The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1160 Burlingame Avenue - Staff Report� .� U�� P.C. 2/10/86 Item #1 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CI'I'Y PLANNER SUBJECT; CONTINUED ACTION ON SP�CIAL PERMIT FOR A TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE AT 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB-AREA A At their meeting on January 27, 1986 the Planning Commission held the public hearing, but continue3 the action, on the request for a take-out food service at 1160 Burlingame Avenue (Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 1986). The applicant asked for the continuance because there were only five voting members of the Commission seated that evening. Planninq Commission Action Since the public hearing has been held the Commission should discuss the item and take action. To pass a motion there must be four votes in favor. A tie vote (3-3) is a denial under the Commission rules of procedure. Although formal findings are not required by code for a special/conditional use permit action, the Commission should state their reasons for any action taken. Staff recommended conditions are listed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (January 27, 1986). �� Marg�et �ionroe City Planner MM/s cc: Al1an Palmer, Calny, Inc. Lawrence Lam Architectural Dimensions (property owner) Paqe 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 �,7. that the wall be opened on the ramp to the lower parking garage to increase sight lines into the garage for cars descendinq the ramp. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TEN'I'ATIVE 'ALVD FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE ,�E3T5� AT 880 STANTON ROAD ( LOTS 14�, .� 5, 16 AND 17 , BLOCK 4�.-E'?�ST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK N0. 2) Reference City Engineer's age�r�-`�memo with attachments. CE Erbacher advised this is a simole lot-�'comb'ir�.�tion; the site is used as one lot presently. 'I'wo conditig��"�were sugge's��,d for consideration. He recommended the map ,�e'""`�forwarded to Counci��-T....�or approval. � ,.,,� C. Graham moved--^�hat this tentative and final parcet�� be recommended to City Cou il for approval with the following conditioYr�;�,(1) a 5' sidewalk jacent to curb be installed by the applicant, orov��3ing at least clearance of any obstructions in walkway; and (2) any curb and gu r shall be replaced if damaged or displaced. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PER��IIT TO ALLOW A TAKE-OU'r FOOD SERVICE FOR TACO BELL AT 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB-AREA A Due to conflict of interest C. Taylor disqualified himself from participating in this matter and left the podium. CP advised the applicant that four affirmative votes are necessary for Commission action (five members remained on the podium). Applicant and Commission agreed to hold the public hearing this evening with action to be taken at the next Commission meeting, February 10, 1986. Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments and January 23, 1986 letter from Architectural Dimensions, Walnut Creek, California with attached Analysis of Projected Trip Generation, Taco Bell-Burlingame (received after preparation of staff report). CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comments/concerns, applicant's letter, Commission questions at study. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted the following letters in opposition (received after preparation of staff report): January 24, 1986 from Carol A. Tanza, 274 Lorton Avenue; January 27, 1986 from "A Small Business Owner"; January 27, 1986 from Mel K. Dollinger, Franciscan Builders, Inc., 306 Lorton Avenue; Raymond M. Phillips, The Quartermaster, 304 Lorton Avenue; Helen C. Trueblood, �^latermasters, 306 Lorton Avenue. Discussion: restaurant regulation on Burlingame Avenue; staff advised applicant has stated the major part of their business is take-out; number of employees and number of seats, suggested conditions would limit employees to 50 full and part time and 74 seats (the number of Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 seats in the existing restaurant); how was the figure of 350 customers daily at the existing restaurant arrived at? Allan Palmer, Architectural Dimensions, designer of the project, directed attention to a perspective and elevations of th,� proposed building, it is not a typical Taco Bell image but one a'"imed at blending into the community; drawings of projects installed i�.other cities in the area wer� also displayed. His comments: the exi� ting use is a restaurant �hich does have take-out service; parki�g is an issue, their traffic stuc�y addresses this. He noted several c�rrections to previous information 'and to the traffic study which incl�aed: more realistic figures for �rojected customers daily would be��550 weekdays, 550 weekends; the� wished to revise the fixed se��inq figure to 86 seats; the beauty shop which they are taking over �Ys required for kitchen area and will not b� used to increase the seati g area; in some of the tables in the raffic study time is liste�in thousands (military time) instead of stan�iard time; on page 11 of ,the study the title should read "Eveninq Peak H r Trip Data", not "Rev��ewin ."; on page 12, #2, third item, the�TE should read "High,� urnover•Sit Down Restaurant". He addressed the �uggeste3 condition�°: #1 was acceptable, #2 was acceptable, he wo�ld request increasred seating to 85 seats in Condition # 3 . '� f' � � < Nick Bevilacqua, tra fic enginee `, Architectural Dimensions, discussed his traffic survey a�l projecte traffic generation report: traditional sources were not adeq�,ate, a f'eld survey was conducted in Burlingame at several restaurants'.fin ord r to obtain the data needed during the hours of 11:00 A.M, to :30 �M, and 4:00 P.M. to 7:�0 P.M.; people were counted in 15 minu� q�Zarters, lunch time peak and afternoon peak were calculated, the surv��'ors counted personal trips; selected interviews were conducted�`'�o determine those who came to the area solely to eat and if the�`� drove. It was determined peak hour for these restaurants is midday, �:'5-25�'� drove to eat only. With a formula created for this study the fo`'�lowing was determined: average group size was 1.6 which would be 8.4 peo�le at peak hour, this is 8.4 trip ends, in and out it would be 16 trips:, Their conclusion: Taco Bell would generate approximately 16 trip en�cls or 32 vehicle trips (one every two minutes), parking spaces needed du�ing peak hour for Taco Bell would be 16 spaces. There is some correlati`�n between number of seats an3 traffic generat�d, with more seating°'ther� would be fewer trips. Take-out servi,Ce is not expected to be,much over 20$; take-out occurs up and down rlingame Avenue, some restaurants do have rear exits with parking in ack. Mr. Bevilacqua stated h,e did not notice double parking o Burlingame Avenue the day the survey was taken and he was able to find parking; he looked at the parki,ng lots, many of the employees interviewed parked there. Respondi`�g to Commissioner question, he confirmed he was on Architectural',pimensions' staff and this was not an independent study. Commission/applicant discussion: regarding San Diegb data in the report, these are isolated restaurants surrounded by eir own parking, they would generate more customers from the traffic flo • Burlingame's Taco Bell would not generate as much; patronage by high s ool Page 8 Burlingam� Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 seats in the existing restauzant); how was the figure of 350 customers daily at the existing restaurant arrived at? Al1an Palmer, Architectural Dimensions, designer of the project, directed attention to a perspective and elevations of the proposed building, it is not a typical Taco Bell image but one aimed at blending into the community; drawings of projects installed in other cities in the area were also displayed. His comments: the existing use is a restaurant which does have take-out service; parking is an issue, their traffic study addresses this. He noted several corrections to previous information and to the traffic study which included: more realistic figures for projected customers daily would be 550 weekdays, 650 weekends; they wished to revise the fixed seatinq figure to 86 seats; the beauty shop which they are taking over is required for kitchen area and will not be used to increase the seating area; in some of the tables in the traffic study time is listed in thousands (military time) instead of standard time; on page 11 of the study the title should read "Eveninq Peak Hour Trip Data", not "Reviewinq ..."; on page 12, #2, third item, the ITE should read "High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant". He addressed the suggeste3 conditions: #1 was acceptable, #2 was acceptable, he would request increased seatinq to 85 seats in Condition #3. Nick Bevilacqua, traffic engineer, Architectural Dimensions, discussed his traffic survey and projected traffic generation report: traditional sources were not adequate, a field survey was conducted in Burlingame at several restaurants in order to obtain the data needed during the hours of 11:00 A.��1. to 2:30 P.iK, and 4:00 P.M, to 7: �0 P.�H. ; people were counted in 15 minute quarters, lunch time peak and afternoon peak were calculate3, the surveyors counted personal trips; selected interviews were conducted to determine those who came to the area solely to eat and if they drove. It was determined peak hour for these restaurants is midday, 15-25$ drove to eat only. With a formula created for this study the following was determined: average group size was 1.6 which would be 8.4 people at peak hour, this is 8.4 trip ends, in and out it would be 16 trips. Their conclusion: Taco Bell would generate approximately 16 trip ends or 32 vehicle trips (one every two minutes), parking spaces needed during peak hour for Taco Bell would be 16 snaces. There is some correlation between number of seats an3 traffic generated, with more seating ther� would be fewer trips. Take-out service is not expected to be much over 20�; take-out occurs up and down Burlingame Avenue, some restaurants do have rear exits with parking in back. Mr. Bevilacqua stated he did not notice double parking on Burlingame Avenue the day the survey was taken and he was able to find parking; he looked at the parking lots, many of the employees interviewed parked there. Responding to Commissioner question, he confirmed he was on Architectural Dimensions' staff and this was not an independent study. Commission/applicant discussion: regarding San Diego data in the report, these are isolated restaurants surrounded by their own parking, they would generate more customers from the traffic flow; Burlingame's Taco Bell would not generate as much; patronage by high school � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Paqe 7 January 27, 1986 17. that the wall be opened �n the ramp to the lower parking garage to increase sight lines into the garage for cars descendinq the ramp. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TEN'I'ATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBIIIE LOTS AT 880 STANTON ROAD (LOTS 14, 15, 16 AND 17, BLOCK 4, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK N0. 2) Reference Ca.ty Engineer's agenda memo with attachments. CE Erbacher advised this�,is a sim�le lot combination; the site is used as one lot presently. '�,wo conditions were suggested for consideration. He recommended t£�e maQ be forwarded to Council for aoproval. "\ ,- _ C. Graham moved�that this tentative an3 final parcel map be recommended to City Council '�or approval with the fo�Alowing conditions: (1) a 5' sid2walk adjacent�,to curb be installed_�y the applicant, providing at least 4' clearance� of any obstructions'�in walkway; and (2) any curb and gutter shall be rep�ced if damaged ,.dr displaced. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unan mously on voic� vote. .� �.T Recess 8:50 P.M. ; reco�vene 9:0�`'P.M. 6. SPECIAL PER�'�IIT TO ALL W AT 1160 BURLINGAME AVE�'9�j AKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE FOR TACO BELL ZONED C-1, SUB-AREA A Due to conflict of interest . Taylor disqualified himself from participating in this matter d left the podium. CP advised the applicant that four aff-irmative votes are necessary for Commission action (five members remained on the podium). Applicant and Commission agreed to;'hold the pub 'c hearing this evening with action to be taken at the n"ext Commission eeting, February 10, 1986. Reference staff report, 1/27/86, witli�attachments and January 23, 1986 letter from Architectural Dimensions, lnut Creek, California with attached Analysis of Projected Trip Gene ation, Taco Bell-Burlingame (received after preparation of staff repo t). CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff mments/concerns, applicant's letter, Commission questions at �tudy. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the publi hearing. CP noted the following letters in opposition (received afte%� preparation of staff report): January 24, 1986 from Carol A. Tanza, ��4 Lorton Avenue; January 27, 1986 from "A Small Business Owner"; J�,nuary 27, 1986 from Mel K. Dollinger, Franciscan Builders, Inc., 306 Lo�ton Avenue; Raymond M. Phillips, The Quartermaster, 304 Lorton Avenue; H�e.�en C. Trueblood, Wate`rmasters, 306 Lorton Avenue. Discussion: restaurant regulation on Burlingame Avenue; staff advised applicant has stated the major part of their business is take-out; number of employees and number of seats, suggested conditions would limit employees to 50 full and part time and 74 seats (the number of Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 students would not be at peak hour; the restaurant will open at 10:30 A.M.; the formula used to arrive at 32 peak hour vehicle trips for Taco Bell would apply to all restaurants surveyed on Burlingame Avenue; CE commente3 such a study qives an idea on the order of magnitude of vehicle trips in a sample business district; availability and proximity of parking determines the success of a business district; the over- whelming problem in this area now is parking. Brent DeMasquita, Operations, Calny, Inc., stated they hire locally, employees average 35-50 in total, 15 employees at any given shift (lunch or dinner), they have many part time employees, full time are much less than other businesses; at the San Francisco Taco Bell parking is difficult and businesses in the area use this restaurant for lunch; in Burlingame high school students would generate a peak at 3:00 P.M ; the mor� seating a restaurant has the more people will stop by and eat on site; average eating time is 10-12 minutes. With regar3 to the double oarking problem they would be happy to have an employee outside asking people not to double park, they have done this in some locations. Full time maintenance service is provided. Tytus Boleslawski, Architectural Dimensions, reiterated Taco Bell will generate 16-32 trips; with maximum capacity only so many cars can stop and working people nearby will return; 16-32 trips is not that staggering, any business at that location would impact parking and generate trips; the city will be getting a new member of the community wishing to help; this is no different than what exists on the site now, traffic impact would not be much greater. Commission comment: restaurants generate a different type of traffic, the area is impacted the greatest at noontime; existing restaurant has slow, sit down business, Taco Bell is geared to high turnover. Chm. Garcia op2ned the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Gordon Hosking, 1461 Bernal Avenue; Joseph Rarp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue; Tony Taylor, 1406 Burlingame Avenue; Bill Smith, 1110 Burlingame Avenue; June Hoffman, 1116 Burlingame Avenue; Edith May, 1348 Drake Avenue; Isabel de Paz (owner of store on Primrose Road). Their concerns: traffic and parking impacts, litter/garbage, loitering. Comments included: Burlingame Avenue is a'special' street; the nature of a fast food restaurant is not compatible with the Avenue, presently there are special restaurants with their own ambience, bringing in a'plastic' typ� restaurant would not be in keeping with this street; if Taco Bell is allowed, what next; the numbers presented cannot be correct, believe many more meals will be served than what was indicated; if the existing restaurant were serving 350 meals a day they would not be leaving; La Pinata serves 350 dinners an evening with 175 seats. Audience comments continued: the restaurant ordinance does not preclude expansion of restaurants but the reason Taco Bell needs the extra space is to accommodate a kitchen facility for take-out food; would not object to a regular sit down restaurant at this location; there is �+ I Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 not enough parking for a take-out restaurant in this city,,a severe parking problem exists now; difficult to find one narking:�space presently, there will not be 16 available; the new gym o Donnelly will have a more difficult time finding parking for its pat ns, there is no long term parking, where will employees par:c; can liv with one fast food operation, but no more; doubt the validity of t eir study, one day is not enough; if Taco Bell's business is dependent;�on people who must park there arer�'t any places; there is no parking g�fi Primrose at 7:00 A.M, now; a res�aurant needs an enclosed garbage �rea; that block has trash problems n w because of its proximity to t�(`e high school; concern about impact on her businesses on Lorton, oft"n sweep the sidewalk myself; food from existing take-out restauran�goes home or back to an office, Taco Bell v�ould not be the same. �� Mr. Palmer spoke in ebuttal: can underst nd the community's concern; this is not a take-o�u`� facility, it is a estaurant - with take out service; will keep th� block clean, it 'f one of the conditions of approval; have no comme�nt on youth, we all were teenagers at one time; there is a trash area ic�,,the building with four walls but no roof, it is totally isolated; parl�,ing is the ajor issue, area is impacted now and probably will not be ore impac.ed by Taco Bell; if 16 spaces are not available there will � 1& le people who visit the restaurant; Taco Bell is basically a sel�vice or the office area nearby and shoppers, they are not tryin' t bring traffic into the area. Responding to Commissioner qu ion, Mr. Palmer stated garbaqe will be brought to the street in the rning for collection, Taco Bell's staff will clean up whatever is le t 10:30 A.�'�. Of '`�, There were no further audi�hce co�l�[nents and the public hearing was closed. - � � Commission comment: thi�`is not a cha ge of use, it is an intensification of use;;•'these 16 custoA�ers will take parking from retail customers in the area; there are'�,no figures for trip ends which include employees pez%"shift. � � � There was no further Commission discussion�`�n3 Chm. Garcia continued this item for acti�on on February 10, 1986. ; Recess 10:55 P.�.; reconvene 11:00 P.M, i�'�� ;�' �� 7. THREE VAR�ANCES FOR AN OFFICE ADDITIOiv AT THE��3�1 NORTH CAROLAN.AVENUE CORPORATION YARD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments. C Monroe reviewed this request for three variances: to extend the additi up to the front property line, to allow the addition without prov �1ing any additional on-site parking and to allow less than 10� la�scaping. She discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant s letter and justification for the variances, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 not enough parking for a take-out restaurant in this city, a severe parking problem exists now; difficult to find one narkinq space presently, there will not be 16 available; the new gym on Donnelly will have a more difficult time finding parking for its patrons, there is no long term parking, where will employees par:c; can live with one fast food operation, but no more; doubt the validity of their study, one day is not enough; if Taco Bell's business is dependent on people who must park there aren't any places; there is no parking on Primrose at 7:00 A.M, now; a restaurant needs an enclosed garbage area; that block has trash problems now because of its proximity to the high school; concern about impact on other business�s on Lorton, often sweep the sidewalk myself; food from existing take-out restaurants goes home or back to an office, Taco Bell would not be the same. Mr. Palmer spoke in rebuttal: can understand the community's concern; this is not a take-out facility, it is a restaurant with take-out service; will keep the block clean, it is one of the conditions of approval; have no comment on youth, we all were teenagers at one time; there is a trash area in the building with four walls but no roof, it is totally isolated; parking is the major issue, area is impacted now and probably will not be more impacted by Taco Bell; if 16 spaces are not available there will be 16 less people who visit the restaurant; Taco Bell is basically a service for the office area nearby and shoppers, they are not trying to bring traffic into the area. Responding to Commissioner question, Mr. Palmer stated garbaqe will be brought to the street in the morning for collection, Taco Bell's staff will clean up whatever is left at 10:30 A.M. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: this is not a change of use, it is an intensification of use; these 16 customers will take parking from retail customers in the area; there are no figures For trip ends which inclu3e employees per shift. There was no further Commission discussion and Chm. Garcia continued this item for action on February 10, 1986. Recess 10:55 P.M.; reconvene 11:00 P.M. 7."`� '�iREE VARIANCES FOR AN OFFICE ADDITIOiv AT THE 1361 NORTH CAI20LAI� AVENUE CORPORATION YARD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 1/27�6�.,_with �a-t't:achments. CP Monroe reviewed this request for three variance,s:-�'` end the addition up to the front property line, to �,11-c5w �the addition out providing any additional on-site parking and to allow less than �landscaping. She discussed details of the request, staff review, applicarit's letter and justifica�.ion for the variances, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. � Page 9 Burlinqame Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 students would not be at peak hour; the restaurant will open at 10:30 A.M.; the formula used to arrive at 32 peak hour vehicle trips for Taco Bell wo�ld apply to all restaurants surveye3 on Burlingame Avenue; CE commented such a study gives an idea on the order of magnitude of vehicle trips in a sample business district; availability and proximity of parking determines the success of a business district; the over- whelming 'problem in this area now is Darking. Brent DeMaSquita, Ooerations, Calny, Inc., stated they hiYe locally, employees average 35-50 in total, 15 employees at any c�,iven shift (lunch or d� ner), they have many part time employees, full time are much les� than other businesses; at the San Francisco Taco Bell parking is di''�ficult and businesses in the area use this restaurant for lunch; in Burl'�ngame high school students would ge�nerate a peak at 3:00 P.1"I ; the mor��seating a restaurant has the more people will stop by and eat on site, average �ating time is 10-12 minutes. With regard to the double parki�r � problem they would be happ�r% to have an employee outside asking peq�le not to double park, they have done this in some locations. Full t'�me maintenance service is provided. Tytus Boleslawski, A�chitectural Dimensions, reiterated Taco Bell will generate 16-32 trips;�:with maximum capa�ity only so many cars can stop and working people neai�,by will return;;''16-32 trips is not that staggering, any business� at that loca�ion would impact oarking and generate trips; the city`'�will be ge��ing a new member of the community wishing to help; this is r� differ�ht than what exists on the site now, traffic impact would not b� much �reater. Commission comment: restaurants'generate a different type of traffic, the area is impacted the greati�st at noontime; existing restaurant has slow, sit down business, Taca'8�,11 is geared to high turnover. ; ` '� Chm. Garcia opened the pub]�ic hea��ing. There were no audience comments in favor. The following �poke in o�aposition: Gordon Hosking, 1461 Bernal Avenue; Joseph Ra�p, 1209 Bur��ingame Avenue; Tony Taylor, 1406 Burlingame Avenue; Bill,�Smith, 1110 B�rlingame Avenue; June Hoffman, 1116 Burlingame Avenue,;' Edith May, 134$�,Drake Avenue; Isabel de Paz (owner of store on Primrose Road). Thei;� concerns: traffic and parking impacts, litter/garb�ge, loitering. Comm�nts included: Burlingame Avenue is a'specia-i' street; the nature of a fast food restaurant is not compatible wit,.ii the Avenue, presently t�ere are special restaurants with their own am�ience, bringing in a'plas�:.�c' typ� restaurant would not be in keeping with this street; if Taco Be�ll is allowed, what next; the numbers presented cannot be correct, believ� many more meals will be served tha�i what was indicated; if the existin,g restaurant were serving 350,�eals a day they would not be leaving;�.,La Pinata serves 350 dinners an;�vening with 175 seats. \ �` r � , Audience comments continued: the restaurant ordinance��oes not preclude expansion of restaurants but the reason Taco Bell needs�,the extra space is to accommodate a kitchen facility for take-out food;�'would not object to a regular sit down restaurant at this location; there is P.C. 1/27/86 Item #6 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TAT{E-OUT FOOD SERVICE FOR TACO BELL AT 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONEll C-1, SUB-AREA A The applicant, represented by Allan Palmer of Architectural Dimensions, is requesting a special permit to locate a take-out food service at 1160 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Sub-Area A(Code Sec. 25.36.030-13). The request is to expan3 the existing Village Lantern restaurant by adding the 776 SF of the adjacent beauty parlor in order to change the operation and type of restaurant to one which does a substantial proportion of its business in take-out food service. There is no parking on site. The closest public parking lot is located at the corner of Lorton and Donnelly about a block away. The regulations of Sub-Area A allow first floor retail and service uses, including restaurants, without on-site parking. However, Council recently adopted a new regulation requiring special use permit review for all take-out food service. In their action Council expressed concern about the parking, trash and other impacts, particularly in the more intensively developed commercial areas, of this type of business. Staff Review City staff have reviewed the application. The Fire Marshal (December 17, 1985 memo) notes that the basement of the building is to be used for building maintenance and service equipment only. The Chief Building Inspector (December 16, 1985 memo) had no comments. The City Engineer (January 8, 1986 memo) comments that in his opinion the proposed use, because it is a high turnover restaurant, probably represents an increase in traffic generation and parking demand of two to five times that of the existing restaurant. Peak hour trips (lunch time) in the area will probably increase from ten to 35 or more daily. He also notes that the applicant should be required to replace the damaged sidewalk, gutter and curb adjacent to the site. Planning staff would note several concerns. First, this type of restaurant/food service uses a lot of prepackaged and wrapped foods. Three or four trash receptacles should be required, at least one by the front door, one by the closest street bench on Burlingame Avenue, and one at the end of the restaurant site on Lorton. These receptacles should be the same in appearance as those placed by the City of Burlingame on Burlingame Avenue. The applicant should be responsible for emptying these containers regularly so that trash and litter do not become a problem in the area. Unlike other existing food service businesses which rely heavily on take-out service on Burlinqame Avenue (Round Table Pizza, Maria's Pasta, Burger King), this one does not have immediate rear door access to a public parking lot. Thus, given the volume of business expected, staff anticipates that there may be some serious problems with double -2- parking by patrons in a hurry. The closest public parking lot at Donnelly and Lorton is heavily impacted at lunch by those already in the area to shop, eat and work. This impaction was demonstrated by the recent application for a women's gym at 1208 Donnelly. In the evening after working hours La Pinata patrons use the Lorton/Donnelly parking lot heavily. In the past when Banyan Bay was operating as a restaurant and bar there were serious parking problems in this area. Applicant's Letter In their letter of December 11, 1985 the applicants describe the proposed project as a remodel of an existing restaurant and small hair salon into a 2,440 SF fast service Mexican style restaurant. The plan as proposed would use the existing dining room and restroom areas and add a new food preparation, storage room and service space. The finished restaurant would seat 74. The restaurant would be open 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Weekday customers would average between 600 an3 650, weekend customers averaqe 750 per day. Sixty employees would be employed on a full or part time basis. Service deliveries would occur about three times a week between 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. Questions at Study The Planning Commission reviewed this application at study on January 13, 1986. The applicant was asked to address two items: the number of employees and customers at the existing restaurant and how the projected 650 to 750 customers for the new restaurant was calculated. The applicant submitted a letter (January 20, 1986) addressing current volume of business and number of employees at the existing restaurant at 1160 Burlingame Avenue. Their data show 12 employees at lunch and 15 at dinner. This would be compared to 50 to h0 employees full and part time all probably not on site at one time in the proposed project. They also note that daily customers at the existing restaurant are about 350; compared to 650 to 750 projected for the new restaurant. In the letter they note that the projection of 550 to 750 daily customers was based on the current and projected operation of a Taco Bell on Taylor Boulevard in San Francisco. They feel that this operation closely resembles the proposed operation in Burlingame. They are also preparing traffic survey information which will be presented at the public hearing. Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reason for any action should be clearly explained. At the hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's December 17, 1985 and City Engineer's January 8, 1986 memos shall be met; �� 2. that the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance, placement and regularly emptying trash receptacles of a design approved by the city at locations determined by the Public Works Department, and the applicant shall be responsible for policing the immediate area for trash; and 3. that the proposed restaurant shall be open for business no more than 12 hours a day, seven days a week, have no more than 74 seats and employ no more than 50 full and part time employees, and be limited to an area of 2,683 SF. �� -6�� Marg�et Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Allan Palmer, Calny, Inc. Lawrence Lam Architectural Dimensions (property owner) PROJECT APPLICATION � CEQA ASSESSMENT Application received (12/11/85 Staff review/acceptance ( �� r o� 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUF BURLINGAME project address �� TACO BELL ��w�p'�� project name - if any ) ) 1. APPLICANT Calny, Inc. (Pamela Webber, Jim Harlan) 574-2455 name telephone no. 1650 Borel Place, Ste. 101, San Mateo, CA 94402 applicant's address: street, city, zip code V. Allan Palmer or Tytus Boleslawski 932-8651 contact person, if different 1^C 1teCt ra telephone no. D1I11eYPE OF A�PL15AOTION ' Broadway, Walnut Cree�, CA 94596 Speci�l Perr^it ( X) Variance* O Ccndominium Perr.iit O Other *Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SPECIAL PERMIT to allow a take-out food service in 2,683 SF of existinq remodeled restaurant and beauty shop space located in Sub-Area A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (zoned C-1). From 5 to 15 full-time and 10-35 part-time employees would staff the restaurant which will operate approximately 12 hour - a da_y, seven days a week. From 650 to 750 customers per day are expected. A Special Permit is required because this is a take-out service in the C-1 district. (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s): ( 25.36.032 ) ( 4. PROPERTY IDEPaTIFICATION ( 029-153-120 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 APN lot no. block no. ( C-1 ) ( 3,792 zoning district land area, square feet Lawrence Lam (340-9300 land owner's name 349-8471 Reauired �yes) (no) (yes) (nol ( Burlingame Land Co. Map ) subdivision name N0. 2� Post Office Box 703 a d r e s, ur�ingame, CA 94011 Date received city zip code ( - ) Proof of ownershio ( ) Owner's consent to a!�plication 5. EXISTIP�G SITE CONDITIONS The proposed location is currentiv a restaurant and a beauty salon at the northeast corner of Burlin ame Avenue and Lorton Avenue. Required Date received (yes) (aa) (12�11�g5) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and cur5s; all structures and improvements; paved on-site parking; landscaping. (yes) (�a) ( " ) Floor plans of all buildings showinq: gross floor area �n � „ by tyoe of us�`on each floor plan. (yes) ) ( ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant). (o�ther) (n�) (12/ 11/85 j S� 1 etter Sof �ex�pl a�nati on ant) . *Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT PR�P�SAL (EXISTING BUILDING -- NO NEW FLOOR AREA CREATED) Proposed censi:ruction, �elova orade ( - SF) Second floor ( � SF) gross floor area First floor ( 2,6 g 3 SF) Third floor ( Q S�) Pro,ject Codn Pr000sal Requirement Front setback Si de setback 110 Ch tl Side yard Rear yard Project Cade Proposal Requirement Lot coverac�e Ruildine hei9ht I10 C h e Lar.dsca�ed area �n site pko.soace�- � 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) Full ti�e emoloyees on site Part ti�e employees on site Visitors/customers (��eekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Trip ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles EXISTING IPI 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS after after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM *Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES Located in a shoppinq district, the surrounding uses are retail in nature with some second story office space. This use conforms �o the General Plan. Required Date received (�� (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties. (3�� (no) ( - ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. fi rris ( ) no. empl oyees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. company vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( X) Other application type, fee 5 () 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 S (; TOTAL FEES $ 15� . �� RECEI PT N0. ZZ44 Recei ved by H. W'i � � 1 di11S I hereby certif under penal,ty of perjury that the information given herein is true and corr � ta the best o�f my knowl�dge and belief. Signature ` � 1%� . ,' � _ " � -, ._. Date �" "�' „ j -- Applicant , , STAFF USE O�1LY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. The City of Burlingame by on , 19 , completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: Cateqorically Exempt: Reference Code Section 15301, Existinq Facilities _1 r ' U'�.t _�i/l t�Q G �P� �. �� c� Si ature of Processing Official itle Da'te Si ned Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the c�ate posted, the deternination shall be final. DECLARATIO^J OF POSTI"!G Dat;e Posted: I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I oosted a true copy of the above Negati��e Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to th� Council Chambers. Executed at 3urlinoame, California on Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o 19 JUDITH�1. MALFATTI, CITY CLERK, CITY f�� ^uURLINGAPiE STAFF REVIEW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIO�d Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy: City Engineer Building Inspector Fi re Marshal Park Department City Attorney date circulated ( 12/12/85 ) � " ) � " ) � — ) � — ) reoly received (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOP! MEASUP,ES memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Concerns Mitio,ation Measures Will the proposal meet all Fire Request comments from the Fire and Building Code requirements? P•larshal and Chief Building Inspector. A tremendous amount of traffic Request comments from the will be generated -- impacts City Engineer. Review on nearby parking areas and availability of parking in streets needs to be addressed. the area. Is this use compatible with Restaurants are a permitted other uses in the area? use in this district. 3. CEQA REQUIREP•1E�lTS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject: Is the project subject to CEQA review? No - cateqoricall_y exempt. IF AP� EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study cor�oleted Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed ;tFP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR acce�ted by staff Circulation to other agencies � � � � � � � � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Study by P.C. Review period ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � � � � � � � 4. APPLICFTIOPI STATUS Date first received ( 12/11/85) Accepted as comolete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( ) Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 1/13/86) Is application ready for a public hearing?' (yes) /(no) Recor.rnended date (��'� 7� � 6 ) Date staff report mailed to aoplicant ( 1 �a��E ) Date Comnission hearing�(��7��') E.�.✓7. 7-C� ;,t / E. Application approved ( ) Denied ( Appeal to Council (,�es � no Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication aporoved ( ) Denied ( ) �— `Z•'� � signed date �ttC�l�'i�� DF� 11 i385 c�Tr� i�� LETTER OF EXPLANATION The proposed project located at the corner of Lorton and Burlingame Avenues consists of a remodel of an existing restaurant and small hair salon into a fast service Mexican style restaurant of 244Q1 square feet in size. The plan o.f the proposed restaurant consists of new Food Preparation Area, Storage Room, and Serving Spaces and the utilization of the existing Toilet Rooms and Dining Area for an approximate maximum of 74 seated diners. The numbe.r of customers are expected to total daily between 6f�P1 and 65f� persons on weekdays and 750 persons on weekends for approximately twelve (12) hours of operation. A daily total of 6fd employees will be employed on a full-time or part-time basis. Service deliveries will occurr approximately three (3) times a week between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. cylf�6 . d10 Qecember 17, 1985 T0: Helen Williams, Planner FR0�1: 8ob Qarry, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: . 1160 Burlingame Avenue I have reviewed the plans submitted for this project and have the following comment: l. Qasement is to be used for building services only. �� Bob Barry DATE : /Gf ll f i � / i MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER / CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR 1/ FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT � SUBJECT: �/�1��, f `Js�;-.=, j" a;;��a�, � �l�,� �`-�,�,f �,�;,ei� /� ` �G i. �/i '_ �'. /,, � , � ,: � !� /.' - //,+ f I' ! ! � / . ' � /' � � �„ �� ;' - J � � _„',��GL 1 ��, u . , .L �' I, �' ; • r,� . , An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ��I� � at tf�eir �j �,'%, meeting. We would appreciate having your comments by ��/ =� j .�' ��„ --7--T / � �� , 5' Thank you. ` � ��j. �} �_�; 4 �` /� rfr� / �'/` � %J � � /�a �! / /� �r�' �/ !/' -" �• . ' l � �� ! f=/l ►�� c�i s+rC. /Ttl C� � �L f Helen Towber Planner S� att. :��,� R l� �y� • , � � - �� rYl rG� / i � / � � � -� � � , , ��,c,v" ` ��"Lc.evt, T0: Planning FROM: Engineering DATE: January 8, 1986 r��+�tirr��► L�f-�f:1 :; .. i�� p�pL1NNING D� (COP1MUNICATION REC'D AFTER PREPARATION OF STUDY PACKET) RE: Special Permit for Take Out Food Service, 1160 Burlingame Ave In the light of the heavy parking demands in the area during the day, the proposed use should be carefully reviewed. The proposed use appears to be similar to the Burger King use at the other end of Burlingame Avenue. This use should generate a large amount of pedestrian traffic from the adjacent retail and commercial areas. This use should also generate a reasonable amount of vehicular traffic from out of immediate pedestrian access distances. This traffic must compete with the existing traffic in the area for the limited parking and roadway capacity that is available. No on site parking is proposed, however three City parking lots are available within a short walking distance. I reviewed standard data for the various types of restaurants, the existing use also being a restaurant, and compared the traffic estimates based on square footages. In my opinion the applicant's customer estimates could generate, using 50% of the customer count as generating traffic, at least 800 or more trips per day (a trip being a vehicular movement into or out of the area). This is somewhat less than a"Drive-In" restaurant at about 1350 trips per day for similar size. A high turnover sit down type restaurant may generate an average figure of 320 trips per day with 1350 trips per day as a mixumum. A quality restaurant, on the other hand, represents a much lower figure of 185 trips per day on the average. The existing restaurant, 1700 SF, could have generated from 125 or more trips per day based on a quality restaurant basis. The conclusion, in my opinion, is that the proposed use, as a high turnover, sit down type restaurant probably represents an increase demand on parking and traffic capacity of at least two (2) to as much as five (5) times the traffic over the existing restaurant, and at least twice that of a normal sit down restaurant. Peak hour demands, at lunch time, also appears to greatly increase, from 10 or so trips existing to in the neighborhood of 35 or more trips as proposed. If this permit is granted it should be subject to the following conditions: l. The applicant replace adjacent curb, gutter and sidewalk that is damaged. /� , / �, %� '`,,/ ,�:�`" % - � � � � _ '� /%;�. /- ` Z- �f�ank C. Erbacher City Engineer FCE:me Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR STUDY Page 9 January 13, 1986 11. SPECIAL PERMIT - GARAGE/CARPOR'I' STRUCTURE - 1320 BENITO AVENUE Requests: lot size of this property an3 adjacent properti�s (each side and at the rear); is there plumbing in the new garaqe; is there sufficient access radius for the carport. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. 12. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1609 TROUSDALE DRIVE Requests: is pedestal part of the sign; drawing indicating the effect of 7-1/2" letters, overlay or second drawing showing 4" letters; why were 4" letters required in the C-3 zone. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. 13. TWO SPECIAL PERMI'I'S - WINDi�IARK HOTEL - 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: turning radius channel to facilitate turn at the bottom of the ramp; fire access; number of rooms on first floor; are lap pool and exercise room for quests only; what does "DD" in3icate on the plans; statement from applic3nt in justification of exceeding the shoreline view corri3or guideline. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. 14. 1'ENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL :�'IAP - 880 STANTON ROAD It�m set for hearing January 27, 1986. 15. SPECIAL PERi�III' - SALE OF USED CARS - 1304 :KARSTEN ROAD Property owner's letter of consent to the application has not yet been received. Commission requests: who parks where on this property; is J&B Auto the only business on the site; how many businesses operate from the site. Item will be set for hearing when application is complete and Commission's questions answered. 16. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS - TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE - 224 CALIFORNIA DR. Requests: clarification of trip volumes and parking; comparison with a similar franchise of this size to obtain actual figures; how do they propose to store vehicles they will use; number of employees; hours of operation. Item will be set for hearing when information is complete. �17. SPECIAL PERMIT - TAiZE-OUT FOOD SERVICE - 1160 BURLINGAi�'IE AVENUE Requests: number of employees/customers for the existing restaurant; explain the exoected 550-750 customers per day figure, how was this calculated. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. Pa_qe 10 Burlingame Planning Commission �Iinutes January 13, 1986 18. TWO VARIANCES - OFFICE At�DITION - CORPORATION YARD 1361 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE Requests: what kind of f�ncing will be used for the generator; on-site landscaping. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. PERMIT REVIEWS The following permits were reviewed and approved: - 840 Hinckley Road - Amfac �Iainland Federal Credit Union - 1645 Rollins Road - Star Excavation truck parking - 1250 Rollins Road - D&M Towing ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Zoning Aide memo, dish antenna at 2017 Easton Drive - Planner memo, driveway entrance for Lot 5, 5-lot subdivision, corner Las Piedras and Mariposa Drives PLANNER REPOR'I' CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 6, 1986 meeting. Commission requests: - research extending the oarking exemption for first floor r�tail in Sub-Area A to Sub-Area B and Broadway. - investigate abuse of the master sign program for the Adeline Market. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary ✓ . ' ��c�iv�o .ia�j ;� #. i3s6 a�� ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS 'S; ' NORTH BROADWAY. SUITE 3CC WALNUTCRFFK,CAIIFORNIA 94596-4233 415-932-8651 January 20, 1986 Ms. Helen Williams City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Williams: The information requested by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission for the above referenced project is as follows: 1. The average number of existing employees at the Village Lantern are: a. Lunch - 12 b. Dinner - 15 2. The average number of customers to existing Village Lantern Restaurant are: a. Lunch - 150 b. Dinner - 200 3. The total number of seats at the Village Lantern are - 80 /N TNE l�it'0.,��GT .4�;�'i��C.QifL�� 4. The statistics�were derived from the current and projected operations at an existing Taco Bell located at 2740 Taylor Blvd., San Francisco, CA. This facility closely resembles the anticipated usage for the Burlingame store. Ms. Helen Williams -2- January 20, 1986 In addition to the above information a traffic survey of the Burlingame Avenue area is to be taken on Tuesday, January 21, 1986. The data from this survey will be made available to you and the commission prior to the commission meeting. If you should have futher questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS � � ��, L�Ea�.— �� -E �...�_ V. Allan Palmer Project Manager VAP:ks cc: Dick Montgomery/Calny Tytus Boleslawski, Project Architect Nick Bevilacqua, V. P. Planning Division CY106/C cy106.120 � ; � � ��.�� _t. a �da. � � . �. � , .� � � � �� i} � �., � i /, . r, . :� � �� i . � /!• 1' •; �� , f /" �� / :r� � . � � ��/ '�. � + .♦ • � M i . , � 4: � � F� i�,.,,'/�` ' , , .��r� f� .. ' 3. �� i�" . *- .}i�.v ` - .►,� � � tI • �'3 ' �,�„�. �"'� -_�. � '�'"20 � �.�' ��" . o . T� � � ti � .:.+ �� ' `f : I Y I � ' _ . r �� ` � �OU� '� ( r � � ^ • A+ � � i` � � , �*� ' �' �,�{`� `"'": � � �� r f � � ti� '� �� d �� f �^ � d �� {' ' � � � ��i' � --"� �;d+�.�� /' � �J �' ' � T�� } ,::►' . Q� �� _ � , �i ' • _ . �� - � • �. �\ �� . . �' � � . , .�''� -�,r.�, _�,� �9 � '� � �. , a:�� , � � � ��-� " > �f '�f�� A " /�., �� r 9 -� .� � �,. '��; ' � �= ' � �,� , , � �� .. �� y � ,� \ i" '� ',P'kO�pS E l� . .. �` � S• P, r'�, �! .I,� : � i}e o 6 �' DEPb E t o r ' �, ocATz � " - . � �.� , f, 1'G. ; , , � ,�, . � � � � " ,� -,, ,. � � �r ,�. ,, „ , / � r L � . f�� ,''�� i� , r� . EL� �. _ 1 � .�� ._ � �;��, � �- _• o � y-, ' ,, � �j� .� �� - � ; �^ � : F � � � , �\�� " � r ■ �.` O •�,L� `,r � ��\\`\\9�:%, •�� j�� { � � �,,� � � --'-: : :-., s � � �-� � �� r� � � �� _ � �.. •; , ; , . ,, �' .. � � � ��'��'°:; S .� ! � . ,,�, w .� • .;, . ��s6 ,� ./ '� , �'k 1� �- T „ ••; ;, , � _�_�F ,_ � , _ ~ , 60 � �. = F � `1 -�*�// � _ A� � \ � �_ ,— � �f + '� " \ •�' i �/ _ `� � _ � � ,�` ,�, G � :► . . � oy . . � � . �J . .� , . �' , �'' • ;. s— • , �.r L ,� _ r' .� � . �'_ � / � . r � � ` � � ��; � / � ' . . � . �,--- a -� '� � �.-, ' �. ' . � y� � * _ . �`' - , . � • �, ,. '` ,t ,; .�. �' � �, . . � -� � � * ��\v f` ,. • +�+ C- i M ' / ' , �.. . � , r' �� ,' �� . . � �. �� '�' � � `� / l . � . .. �� ... .� ` K � �r l ' .' ^ �� w ♦ �� • '' � i 1�^ I� � �� ' � r �., ,^�. �, ! IA[^ , _IA�� I � „ y� .. � �C7 s I " � ��' � �� - � � e. �• �.- \ < ,� �� ' * _ (_ r r�� a _ � ` ,i O. . .P� .�' f � 7` � _ t ^ ` � `\'�,@ � }�_ �fi. �� y � /� /` /` , � . �• �p �- i � ��„ �; . - v I _ � , r \ : -- a , BURUNGAME L o/ O Juni b. i� IzL> Litu uf �,�itrlirt��tYn�� - SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE RO.�.D BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:'415: 342-893I NOTICE OF HEARING SPECIAL PERMIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 27th day of January, 1986 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Qurlingame will conduct a public hearing on the application to allow a take-out food service at 1160 Burlingame Avenue which is in Sub-Area A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, zoned C-1 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 PLAN�lER January 17, 1986 � RESOLUTI0�7 N0. i RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PER!•fITS � RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that; i i; WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit ' fo= a take-out food ser�ice �� !' at 1160 Burlinpame Avenue ��,, 029-153-120 �, '� and � I i WHEREIIS, this Commission held a public hearing on said ' application on January 27 ,19a 6 i]OI9 TiiEREFOR�, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERPIINED bv this Planning Commission that said special permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "�1" attached hereto. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of iSan tlateo. � ' A. !4. Garcia Chairman Z, ROBERT J. LEAHY, Secretary of the Planning ' Commission of the City of Burlinaame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular � meeting of the Planning Commission held on the l�til day of Fehruar�� ,198 6, by the following vote: AYES: COidMISSIONERS: NOES: C0:4MISSIOt:ERS: ABSENT: CO:•II�IISSIONERS: Rober2 J. Leahv 11/2/84 Secretary � RECEIVED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED � �� /Y-" �fa h'�-�` T��3� �3�%/ R�cErvEd .�Ar131 1986 ��- /�J.s - d lo�ro ��, �e� � CJGt/� �4'/�//�/ J�S 1�'J 5�-� ipo/-%� m�, !i �/� G�/ir1,� L'� T G� EJ 'G / �/� �Lt/�//,��t?'/7'l -� �� G . �� /�S � b � �`h Q/�� e�� /� �'✓yg�� i;'a� � i i'� / V ✓ e.v/� �x, l�i7 4'..SsGl� �✓G %�' �G� C� ��lE: , G��d'�J /�G/> — Cr�c�'�O/ G'r/�iJ {cC� �'��S � �f/ d'�1 TS d�a ��/�--/r��c � v��>� � . �'e /� c� /�s:s ��c �/c Q�� r�7L �� r�_s U�� a�� e�-6��1 rr�f��ari�7� ��7'L �./� ��`- �/"!ll,a/! .s UrJ /o �� J � e,e7S Q� /�l /O j��'!4 �.!/�S n � f�� ds�l �1 d249e`r� �!� �cic'I�SS�{' �� 7�j � Llv�c'G . �i�� `j tia� —o�17L �y-�9�i �s�, 6�= ��d' . �Y �/s Q��i�� o��-��, l�Qs��(� ��/ LT��T�5S�s1s ih .�49 Or�id'P�a'/ �� CJ2Gir,C�� A � �'�C;J-r� S7'`��e� � ,�l10i.,'r� ��,-� ; �ur/�..�� , C�a �iv RECEIVED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED , � `. , . (-�-� SALAMAN DER R�. �► IG � 11 r Y FEB 4 - 1986 �p�µni� ��, W. GERMANY'S FAVORITE SHOE City of Burlingame Planning Dept. Attn: Meg Monroe 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: opposing Taco's on Burlingame Ave. Dear Ms. Monroe, ;�'pR�i'F �QW !4M ANo SALAMANDER SHOES 1227 BURLINGAME AVE. 347-3420 BURLINGAME, CALIF. 94010 Feb. 1, 1986 as the owners of Salamander Shoes we wish to voice our opinion against the opening of Taco Bell on Burlingame Ave. Being in our present location for over 20 years we have seen the parking and traffic situation going from fair to bad to worse. Our retail customers have complaint bitterly over the past 5 years over not being able to find a parking space within a 4-5 block area of the avenue particularly during peak hours. The comments, " that the Avenue is soon a" Food Alley " and not attracting new shoppers " have been numerous! Not to mention the trash from the take-out Restaurants. Nick Bevilacqua has a very uppidy nonsensical attitude of a" self correcting " parking and traffic problem. If Taco Bell can affort 16 less people visit the store, the rest of the retail merchants on the Avenue and side Streets surely can not affort this loss in their establishments! Why not take a survey of the merchants and their customers, on the Avenue and the side Streets. Hoping this matter can be resolved, we remain with kind regards, �.z ��..�.� :':--.�z,x. e _-/. Theo & Gerlinde Pospischil c.c Chamber of Commerse