The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About200 California Drive - Staff Report (2)Y _ � MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: SUBJECT: ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD 1,482 SF OF OFFICE AND PARTS STORAGE SPACE AT 200 CALIFORNIA DRIVE FOR ARATA PONTIAC P.C. 2/26/79 Item No. 2 This application by Arata Pontiac is described by the attached Project Assessment and the January 24, 1979 letter from David James Arata. Negative Declaration ND-196P was posted February 14, 1979 for this project with the conclusion that "the code requirement for this new floor area is 3 additional on-site parking spaces. These spaces cannot be provided by the applicant. As mitigation, Planning Commission Res. No. 3-76 (as amended by Council) requires a fee equal to 40% of the cost to the City to provide these additional 3 parking spaces, this fee to be paid into a fund for the provision of future additional downtown public parking". Both the Engineering Department and the Fire Department have reviewed this application. The January 31, 1979 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector confirms that the proposed plans meet code and that he has "no objections to the approval of this application". The February 10, 1979 memo from the Assistant City Engineer reports that the current cost of one new parking space is $7,871., of which an applicant's share is $3,149. As a substitution for the three parking spaces required by code to match the new floor area to be added at 200 California Drive, a fee of $9,447. should be required as a condition of this permit. The February 20, 1979 letter from Mr. Arata to the Burlingame City Council which appeals the code requirement of additional �arking (and implicitly appeals the alternative fee of $9,447.) is attached for information. Given the modest size of the proposed addition, and the fee which City policy requires of the applicant for future additional downtown parking, staff recommends that this special permit be approved. Recommended conditions for Commission review at the public hearing are: 1. that all alterations to the building be done with a Building Permit and consistent with the plans date stamped January 22, 1979. 2. that three additional on-site parking spaces be provided at 200 California Drive, or a fee of $9,447. be paid to the City of Burlingame prior to the approval of a Building Permit. J � R. �-1- JRY/s John R. Yo 2/21/79 Assistant City Planner cc: Mr. David James Arata Mr. Paul Gumbinger „- +�, l�ROJECT �►SSESSfl�EPJT ,��;��.� .. . . .�`��..:�3 � :� 200 CALIFORNIA DRIVE � � 63U4;�LINGAME � 1/26/79 2/21/79 =;..�r�, project address date date '�oq�''��.! .T�';�� ARATA PONTIAC , prepared revised °°•TE�_��”` project name - if any 1. APPLICANT David James Arata of Arata Pontiac 347-5431 name telephone no: 200 California Drive, Burlingame, CA. 94010 applicant's address: street, city, zip code Paul Gumbinger 347-3089 contact person, if different telephone no. 3 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION AND Special Permit to add 1,482 SF of floor area to the PROJECT DESCRIPTION existing building at 200 Cali'fornia Drive. This property is in the Burlin�ame Avenue Area Off-Street Parkinq District, but since the present building has 21,711 SF, the proposed addition will r__equire either 3 additional on-site parking spaces be provided (which isn't aractical) or a financial contribution be made toward additional public parking. The new addition will be an extension of the present Ref. code section(s): ( 25.72.020 )( � second oor a cony, and will provide 599 SF PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION of office space and 883 SF of parts storage. ( 029-213-040 )(portion of Block 16) ( Town of Burlingame ) APN block no. subdivision name ( C-2 ) ( 22,800 SF ) zoning district land area, square feet Marion & Sarah Boling (yes) (no) X (yes) X_ (no)_ land owner's naine proof of ownership owners consent to filed application filed 4. PROPERTY: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Required Date received (Yes) ��s�= ( 1/22/79 ) �YeS) d�e�= i 1/22/79 ) d�� (no) ( -- ) d�� (no) ( -- ) (other) ( ) 5. PROJECT PROPOSAL Front setback Side setback Side yard Rear yard Lot coverage Building height Landscaped area On-site pkg.spaces Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks arid curbs; all structures and improvements; paved on-site parking; landscaping. Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area by type of use* on each floor plan. Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant). Site cross section(s) (if relevant). Project Code after Proposal Requirement 8-5 5 PM �,o Ful l ti me empl oyees on s i te 30 41 i 5-11 ~ ra,��a,�� Part time employees on site - i - c. 1 Visitors/customers (weekday)i 60 ', 5-10 - - ------ ,�� p� a Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.), � � - e-{-�'e ,,� �o`'e Residents on property i � I - .�� e�`� � Trip ends to/from site j100-12Q 10-20 '�re 1� Peak hour trip ends i 40 + 10 0 3** Trucks/service vehicles �, - �- I . **There are approx. 7 existin _on-site e terior_parking spaces. H ever,�the �.ili�.sJ�i.� i s.�rs�.e tly _6, 711 SF over th 15_,_QDQ_ SF al 1 owed per__1 t i n t e Parking District. P.C. Res No. 3-76 as amended by Council) r quires a fee : e ua fi-to" �� 0%� o f-�t provi de t he a d di tiona T- par ing T s�aces required by t e l, 8 F o new construction.� * Land use classifications are: residential (�1 dwelling units); o.ffice use; retail sales; resi;aurant/cafe; n�anuTacturing/re��air shop; waretrousiny; other (to be described). � � . �'. *Sanborn Map is attached. 6. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES ' Required Date received �3�� (no) * ( -- ) �� (no) ( -- Arata Pontiac is the sole tenant in this building. ) Location plan of adjacent properties/written description of adjacent land uses. Other tenantslfirms on property: no. firms ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. company vehicles at this location ( ) 7. STAFF REVIEW � Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply receivec Ci ty Engi neer ( 1/26/79 ) ( Yes ) ��_ Building Inspector ( 1/26/79 ) =f�`5� (no) Fire Inspector ( 1/26/79 ) (yes) d*18�= Police Department ( -- ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( -- ) (yes) (no) memo attached (Yes ) =�i1$� �3�'�� (no) iYeS) ��_ (yes) (no) (yes) (no) 8. CEQA REQUIREMENTS Is project subject to CEQA review? (yes) _�_ Has a Pleaative Declaration been prepared and signed? (yeS) �� File No. ND-196 P. ' date signed (2/14/79 ) Is an EIR required? �� (no) When will the RFP be circulated? ( ) 9. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSI6LE MITIGATION MEASURES Concerns The 41 employees based at 200 Cali,fornia Drive require off-site parking on the Southern Pacific property immediately behind the building. Mitigation Measures --------- ------------- -------- - ---- Discuss the details/length of the Southern Pacific lease with the applicant at the public hearing. *The amount required has been calculated by the Asst. City Engineer to be $3,149. per pkg. space: $9,447. to ta 1. Additional on-site parking isn't Require payment of $ fee* consistent practical. with P.C. Res. 3-76 (as amended by Council) to City of Burlingame for additional public off-street parking. Will the addition result in more Appllcant states no additional employees employees at this location? will be added; "the proposed addition will be used as executive offices for - -- ------- - the owners of the business". 10. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 1/22/ 79) Accepted as complete ( 1/2 4/ 79) P.C. study (2/8/ 79 ) Is application ready for a public fiearing? (yes) _�� Recommended date (2/26/79 ) Date staff report mailed to applicant (2/22/79 ) Date Commission hearing (2 /26/ 7g ) Application appr•oved ( ✓' ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (ye� � (no) `--�� i:e-v Date Council hearing ( 3j��'7,,) Apolica i approved ('� Denied ( )�� ; �( � ��+'h.� � , di� 2/21/79 �rX�`� signed date