, employee restroom, or less cramped dining areas, but makes the space a more narrow and
less efficient shape.
We are requesting that this hardship of the required tunnel, if possible, be used as the reason to
grant us a parking variance and that the City of Burlingame not require us to have any parking
spaces due to the second floor. The second floor only has an employee restroom, an intermittently
used of�'ice, and storage. Storage is a very important restaurant function since very large quantities
of canned food, beverages and linens are required, This is the primary use of the second floor, but
the storage area could be reduced if that would support or request.
Thank you,
Mark Cronander (415}} 505-560
18� Laguna Street
San Francisco California 44115
Phone 41 5 505 5607 Msg/Fax: 41 5 346 9926
mark@crozone.com
F]RST AMENDMENT TO LEASE
This First Amendment to Lease is rnade and entered into thisl��day of June, 2005, by
and between SFL Partnership a California limited parmership ("Landlord") and Joel Campos
("Tenant")
RECITALS
This First Amendment is made with reference to the following facts and objectives:
A. By Lease and Addendum to Lease dated December 8, 2004 (the "Lease"), Tenant
leased from Landlord the premises described in Section 1 of the Lease (ihe "Premises"},
commonly known as 112 i and 1123 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California.
B. Landlord and Tenant desire to add one parking space to the Premises, and to
otherwise madify and amend the Lease, all in accordance with the following ternras and
conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as fallows:
AGREEMENT
1. La.ndlord hereby grants Tenant the exclusive right to use one parking space (10 ft
x 20 ft) located in the open area at the rear of 1111 Burlingame Avenue and further identified on
E�ibit A attached hereto.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.
This First Amendment modifies and amends the Lease. To the extent there are any
inconsistencies between this First Amendment and the Leas�, the terms and provisions of this
First Amendment shall contrc�l,
�
BC/1121 BurULease Dc�cs/Cam�s Amd] 061405
1
JUN 1 5 �005
�17Y'::SF t3�iRt_IIVGt�,pfF�
r'L.hfVf�id�ti'C G��P?.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this First Aznendment to
Lease as of the date first above written,
:►1� •:!
SFL Partnership,
a California limited partnership
By: Tritena Realty Group, Inc.
It's a � in fact
By:
Riyad Salrna
tt's President
BC/1121 Burl/Lease I7ocs/Catnpos Amdl 061405
TEN.A.�
����a������.��
ir
�aE r �r aF e��urv��.���
�1�NNING DEP'.
2
—,�--
N
�a
c
�
�
n
rt
O
�
�x����'�
�.�_� � ��� ��,��.���
__ ---. ----_� 1__.. _.
__ __ _ ._..
1 �
� � i
� �
o � '€ 'i 2 5 Bua� l ingann� Ave
� �
� �._.._.�_._._.........��_.._� -----_...�
� � l 2 3 Bur.i . Ave
... 1
i
�
T. ___: _._.. _... .._ �t � ..r ._ ....._ w_ _.. _. ._... .._ ___. _.._ ..� .._ ._.._ .... ..._.
�•
_.... ...... ._..., ...,_ .._. _ _ ...f � � � z BZ3Z'i _ AVE
� 1 'i 5 Bur�. . Ave
�,��
�
a.._ _ _.._ ._ _. � ..._ .._.. ,.. _ � ...v � _. � _ r _.... �. ._.
1113 Burl.Ave
//.t%%%►� ,�''��
� �
�
_ _.__.. ._ _. r_. ..� _ —.-- �
/ � /,'�
�
�
�
�'
s-
�
�7
�
�
i?s
�
�
;IP
�
�
�
'i 1 1 i Burl . Ave �
r.� „ � ,-" , y� ,y,u -;
_ � `�.�3 a `� � ��',
Me,.pIV 1 r� Lo��
:11 ;``r �}f C3�1t�!_1�l;aFi1'iie
� ,�L�iN�id�i� �;EP"I`.
,,�� ��/�
.�
0
r� .
,
�b
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Prunrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.or�
� �
� _ x� �^ , f.. 2 '-•"`^+ . � � .,, d ,'�t a' � � s
��4, CITY O �
�
BtlRt;lNCiflM� y
;
�.,m�Q4��
� 6'
The Plasining Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
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.
a. Describe the e�eceptional or eztraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation a�d enjoyment of a
substantial properly right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result form the denial of the application.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
VAR.FRM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.org
a. Describe the exceptional or e�etraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to yourproperry
which do not apply to other properties in this area.
Do any condirions exist on the site which make other alternarives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not
common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree
specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others
in the neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoymeht of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might
result form the denial of the applicatioH.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much
on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable io develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the
requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property?
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the viciniry or to public health, safery, general welfare or convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade,
views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply
safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situarions
which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protecfion? Will alarm systems or sprinklers
be installed? Could the structure or use withiu the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly
gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potenrially dangerous
activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for
conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed shucture or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or
adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped?
� How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the
existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state
why. If changes to the siructure are proposed, was the addirion designed to match existing architecture, pattem of development
on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport
parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring shuctures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the siructure,
say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientarion, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or
area.
How will the structure or use within the struchue change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or
tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available
resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with
existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be
consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
C%�.��I 7�1
6/16(2005 2:38 PM FROM: Fax (915) 346-9926 T0: 1 650 696-3790 PAGE: 002 OF 003
CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICA'TION
For one parking space only to be required.
a. The properiy which Mr. Campos has leased is different than most properties downtovcm. A
typical retail space has access to a back alley which is a Public Right of Way. This particular
space only has a private alley of slightly more than four foot width.
The building Departxnent has determined that two widely spaced exits, each to a Public Right
of Way are required from this business for fire safety reasons. Generally this isn't a big problem
as a business can have one e�t towards the street, and one to the rear into the Public Right of
Way. Since there is no Public Right of Way to the rear, we were forced to create a one hour
rated tunnel &om the rear of the space to the front. This has made the downstairs area much
smaller than will function as a reasonably priced restaurant.
There is one parking space already assigned to this space. There is no room on the property for
additional parking as the other spaces have been contractually assigned to other businesses on
this property.
b. Because the one hour rated tunnel is required, and the downstairs area is much smaller than
will function as a reasonably priced restaurant, we need a second floor that will contain storage,
an employee restroom, and an office for one person. Storage is a very important and essential
function for a restaurant. The of�`ice will only be used internuttently. Usually no one will be in
the office. Occasionally there will be one person and very occasionally there will be 2 persons
for a private employee meeting. Mainly it will be used for records storage, payroll, and cash
management. All accounting will be done off-site.
Ironically, there is an existing second floor which we are only rebuilding to code and expanding
slightly. It seems unfair that bringing the space up to code will cause problems for Mr. Campos.
It will be an extreme hardship to operate a reasonably priced family restaurant under the
e�sting conditions, to the point of making the project unfeasible.
c. As mentioned above, the second floor will have very little impact on parking in the area. A
good restaurant manager will be on the main floor supervising and not in his office, except
when having meetings are dealing with cash. I see no way that this will affect public health,
public safety, and does not affect the public convenience. There will be a manger on site
whether there is an office or not, and storage does not require eatra staff.
d. The second floor is entirely inside the e�sting envelope ofthe space. The ez�erior appearance
won't change at all with an internal second floor similar to the existing second floor. It will not
affect ajoining property at all.
CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.orQ
?� � � � � � A ,� • � ,� 's'P'" � "�"`� � � � � t � �^ � � �'.� � 1T"'�'� W �
� �� ��: � � .
`, CITY p ': � � � ��
��' � ��� = ` ��"i��"� ��` ���`��.�,�����?����
BURLINCiAME �� ��,c`����.:�J��,�.�`�� �'��������������
��...�� ,° �� � �.�
�..
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type ar write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties ir� this area.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial properry right and what unreasonable properry loss or unnecessary hard.ship
might result form the dehial of the application.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the viciniry or to public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the geHeral
vicinity?
VARFRM
City of Burlingame Planning Deparhnent 501 Prnnrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.orQ
. a. ,w �,-,�Uescribe Eh�✓�,xcept�r�t,�lror extraordin�ary circu�nsta�ces o� c�ditions°applicable to your property
which do riot apply to ot�ier properties in this ttrea. �
Do any condirions exist on the site which make other altemarives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not
common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceprional tree
specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others
inthe neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might
result form the denial of the application.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exceprion? (i.e., having as much
on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exceprion? Do the
requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitarion or hardship on the development of the property?
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade,
views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply
safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations
wluch encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public sa%tv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers
be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly
gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous
activiries like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for
conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or
adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped?
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the
existing and potential uses orc adjoining properties in the general vicinity.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aestherics, state
why. If changes to the shucture are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development
on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term aitport
parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure,
say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, eta with other structures in the neighborhood or
area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? T'hink of character as the image or
tone established by size, density of development and general pattem of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available
resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be comparible with existing and potenrial uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with
existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be
consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
VAR.FRM
6/16/2005 2:38 PM FROM: Fax {915) 346-9926 T0: 1 650 696-3790 PAGE: 003 OF 003
For parking backing into a public Right of Way
a, The only parking on this site is located in the only open area. There is one parking space
already assigned to this space. There is no room on the property for additional parking or
additional room to maneuver as the other spaces have been contractually assigned to other
businesses on this property. Because of this, here is no room to create back-up space on the site.
b.. It will be an extreme hardship to operate a reasonably priced family restaurant if a more
conforming space is required. Restaurants are very eapensive to create at the quality level that
Mr. Campos will require, with very large e�enditures for equipment and remodeling. To
require some alternate parking option would be so expensive that the project would become
unfeasible.
c. The area where the parking space is proposed is at this time used for parking. There will be
no change in how the space is used and its affects on surrounding persons and property.
d. There will be no change in the mass, bulk, and character of the e�sting and potential uses of
the ajouung properties. The aesthetics will be slightly improved by the order imposed by
painted lines on the pavement.
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin a� me_org
a� CtTY 0�
BURIJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
��„�,m...:••,"
Type of application; Design Review ✓ Conditional Use Permit ✓� Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Project address• l�
APPLICANT
U r ��'i'! C�Iq »°lc`� fyV@.
Name:_ _�OE.' � �e1 r�► ,�p S
Address: ��`j� l�{Q��� �ve
City/State/Zip: �S�IV ��U/�ld � �G�q�(o
Phone (w): 'T�l,j �o q'� ��lo �
(n�: ��'o q�� �-4�t
c�� �'�s 33� q��3
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
-�� Name: ��� ����c G' 'a2cq == r� �-� f� h1�
Address: I �',��C� � +-�Ct,�, — t� � �
City/State/Zip:S.,,,�� `'� ��i�-�����_�� C�°�.
.
Phone (w�4 ► � �= C��.• ` h � !
(h):C�.0 , t=� `�y �, � -..� �_ � �, � -
(���!� � �-�`� �����.-G���`�--�4
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: � ta� C� ��,� i�`� �-I M i�"� Pi�l'td�+S�>1P
Address:��_� - ���� ��
City/State/Zip: {l�v��ll�. f��-�E���10'��
Phone (w)��-i �i � i�`�' � .. � ��
(h):
c�:
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 5 2005
. ���.:�
'! :
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:C.cs�,b�
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I ereby certify ui�der penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to e best of my lc�owledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: Date: 3 L�S t'.�5�
�---
I know about the proposed application and hereb;� authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commissibn.
Property owner's signature�'`��� �_ Date:
Date submitte�
PCAPP.FRM
�a'��a�,a� ��
v S � . �v,� i-�'
�
�wim�rc�a �
�t wa @.�•c� w� �-�'
o„ i � ,`S� r} �i(,,,h � .
CJ
�1d
�
j�.S�°q N rev��e�..� o�...d
I
--��� ex �-✓ �' �r r � � �
���I���dl
� <<� � �
�
� . . � �. �� _ . �
.�°�rchit��;t
La Corneta Restaurant
1123 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, California
. �
• � �� � �:,���
r �..
�� [�
La Corneta will be a full service Mexican restaurant that strives to provide delicious food to
residents of Burlingame at reasonable prices in an atmosphere that is warm, comfortable,
and fits into the fabric of the downtown area. Two store spaces are being completely
remodeled to create a space that is in keeping with these criteria.
The existing building is in the Spanish Colonial style, matching adjacent buildings and the
theme of the restaurant as well. Materials traditionally used in Burlingame will be used,
including stucco plaster, tile, metal and wood. The colors used will be attractive, lively and
compatible without being garish, and will fit well into the existing diverse storefronts in this
area. The sign will be composed of individual opaque metal letters, illuminated from behind
to create a halo effect.
The fa�ade is to be considerably modified, and will include an outdoar patio dining area and
large windows to connect the restaurant to the active Burlingame Avenue. The patio will
feature plants in a low planter separating it from the street, and a mural or sculpture to
enhance the outdoor feel and give a positive experience to passersby. There are no side
elevations to this property. The rear elevation will be used only for deliveries and is within
five feet of an adjacent building, so changes will be slight.
The interiar will have an open, generous feel due to the high ceilings, very large windows
connecting it to the street, open kitchen, outdoor dining patio opening to the sidewalk, large
skylight, and attentive service staff. Interior colors will be brighter as a contrast to the
exterior, and will exude a warm glow through the glass areas.
The owner of La Corneta, Mr. Joel Campos has considerable experience in the restaurant
business, and at the moment owns two Mexican restaurants in San Francisco. These
restaurants are some of the most successful of their type in the area. He wants this new
location to have a more sophisticated look and feel to compliment the businesses that are
currently on Burlingame Avenue and the people who patronize them.
18L,U i_ac,u���. �,P�:;c�t
�a=-F Frc�•rrisc:c <:.,,. `���r� ci 9! � �
I'hore �:i;i :ifJS Sti()7 ?��",s A;'F:ax: A':> 31�i 992b
YYt�:F'�C-,si-(::f� �'..vi?f-'.,::E:)r.'.` _.
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F{650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org
���. °�TY o� COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS
84J_RUNGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM
�IplO AV�sb,eoe
1. Proposed use of the site �<i�( �Ejrl/tC'E'. /"� �1 �A�°) ��QUrq'��`
2. Days and hours of operation �4 s����°FC. ��' � nw� ��d' 4� � M'
= RECEIVED
3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type) /���.
MAR 2 � 2005
4. Current and ro'ected maximum number of em lo�
Existing In 2 Years
Hours of
Operation
Weekdays
Full-time
Part-time
Weekends
Full-time
Part time
AM to After 5:00
PM PM
� T
� �
AM to After 5:00
PM PM
� �
(� 7
AM to After 5:00 AM to After 5:00
PM PM PM PM
5. Current and ro'ected maximum number of visitorsJcustomers who may come to the site:
Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years
Hours of
Operation
Weekdays
Weekends
�r �� �'� -r ;`r r�+(��
owner) at this location:��n OF BURLtNGAME
In 5 Years iNG �EPT.
AM to � After 5 :00
PM PM
� �
� �
AM to After 5:00
PM PM
la� ir�-r3o
�a►�� I ✓ I �'" I r` I �' I�
6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one tirrie �include owner,
employees and visitors/customers): ��
'/ . 1
7. Where do/will the owner and employees park? MQ r� Il1 � S U� S1' [`•
8. Where do/will the customers/visitors park? �T �'PG� �/1?U/i%Ci -Q'rd�1l19 ld�'
/� �[� ✓
9. Present or most recent use of site �!l �� SP�' UI CC iPSrdUr� �'C� �rf'Q�►*1 ,��J'rl� /' •
10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if
necessary) /�C�I'tQ.
COMMERCIAL.FRM
��� CITY O�
6URLliVOAME
��.,m
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Planning Deparunent
Ciry Hall - 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 940I0-3997
TeI. (650) 558-7200
February 24, 2000
Sandra Fisher Trust
P.O. Box 598
Ketchup, ID 83340
Dear Sir or Madam,
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the February 14, 200�0 Flanning
Commission approval of your conditional use permit application became effective.February 23, 2000.
This application was for an existing food establishment classified as a Full Service Food Establishment
in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area at 1123 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A,
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area.
The February 14, 2000 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with
the following conditions:
1. that this business location presently occupied by a full service food establishment, with 492 SF of
on-site seating may change its foad establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar
upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new
classification shall be met in order far a change to be approved;
2. that the 492 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or
extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use
permit; �
3. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with
the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and
at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
4. that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty
(50) feet of all frontages of the business; _
5. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food
from this premise;
6. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this locatiaz� from a window or from any opening within
10' of the property line;
.February 24, 2000
: 1123 Burlingame Avenue
IDpage -2-
7. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food
establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void;
�. that this full service food establishment may be open from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., seven days a
week, with a maximum of 3 employees on site at any one time; and
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, and as amended by the City of Burlingame
The decision of the Councll is a iuial administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within
90 days of the date of the decisian unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law.
Si cerely yours,
�1 �
Marga et Mo oe
City P er
RH\s
1123BURL.cca
c. Nelson's Coffee Shop, applicant
1123 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Chief Building Inspector
Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office
(110 FT X 140 FT COR BLGME AVE & LORTON AVE BLOCK 11 TOWN OF BURLINGf1ME
MAP NQ 1 RSM 2/87 CITY OF BURLINGAME; APN: 029-211-260)
*M
F.
Planning Deparunent
CIT� OF BURLINGAME
February 24, 2000
Sandra Fisher Trust
P.O. Box 598
Ketchum, ID 83340
Dear Sir or Madam,
�� % �.� i "� �.
.'r� 't'.�� I � �� .
�
���Yiy��
*:`�-�}}lil�li" .
City Ha(( - 50( Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
Tet. (650) 558-7200
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the February 14, 2000 Planning
Commission approval of your conditional use permit application became effective February 23, 2000.
This application was far an existing food establishment classified as a Limited Food Service Establishment
in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area at 1121 Burlingame Avenue, zoned Gl, Subarea A,
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area.
The February 14, 2000 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with
the following conditions:
1. that this business location presently occupied by a limited food service establishment, with 249
SF of on-site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a�ull service
restaurant or bar with approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment;
2. that the 249 SF area of on-site seating of the limited food service establishment shall be enlarged
or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional
use permit;
3. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of pzepared food
from this premise;
4. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from a�ay opening
within 10' of the property line;
5. that if this site is changed from any foad establishment use to any retail or other use, a food
establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void;
6. that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within
fifty (50) feet of all frontages (front and rear) of the business;
7. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the ciry consistent with
the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the bualding and
at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
� . February 24, 2000
� 121 Burlingame Avenue
, page -2-
8. that this faod establishment may be open 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday, with
a maximum of 5 employees on site at any one time; and
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, and as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The decision af the Council is a fmal administrative decision pursuant to Code af Civil Procedure Section
1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within
90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret Monroe
Caty Planner
RH\s
1121BURL.cca
c. Sweet Treats, applicant
1121 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Chief Building Inspector
Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office
(110 FT X 140 FT COR BLGME AVE & LORTON AVE BLOCK 11 T'OWN OF
BURLINGAME, MAP NO 1 RSM 2/87 CITY OF BURLINGAME; APN: 029-211-260)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIQN, C'OMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKII�TG VARIANCES
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
commercial design review, conditional use permit amendment and parking variances to combine
two food establishments into one full service restaurant at 1121 and 1123 Burlin a�me Avenue,
zoned G1, Subarea A, Salma Family Limited Partnership, property owners, APN: 029-2ll-260;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
June 27, 2005, 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:
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 CEQA Article 19. Section: 15301 -
Existing facilities, Class 1(a), interior or exterior alterations involving such things as
interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances.
2. Said commercial design review, conditional use permit amendment and parking variances
are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings
for commercial design review, conditional use permit amendment and parking variances
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 offcial
records of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, , 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 the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of June, 2005, by
the following vote
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT �`A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, commercial design review, conditional use permit
amendment and parking variances
1123 Burlingame Avenue
Effective July 7, 2005
l. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped June 15, 2005, site plan, floor plan and elevations with 208 SF of outdoor patio
seating; and shall adhere to the color and material sample of the exteriar materials of the
building as shown on the materials board date stamped March 25, 2005; any changes to the
colors or materials shall require review by the Planning Commission;
2. that the full service foad establishment, with 623 SF of on-site seating may change its food
establishment classification only to a limited food service ar bar upon approval of a conditional
use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in
order for a change to be approved;
3. that the 623 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged ar
extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional
use permit;
4. that this food establishment sha11 provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent
with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the
building and at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
5. that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business a�d within
fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business;
6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food
from this premise;
7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening
within 10' of the property line;
8. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food
establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become
void;
9. that this full service food establishment may be open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days
a week, with a maximum of 9 employees on site at any one time;
10. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roaf height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
EXHIBIT 66 A 97
��
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, commercial design review, conditional use permit
amendment and parking variances
1123 Burlingame Avenue
Effective July 7, 2045
Page 2
12. that deliveries to businesses located on this site shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. daily, exc�pt Sundays and holidays; deliveries to the site
shall be limited to the rear of the building on Hatch Lane, except BFI;
13. that the trash enclosure and recycling bins shall be covered and shall have a drain connecting to
the sanitary sewer system as required by the City Engineer in the memo dated March 28, 2005,
and shall be located on the parcel as shown on the plans date stamped June 15, 2005;
14. that one on-site parking space 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep shall be located in the paved area on
the south east corner of the property, and shall be maintained for use exclusively by the food
establishment at 1123 Burlingame Avenue; the parking space shall remain free and clear of any
trash cans, recycling bins or other storage materials or debris;
15. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist and Fire
Marshal's May 26, 2005, memos shall be met; and
16. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California
Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City af Burlingame.
�,
��� CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLJNGAME �p7 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
`'E� , TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
'�Ro,E,.,,� www,burlingame.org
Site: 1123 BURLINGAME AVE
Application for commercial design review,
conditional use permit amendment and
parking variances to combine two tenant
spaces for a new full service restaurant at:
1123 BURLINGAME AVE, zoned C-1,
Subarea A. (APN: 029-211-260).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing
on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.
in the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: June 17, 2005
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF B URLINGAME
��� rf _ ,
�licattd� anc����ans fcir th�s project rnay be reviewed prior
it:=t�e �'I��n�n� Dep�rtrnent at;;501,Primrose Road,
�pi-nia � �
he sub�ect ��iplication(s),in caurt, }%ou mayG be limited to
��sues you c�r sameone else raised'at tlie"'public hearing,
°�i,ce�6�,� v�ritte� correspondence d�1�ve�ed to the city
_�-,_.� .x�� � .�..., . ,. _ , , , �, �
.,
x,,;,
��:
Margaret Monrt�� ,,
City Planner �
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, Ca1
If you challetige
raising only t�ios
described in the
at or prior to ithe
Property ow�,er�
their tenants �abc
(650) 558 7��0
PUBtIt
' ; (Please refer to other side)
��t��s �ot����are respon�ible ;�ar informing
e.. Fcir additional information, please call
�E�ARING NQTICE
.r
City of Burlingame
Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use
Permit Amendment and Parking Variance
Item #
DSR Study Calendar
Address: 1123 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: 6/13/OS
Request: Commercial design review, conditional use permit amendment and parking variance for changes to an
existing food establishment in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area at 1123 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-
1, Subarea A(C.S. 25.36.042(h); C.S. 25.57.010(b); and C.S. 25.70.040).
Applicant: Joel Campos APN: 029-211-260
Property Owner: Salma Family Limited Partnership Lot Area: 15,400 SF
Architect: J. Mark Cronander Zoning: C-1, Subarea A
General Plan: Commercial, Shopping & Service
Adjacent Development: Commercial — Retail and Food Establishment
Summary: Joel Campos, the applicant and business owner of La Corneta Taqueria, is requesting a conditional
use permit amendment, commercial design review and a parking variance to combine the two food
establishments at 1121 and 1123 Burlingame Avenue, zoned Gl Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue commercial
area, into one full service restaurant.
This project includes the combination of two existing restaurants (tenant spaces) into one full service restaurant.
Because one of the existing restaurants at this location was classified as a full service restaurant there is no
change proposed to the food establishment classification (full service).
The proposed restaurant will be a full service restaurant with a full commercial kitchen. Food will be served by
wait staff on ceramic plates with metal flatware and cloth napkins. Payment will be at the end of the meal. The
restaurant will be open seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with a maximum of 8 employees during
the day shift and a maximum of 9 employees during the night shift (after 5:00 p.m.), for a total of 17 employees
including the business owner. The maximum number of people that will be on-site at any given time, including
the business owner and employees, is 73. Based on the requested operational changes a conditional use permit
amendment is required.
The combination of the two tenant spaces, 1121 and 123 Burlingame Avenue, will result in a single store frontage
of approximately 41 feet in width. Code section 25.57.010(b) states that commercial design review is required
for changes to more than 50% of store frontages that are greater than 25 feet in width. The applicant will be
making several changes to the facades of the two existing tenant spaces to create one combined fa�ade for the
new restaurant, therefore the proposal also requires Commercial Design Review. The new design will include
creating a patio area that will allow patrons to dine out side. There will be a low planter separating this area from
the street. The materials to be used on the fa�ade include stucco, plaster, tile, metal and wood.
Personal and retail services on the first floor in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area are exempt from the
vehicle parking requirements as set forth in code section 25.36.040(d). The total square footage of the existing
combined tenant spaces is approximately 3,181 SF, which includes an existing 482 SF mezzanine that is
currently being used as an office and storage space for 1123 Burlingame Avenue (Nelson's Coffee Shop). This
proposal includes demolishing and reconstructing the mezzanine. The new mezzanine will be 628 SF and will
have a new footprint over the combined tenant space. Subsection 3 of code section 25.36.040(d) states that new
development, except reconstruction because of a catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on-site parking
except for first floor retail or personal service uses. Therefore, the new mezzanine is required to have on-site
1
Conditional Use Fermit Amendment, Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1123 Burlingame Avenue
parking to code. In this case the mezzanine will be used for office and storage uses and based upon the break
down of these uses, is required to have two on-site parking spaces. There is currently one on-site parking space
on this parcel, however this parking space is existing and s�rves the other second floor uses on this entire parcel
(which goes from Hatch Lane to Lorton and includes several tenant spaces on Burlingame and Lorton Avenue).
This application therefore includes a parking variance request for two on-site parking spaces resulting from the
construction of a new mezzanine.
This proposal includes the following request:
• Amend the conditional use permit for the full service food establish to include:
- extending the hours of operation to allow the business to be open seven days a week from
10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (seven days a week, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. currently allowed for full
service restaurant at 1123 Burlingame Avenue (Nelson's Coffee Shop);
- increasing the maximum number of employees on site at any one time from 3(for Nelson's, 8
combined for Nelson's & Sweet Treats) to 17 employees; and
- increasing the seating area from 492 SF for the currently allowed full service restaurant at
ll 23 Burlingame Avenue (Nelson's Coffee Shop) to 729 SF (including patio dining area);
Commercial design review;
Parking variance for two parking spaces because of the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the
second floor mezzanine space.
Proposed Existing Allowed/Req'd.
Use: Food Establishment Food Establishment Food Establishment with
a Conditional Use Permit
Combine ll21 & 1123 1121 Burlingame Ave-
Burlingame Ave for one Limited Food Service
Full Service Restaurant (Sweet Treats)
1123 Burlingame Ave-
Full Service Restaurant
(Nelson's Coffee Shop)
Combine 1121 & 1123 1121 Burlingame Ave-
Seating: Burlingame Ave for 249 SF seating area
729 SF seating area'
1123 Burlingame Ave-
492 SF seating area
Hours of Operation: 1121 �urlingame Ave.-
10:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m.' 11:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m.
7 days a week 7 days a week
1123 Burlingame Ave.-
9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m.
7 days a week
2
Conditional L7sePerrrcitAmendrraent, CommercialDesign Review and.Parking Variance 1123 BurlingameAvenue
Max. # of Employees: 17 (including owner) 1121 Burlingame Ave. —
5 employees
-8 day shift
-9 night shift (after 5pm) 1123 Burlingame Ave.-
3 employees
Parkin : QZ 1 on-site parking space 2 for new mezzanine
Conditional use permit amendment to: 1) expand seating area; 2) extend hours of operation; 3) increase number
of employees.
Parking variance far two on-site parking spaces where none are provided
History of Restaurant Use at This Site: In October 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1619 which
makes all faod establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, Subarea A, and the Broadway
commercial area conditional uses. The City Council also adopted Resolution 111-1999, which includes a Food
Establishment by Type Table establishing the location, type and seating area for each food establishment in each
commercial area. The ordinance required that each establishment obtain a conditional use permit to reflect the
requirements of the new ordinance, and to define the type of restaurant and its operating characteristics.
In this case there are two existing food establishments (tenant spaces) 1121 and 1123 Burlingame Avenue that
are proposed to be combined to create one full service restaurant. A history of each site is provided below.
On February 24, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for an existing food
establishment (Sweet Treats) for 1121 Burlingame Avenue as required by Ordinance 1619 which makes all food
establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, and the Broadway Comrr�ercial Area
conditional uses. This food establishment was classified as a Limited Food Establishment with 249 SF of on site
seating, At the time the conditional use permit was approved, the conditions allowed the business to be open
from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week with a maximum of five employees on site at any one time.
Also at the February 24, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for an existing food
establishment (Nelson's Coffee Shop) for 1123 Burlingame Avenue as required by Ordinance 1619 which makes
all food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, Subarea A, and the Broadway commercial
area conditional uses. This food establishment was classified as a Full Service Food Establishment with 492 SF
of on site seating, At the time the conditional use permit was approved, the conditions allowed the business to be
open from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., seven days a week with a maximum of three employees on site at any one time.
Staff Comments: See attached.
Catherine Barber
Planner
c: Joel Campos, La Corneta Taqueria, applicant
J. Mark Cronander, architect
Salma Family Limited Partnership, property owner
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) SSS-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.or�
� d��N4�� CITY OF BURLINGAME
�, VARIANCE APPLICATION
,�, .�
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordiilance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
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.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordanary circumstances or conditions appli�able to
your properry which do not apply to other properties in this area.
There is already one parking space assigned to this space by contract, and there is no
room on the property for additional parking. The second floor is existing, and we are only
rebuilding it to current code and expanding slightly from 448 sq ft to less than 500 sq ft.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoy�rcent of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecesscary
liardship rraight result form the denial of the application.
An office area for paperwork storage with privacy for dealing with cash, employee
recards, and occasional employee discussions (hiring, etc,) is necessary for this type of
business. There is no room for it downstairs because there is barely adequate dining area.
c. Explain wlzy tTze proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public heallh, safety, general
welfare or convenience.
The second floor will contain storage, a restroom, an 15'-2" x 8'-6" office for one person.
The office will only be used intermittently. Usually no one will be in the office.
Occasionally there will be one person and veiy occasionally there will be 2 persons for a
private employee meeting. Mainly it will be used for records storage, payroll, and cash
management. All accounting will be done off-site
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
characZer of the e.xisting and potential uses orc adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The second floor is entirely inside the existing envelope of the space. The exterior
appearance won't change at all if the existing second floor is slightly expanded and
brought up to the current building code. It will not affect adjoining property at all.
�����������
JUN 0 1 2�05
CI"C�I �F f3URLINUAIV�E
PLANNlfVC DEf'T.
a e .
��� CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
� ' oa TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
"�q,,,,E,,,,„Ee'� www.burlingame.org
Site: 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Application for commercial design review,
conditional use permit amendment and
parking variance to combine two tenant
spaces for a new, full service restaurant at:
1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, zoned C-1,
Subarea A. (APN: 029-211-010).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing
on Monday, June 13, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: June 3, 2005
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
}� ;
, �
CITY OF B URLINGAME
, ��� : <s
A copy of the applic�.�3� anc��pl�r�� for�`this pro�ect �ay be reviewed prior
�� to the meeting a������ ��� �������;�t ,����°��,, primrose Road,
`�� ,�a��.,.,� .
Burlingame, Ca,l�f,c���,, ��
=��� ��
If you challer�ge th��v'�ub�e��;
raising only t�i'��� i���i��~�>c�
described in the �t��i�e�r�i�
� ���. � �
at or prior to�the pul��zc �e�
��..� .�.r�fl,,e� .� ��.
��
Properry ow�ers ��o �-���
their tenants��bou�,this,��s
(650) 558 7��0� T�,ank���i
F�� '�4S' ha' x' §t._
� �
�'�n "i, � 4 �. '� j ..
Margaret Monr�� �� ������
City Planner � ��. &p��� �}�
� � �
P U ���G
(Please refer to other side)
_. ��.
ac�a�tiona� intorr�ati
�
a < ��.
� �,,
e � � �
Yr��_ . "
�1NG NOTI�CE
be limited to
blic hearing,
�d to the city
informing
please call