The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About851 Burlway Road - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame ITEM #2 Parking Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Expand the Floor Area of an Existing Office Building Address: 851 Burlway Road Meeting Date: 3/8/99 Request: Pazking variance (160 spaces provided; 239 spaces required) and conditional use permit to allow a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.93 (0.9 FAR is the maximum allowed for office development by the Specific Area Plan) to expand the floor area of an existing 63,895 SF office building by 9936 SF at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. (C.S. 25.43.030 (1) and 25.70.040) Applicant: Larry M. Lyons APN: 026-112-130 Property Owner: Westates Venture Inc. Lot Area: 81,929 SF/1.88 Acres General Plan: Waterfront Commercial Zoning: O-M Adjacent Development: Offices, Hotel, Warehouse CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(e)(2), Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF, and if all public facilities are available for maximum development permissible in the general plan, and the site is not in an environmentally sensitive area. Previous Use: 63,895 SF Office Building and 2500 SF Storage Building/Garage (0.81 FAR) Proposed Use: 73, 831 SF Ofiice Building and 2500 SF Storage Building/Garage (0.93 FAR) Allowable Use: offices are permitted; density in excess of 0.9 FAR requires a conditional use permit. History: The existing ofiice building at this site was built in 1962 and had 171 parking spaces at that time. In 1984, a building permit was approved for a storage building with 6 covered parking spaces; 174 parking spaces were required and provided at that time. Since then, the parking lot has been restriped and now contains 160 parking spaces and the site does not meet its cunent parking requirement. The enclosed storage and parking structure remains on site. The entire building as well as the proposed addition are being evaluated based on cunent code requirements for parking. Summary: The applicant, Larry Lyons, is requesting a parking variance and conditional use permit to allow the addition of 9936 SF of office area to an existing ofiice building at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. The following applications are required: 1. A 79-space parking variance is required for providing 160 parking spaces where 239 parking spaces are required; 2. A conditional use permit is required for increasing the floor area ratio (FAR) to 0.93 FAR where 0.9 FAR is the maximum allowed for office development by the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan; and 3. Approval of an additional trafiic allocation for the net increase of 0.12 FAR (9936 SF) to the 0.81 FAR of the existing ofiice development (0.93 FAR total). PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 851 Burlway Road The existing building has projections at the floor level of floors 2 through 7 which extend four feet beyond the windows. The applicant intends to install a new curtain wall over the exterior of this concrete ledge and to remove the existing exterior walls. This will result in an increase of 1656 SF of useable floor area per floor (floors 2 through 7), for a total increase of 9936 SF. The existing tenant spaces will be expanded to incorporate this additional floor area. T�affic Study: The applicant provided a parking study for the proposal, prepared by Richard Hopper, RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering. The parking study analyzed the existing and proposed parking demand from the ofiice building. Parking surveys were conducted on two separate business days. On Thursday, January 21, 1999, the maximum parking occupancy was found to be 119 spaces at 2:00 p.m. On Wednesday, January 27, 1999, the maximum observed parking occupancy was 118 spaces at 11:00 a. m. The parldng study notes that this peak parking occupancy is less than would be expected for a building this size. Based on published data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a building of this size would normally require 163 parking spaces. He notes that based on the useable floor area of the existing building, excluding the large hallways and lobby area, the projected peak demand would be for 121 spaces. The parking study notes that the 9936 SF area added by the curtain wall will provide a small amount to the existing leased area for each of the tenants in the building. He notes that initially, there will not likely be an increase in parking demand. The demand will increase as new tenants move into the larger tenant spaces. The projected peak parking demand for the modiiied building is expected to be 137 spaces. Based on this analysis, the parking study recommends a minimum of 158 parking spaces for the modiiied building. The parking study notes that the peak parking demand for the existing office building is significantly less than the current supply of pazking and a conservative projection of parking demand for the modiiied building will still be less than the current supply. Unless occupancy density significantly increases, there is no need to increase the current supply of parking spaces for the modified building floor area. Staff Comments on Parking Study: The City Engineer notes (February 26, 1999 memo) that the traffic study recommendation of adequate parking spaces is based on the assumption that there is only 45,100 SF of usable floor area in the existing building. Since there is no guarantee that the useable floor area won't be increased inside the building by tenant improvements, the minimum city code requirements for on-site parking should be met. Planning staff would note that the study was also based on the current mix of tenants in the building, and future ofiice tenants could have a denser occupancy. In general, the City's parking standard for offices of 1 space for each 300 SF of floor area has proven to be sufficient parking based on the average parking demand for a variety of office uses and sized office buildings throughout the city. Traffic Allocation and Compliance with the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan: The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan specified development densities are derived by computing the traffic which would be generated by different land uses. Office buildings are limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.9. The existing office and storage buildings have an FAR of 0.81. The 9938 SF addition 2 PARKING VAWANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 851 Burlway Road to the existing 66,395 SF for the office building and the storage building on the 1.88 acre site results in an FAR of 0.93, which exceeds the density requirement of the plan. If the Commission determines to approve the project, the action will also include approval of an additional traffc allocation for the net increase of 0.12 FAR (9936 SF) over the FAR of the existing office development. The proposed office addition is projected to generate an additional 15 p.m. peak hour trips. This proposal will exceed the traffic allocation allotted for this site (at 0.9 FAR) by 4 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The projected intersection capacity consumed by this project and the total projected consumed capacities for the three key intersections in the Anza area based on existing and currently approved projects and this proposal are listed in the table below. This analysis of consumed capacity includes the traffc allocations granted for the office building at 577 Airport Boulevard, for the hotel development at 765 Airport Boulevard, the hotel expansion at 835 Airport Boulevard, and the hotel expansion at 600 Airport Boulevard. It should be noted that the office proposal at 577 Airport Boulevard has been developed at a density of 0.46 FAR, where the Specific Area Plan allows development of up to 0.9 FAR. Therefore, there is a surplus of vehicle trips from this site in the traffic analyzer. Some of this surplus could be considered to offset the excess of 4 p.m. peak hour trips generated by this project as it was for the excess if 36 p.m. peak hour trips generated by the addition to the Doubletree Hotel, and the 87 p. m. peak hour trips generated by the hotel expansion at 600 Airport Boulevard. There is also an application under consideration to convert conference space to 13 additional hotel rooms at an existing hotel at 777 Airport Boulevard. This other proposal would exceed its traffic allocation (at 65 rooms per acre) by 7 p.m. peak hour trips. If both of these current applications were approved, 36% of the surplus would be used. Capacity Consumed - Existing + Approved Projects Bayshore Hwy/US 101 Bayshore Hwy/Airport Airport/Coyote Point 71.3% 79.02% 64.05 % Capacity Consumed - This Project 0.23 % 0.44 % 0.05 % Capacity Consumed - 777 Airport 0.07% 0.03 % 0.06% Total Consumed Capacity 71.60% ZA�� 64.16% The hours of operation of the ofiice building varies by tenant. There are currently 90 full-time and 25 part-time employees on site before 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 50 full-time and 25 part-time employees on site after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. On weekends, there are 50 part-time employees on site before 5:00 p. m. The applicant has indicated that the number of full-time employees will decrease in 5 years to 80 before 5:00 p. m. and to 40 after 5:00 p. m. The number of part-time employees is expected to stay the same. There will be a maximum of 135 employees and customers/visitors on site at any one time. No trucks or service vehicles are expected to park on the site for this business. Attached is a list of current tenants and the number of employees for each. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Ofiicial notes (December 7, 1998 and February 16, 1999 memos) that the applicant shall provide a complete engineering analysis with building plan check submittal to verify that existing vertical and lateral structural systems are capable of handling the 3 PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8s1 Burlway Road additional load. The Fire Marshal notes (December 7, 1998 and February 16, 1999 memos) that 1) protection shall be provided for the corridors from the elevator shaft; the elevators shall be separated from the corridor system as required by the Uniform Building Code; and 2) all requirements for existing high-rise buildings shall be met reladng to Appendix A-1-B-1 of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code. The City Engineer notes (December 7, 1998 memo) that the roof drainage shall be to the front street. Planning staff would note the observation that as office space increases in cost, the intensity with which it is used also often increases resulting in more employees per square foot of leased area. Proposed Use: Parking: * 160 spaces Existing *66,395 SF Office & Storage Buildings (0.81 FAR) 160 spaces Allowed/Req' d. Conditional Use Permit for exceeding 0.9 FAR space for each 300 SF of office; 1/ 1000 SF for storage/mechanical: (239 spaces total) * Conditional use permit for office building which exceeds 0.9 FAR (0.93 FAR proposed) and parking variance (160 spaces proposed; 239 spaces required). This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Maureen Brooks Planner c: Larry Lyons, applicant *76,331 SF Ofiice & Storage Buildings (0.93 FAR) 4 City of Burlingame ITEM #� Parking Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Expand the Floor Area of an Existing Office Building Address: 851 Burlway Road Meeting Date: 3/22/99 Request: 69-space parking variance (170 spaces provided; 239 spaces required) and conditional use permit to allow a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.93 (0.9 FAR is the maximum allowed for ofiice development by the Specific Area Plan) to expand the floor area of an existing 63,895 SF office building by 9936 SF at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. (C.S. 25.43.030 (1) and 25.70.040) Applicant: Larry M. Lyons APN: 026-112-130 Property Owner: Westates Venture Inc. Lot Area: 81,929 SF/1.88 Acres General Plan: Waterfront Commercial Zoning: O-M Adjacent Development: Ofiices, Hotel, Warehouse CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15341 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(e)(2), Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF, and if all public facilities are available for maximum development permissible in the general plan, and the site is not in an environmentally sensitive area. Previous Use: 63,895 SF Office Building and 2500 SF Storage Building/Garage (0.81 FAR) Proposed Use: 73,831 SF Office Building and 2500 SF Storage Building/Garage (0.93 FAR) Allowable Use: offices are permitted; density in excess of 0.9 FAR requires a conditional use permit. History: The existing ofiice building at this site was built in 1962 and had 171 parking spaces at that time. In 1984, a building permit was approved for a storage building with 6 covered parking spaces; 174 parking spaces were required and provided at that time. Since then, the parking lot has been restriped and now contains 160 parking spaces and the site does not meet its current parking requirement. The enclosed storage and parking structure remains on site. The entire building as well as the proposed addition are being evaluated based on current code requirements for parking. Summary: The applicant, Larry Lyons, is requesting a parking variance and conditional use permit to allow the addition of 9936 SF of ofiice area to an existing office building at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. Please note that the application has been revised because the applicant proposes to restripe the parking lot to provide 170 parldng spaces (134 standard, 30 compact and 6 disabled accessible spaces). The following applications are required: 1. A 69-space parking variance is required for providing 170 parking spaces where 239 parking spaces are required; 2. A conditional use permit is required for increasing the floor area ratio (FAR) to 0.93 FAR where 0.9 FAR is the maximum allowed for office development by the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan; and 3. Approval of an additional traffic allocation for the net increase of 0.12 FAR (9936 SF) to the 0.81 FAR of the existing office development (0.93 FAR total). PARRING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85l Burlway Road The existing building has projections at the floor level of floors 2 through 7 which extend four feet beyond the windows. The applicant intends to install a new curtain wall over the exterior of this concrete ledge and to remove the existing exterior walls. This will result in an increase of 1656 SF of useable floor area per floor (floors 2 through 7), for a total increase of 9936 SF. The existing tenant spaces will be expanded to incorporate this additional floor area. Traffic Study: The applicant provided a parking study for the proposal, prepared by Richard Hopper, RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering. The parking study analyzed the existing and proposed parking demand from the office building. Parking surveys were conducted on two separate business days. On Thursday, January 21, 1999, the maximum parking occupancy was found to be 119 spaces at 2:00 p. m. On Wednesday, January 27, 1999, the maximum observed parking occupancy was 118 spaces at 11:00 a. m. . The parking study notes that this peak parking occupancy is less than would be expected for a building this size. Based on published data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a building of this size would normally require 163 parking spaces. He notes that based on the useable floor area of the existing building, excluding the large hallways and lobby area, the projected peak demand would be for 121 spaces. The parking study notes that the 9936 SF area added by the curtain wall will provide a small amount to the existing leased azea for each of the tenants in the building. He notes that initially, there will not likely be an increase in parking demand. The demand will increase as new tenants move into the larger tenant spaces. The projected peak parking demand for the modiiied building is expected to be 137 spaces. Based on this analysis, the parking study recommends a minimum of 158 parking spaces for the modiiied building. The parking study notes that the peak parking demand for the existing office building is significantly less than the cunent supply of parking and a conservative projection of parking demand for the modiiied building will still be less than the current supply. Unless occupancy density signiiicantly increases, there is no need to increase the current supply of parking spaces for the modiiied building floor area. Staff Comments on Parking Study: The City Engineer notes (February 26, 1999 memo) that the traffic study recommendation of adequate parking spaces is based on the assumption that there is only 45,100 SF of usable floor area in the existing building. Since there is no guarantee that the useable floor area won't be increased inside the building by tenant improvements, the minimum city code requirements for on-site parking should be met. Planning staff would note that the study was also based on the current mix of tenants in the building, and future office tenants could have a denser occupancy. In general, the City's parking standard for offices of 1 space for each 300 SF of floor area has proven to be sufficient parking based on the average parking demand for a variety of office uses and sized office buildings throughout the city. 2 PARRING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 851 Burlway Road Traffic Allocation and Compliance with the Burlingame Bayfront Speci�c Area Plan: The Burlingame Bayfront Speciiic Area Plan specified development densities are derived by computing the traffic which would be generated by different land uses. Office buildings are limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.9. T'he existing office and storage buildings have an FAR of 0.81. The 9938 SF addition to the existing 66,395 SF for the office building and the storage building on the 1.88 acre site results in an FAR of 0.93, which exceeds the density requirement of the plan. If the Commission determines to approve the project, the action will also include approval of an additional traffic allocation for the net increase of 0.12 FAR (9936 SF) over the FAR of the existing office development. The proposed ofiice addition is projected to generate an additional 15 p.m. peak hour trips. This proposal will exceed the trafiic allocation allotted for this site (at 0.9 FAR) by 4 trips during the p. m. peak hour. The projected intersection capacity consumed by this project and the total projected consumed capacities for the three key intersections in the Anza area based on existing and currently approved projects and this proposal are listed in the table below. This analysis of consumed capacity includes the traffic allocations granted for the ofiice building at 577 Airport Boulevard, for the hotel development at 765 Airport Boulevard, the hotel expansion at 835 Airport Boulevard, and the hotel expansion at 600 Airport Boulevard. It should be noted that the office proposal at 577 Airport Boulevard has been developed at a density of 0.46 FAR, where the Specific Area Plan allows development of up to 0.9 FAR. Therefore, there is a surplus of vehicle trips from this site in the traffic analyzer. Some of this surplus could be considered to offset the excess of 4 p.m. peak hour trips generated by this project as it was for the excess if 36 p.m. peak hour trips generated by the addition to the Doubletree Hotel, and the 87 p.m. peak hour trips generated by the hotel expansion at 600 Airport Boulevard. There is also an application under consideration to convert conference space to 13 additional hotel rooms at an existing hotel at 777 Airport Boulevard. This other proposal would exceed its traffic allocation (at 65 rooms per acre) by 7 p.m. peak hour trips. If both of these current applications were approved, 36% of the surplus would be used. Capacity Consumed - Existing + Approved Projects Capacity Consumed - This Project 0.23 % 0.44 % 0.05 % Capacity Consumed - 777 Airport 0.07% 0.03 % 0.06% Total Consumed Capacity Bayshore Hwy/US 101 Bayshore Hwy/Airport Airport/Coyote Point 71.3% 79.02 % 64.05 % 71.60% 79.49 % 64.16% The hours of operation of the office building varies by tenant. There are currently 90 full-time and 25 part-time employees on site before 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 50 full-time and 25 part-time employees on site after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. On weekends, there are 50 part-time employees on site before 5:00 p.m. The applicant has indicated that the number of full-time employees will decrease in 5 years to 80 before 5:00 p.m. and to 40 after 5:00 p.m. The number of part-time employees is expected to stay the same. There will be a maximum of 135 employees and customers/visitors on site at any one time. No trucks or service vehicles are expected to park on the site for this business. Attached is a list of current tenants and the number of employees for each. 3 PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 851 Burlway Road Staff Comments: The Chief Building Ofiicial notes (December 7, 1998 and February 16, 1999 memos) that the applicant shall provide a complete engineering analysis with building plan check submittal to verify that existing vertical and lateral structural systems are capable of handling the additional load. The Fire Marshal notes (December 7, 1998 and February 16, 1999 memos) that 1) protection shall be provided for the corridors from the elevator shaft; the elevators shall be separated from the corridor system as required by the Uniform Building Code; and 2) all requirements for existing high-rise buildings shall be met relating to Appendix A-1-B-1 of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code. The City Engineer notes (December 7, 1998 memo) that the roof drainage shall be to the front street. Planning staff would note the observation that as office space increases in cost, the intensity with which it is used also often increases resulting in more employees per square foot of leased area. Proposed Existing Allowed/Req'd. Use: *76,331 SF Office & Storage *66,395 SF Ofiice & Storage Conditional Use Permit for Buildings (0.93 FAR) Buildings (0.81 FAR) exceeding 0.9 FAR Parking: *170 spaces 160 spaces 1 space for each 300 SF of office; 1/1000 SF for storage/mechanical: (239 spaces total) * Conditional use permit for office building which exceeds 0.9 FAR (0.93 FAR proposed) and parking variance (170 spaces proposed; 239 spaces required). This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Study Meeting: At the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission study meeting, the commission asked several questions regarding the project. The applicant has responded in the attached letter date stamped March 12, 1999. The commission asked why the parking lot had been restriped from 174 to 160 parking spaces. The applicant notes that when the building was bought by Westates in 1993, repairs were needed to the parking lot. The lot was patched and a slurry coat was applied. The owners followed the advice of the striping contractors, and the lot was laid out with 160 parking spaces. The applicant notes that the 160 spaces have been adequate for the 6 years that Westates has owned the building. The commission noted that the parking study projection recommends minimum parking for the site to be 158 spaces, why are only two more than the minimum being provided. The applicant states that according to the parking study, the estimated peak parking demand for the modified building is 137 parking spaces. The traffic study recommends a 15 % cushion above the 137 to minimize the need for people to look for a space in the lot. The conclusion of the traffic study states that unless occupancy density significantly increases, there is no need to increase the current supply of parking spaces for the modified building floor area. The commission noted that page 2 of the parking study states that the recommended parking is based on 45,000 SF of useable floor area and asked how that number was arrived at. The applicant has provided a chart in the letter dated March 12, 1999 which breaks down the floor area of the existing and proposed gross floor area to useable and unusable area. As requested by the Commission, the applicant 4 PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 851 Burlway Road has also provided floor plans of the proposed expansion showing the usable and unusable areas (see Sheets A-03, A-04, A-06 and A-09 date stamped March 12, 1999). According to the applicant, the existing building has 44,219 SF of useable area, and the unuseable area consists of lobbies, conidors, elevators, restrooms and stairwells. With the proposed expansion, there will be 53,357 SF of useable floor area. Planning staff would note that the zoning code parking requirement for office uses is based on gross floor area (see CS 25.08.264-1, definition of gross floor area) of the building, and lobbies, corridors, elevators, restrooms and stairwells are all included in the calculations for required parking. The commission noted that the applicant projects a decrease in the number of employees in 5 years with occupancy at 100%, please explain. The commission also asked the applicant to provide information on the number of customers who visit the site each week, and to provide the number of employees who car pool. The applicant notes that a high percentage of office tenants in Burlingame are entrepreneurs in a business requiring an office near the airport, and tenants want nice but not large offices because they travel extensively. This building works well for this type of tenant because it is close to the airport and the building configuration is designed for the smaller office user. He also notes that the trend in office space is for companies to provide an ofiice work area for young working parents who do most of their work at home and spend a minimal amount of time in the office. The applicant has provided a revised list of tenants date stamped March 12, 1999 which provides the information on number of visitors and employees who carpool for each tenant space. The applicant notes that it is difiicult to pinpoint the number of visitors on a weekly basis. Most of the tenants seldom have customers who visit the ofiice, and many of the tenants are not in the office during what would be considered regular business hours. The commission also asked if there were an error in the applicant's December 3, 1998 memo regarding a 31 space parking variance, did the applicant mean 79 spaces. The applicant notes that when the application was iirst submitted, the City's parking requirement based on gross floor area was not understood. This memo was written before staff calculated the total parking requirement. The commission noted that there is now only one disabled accessible parking space, how many will be required for the remodel of the building. Staff notes that for between 151 and 200 parking spaces, 6 disabled accessible spaces are required. There is now one disabled accessible space in the parking area adjacent to the building. The applicant has provided the attached site plan (sheet A1 date stamped March 16, 1999) which represents how the lot was striped in 1983 modified to provide the required disabled accessible spaces. This proposal includes 134 standard parking spaces, 30 compact spaces (20%) and 6 disabled accessible spaces, for a total of 170 spaces. The commission also asked if more spaces could be provided using a unistall coniiguration (8 '/z' x 19' parking spaces). The applicant states that the use of unistall spaces in the parking lot design is not a great help since there are not long runs of parking spaces. It is estimated that 4 spaces could be added using unistall design. The commission noted that other facades were looked at and rejected, please describe. The applicant notes that there is a severe problem with the cunent window system and major work is required. The existing window system is a single glazed window with aluminum mullions and aluminum spandrel, which is deteriorating from oxidation and rust. The seals around the windows have also failed resulting 5 PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85l Burlway Road in leakage of both water and air. The goal of the project was to completely redo the window system, minimize inconvenience to tenants, improve the aesthetics of the building, provide an energy efiicient system and use a system which can be easily installed. One option was to replace the windows in their current location. This was rejected because it would involve displacing or evicting tenants from one-half of a floor at a time. An engineering study was done to determine if a curtain wall could be attached to the outer edges of the existing ledges and the study showed that it could. The applicant then contacted eleven curtain wall companies and four responded. After reviewing these four proposals, it was determined that the proposed system, manufactured by Visionwall, conforms best to the criteria established by the owners of the building. Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved 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; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 0 PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SSI Burlway Road Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Afiirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 10, 1999, Sheets A-02 through A-13, and date stamped March 16, 1999, sheet A-1, pazlcing layout plan and shall provide a total of 170 parking spaces, 134 standard, 30 compact and 6 disabled accessible spaces, for a 69 space parking variance; 2. that the storage building with 6 covered parking spaces may be retained on the site, and the 6 covered parking spaces within the storage building shall never be converted to another use; 3. that the existing lobby areas and corridors shall not be converted to leasable office space; and 4. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Maureen Brooks Planner c: Larry Lyons, applicant 851burlw.sr % i4r` 'T � ' DURIJNQAMi CITY OF BURLIl�TGAME ��.� APPLICATION TO T�� PLANNING COMNIISSION Type of Application: Special Permit x Variance Other Project Address: 851 Burlway Road Assessor's Pazcel Number(s): APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: Larry M. Lyons* j��e; Westates Venture, Inc. Address: Box 652 Address:_ 851 Burlway Road, Suite 100 City/State/Zip: Burl inQame , CA 9 4 O 11 City/State/Zip: Burl inqame , CA 9 4 O 10 Phone (w) : 6 8 5- 0 8 91 Phone (w) : 3 4 2-14 7 0 (h): f�; 685-0894 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Alex Mortazavi/Habitat Address: 851 Burlway Road, Suite 610 City/State/Zip: Bur 1 inqame , CA 9 4 O 10 Phone (w): 579-4994 (h): . 579-2646 (h): fax: 342-1470 Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace existing glass windows and aluminum mullions with a new enerqy efficient and aestheticallv pleasinQ curtain wall system. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. �_ . �_-, �� . � _ .. �-.- --� ---� ' / 2 i y 8 Property Owner's Signat , - Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------------------ Date Filed: Fee: � � °'-'' � � �� X �, L 026-112-130 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: DEC �- � 1998 i;I�fY Or� BURLIIVUNfViE PLANNIN(; DFPT. � � BURS�NGAME �.' - , CIT`,' C�)F :U�LI��(;�,�:%1E �.�f��F��,r��r,E ;��F��IC;,�,T��i)r��S The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-dl. Your answers to the following questions will 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 exceptiona/ or extrao�dinary ci�cumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. This is a fully occupied multi-tenant office building. The foot print of the building remains the same with no changes in the set backs or landscaping requirements for the proposed facade changes. The current parking provided is more than adequate for the building tenants and visitors. b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. A parking variance is requested since technically the placement of the new curtain wall will add approximately 9,247 gross square feet to the building. The additional square footage is spread around the perimeter of the building, and is not concentrated in one area. Therefore, it is highly doubtful this addition will increase building occupancy. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ o� injurious to property or impro vements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or con venience. The proposed change to the facade of the building will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. � i s�ss ��.fm, Since the term general welfare is defined as meaning community good, this project will definitely provide a new benchmark for architectural improvement in the Burlingame Bayshore area. Ho w wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT This is an existing building. The proposed project does not affect the mass, bulk and character of the existing uses in the general vicinity. The proposed project will, however, improve the aesthetics of the Burlingame Bayshore area, and may stimulate better, higher: ,� potential uses on adjoining properties. �� - �� D E C - � 1998 CITY OF BURLIivuHi�ll PLANNING DF..PT. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the areal For example, is there a crsek cuttinp throu�h the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existinp structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood7 b. Exp/ain why the variance �equest is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship mighi resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception7 (i.e., havin� as much on-site parking or bedrooms7) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exceptionl Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the p�operty7 c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties7 If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphting, 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 welfare7 Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbagel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underflround storage tanks, sto�age of chemicals, situations 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 protection7 Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the st�ucture create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal►. �eneral we/fare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and developmentt 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)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicappedl d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodl If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existinfl architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structu�e compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no chanpe to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood7 Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and fleneral pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the character of the nei�hborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the fleneral vicinityl Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent v�rith othe� uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,sros�...+,,,, r� : A j sURLJNp/�.Mi COMI��RCIAL APPLICATIONS �4.....�... �' PLANrTING COMIVIISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM 1. 2. 3. 4. Proposed use of the site. Existing multi-tenant office building Days and hours of operation. varies by tenant Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). N/A Cunent and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: Existing 19 6 In 2 Years 19 0 � 5 Y�s 18 0 Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays Full-time 9 0 5 0 8 5 5 0 8 0 4 0 Part-time 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 Weekends Full-time - - - - - - Part-time 5 0 5 0 5 0 5. Current and projected mu�imum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Existing 2 0 In 2 Years 2 0 In 5 Years 2 0 Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays 15 10 10 10 10 10 Weekends � 7. ,� � What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): 135 Where do/will the owner & employees park? on s i te Where do/will customers/visitors park? on s i te Present or most recent use of site. Existing multi-tenant office building 10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of � list if necessary). ��• ��r� See attached '� 8 t;ITY UF C�U��NI;��ViE PLANNING DFPT �� Civil and Transportation Engineering I) li� t� l� ,l, PARKING STUDY 851 BURLWAY ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA February 4, 1999 Prepared for - Westates Venture, Inc. c/o Pan Pacific Realty, Inc. 1818 Gilbreth Road Suite 101 Burlingame, CA 94010 978 DeSoto Lane • Foster City, CA 94404-2928 •(650) 572-0978 • FAX: (650) 574-3150 PARKING STUDY 851 BURLWAY ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA February 4, 1999 STUDY PURPOSE The seven story office building at 851 Burlway Road known as the Westates Building is being remodeled. The existing exterior curtain walls are being replaced. In the replacement process, the building's gross floor area will increase due to the placement of the new curtain wall. The gross floor area of the building will increase from the existing 62,315 square feet to 71, 561 square feet, an increase of 9,246 square feet. The City has asked for a parking study to determine if the increase in floor area will require an increase in provided parking. EXISTING BUILDING The existing seven story building contains 62,315 square feet of gross floor area. Because of its original use as a bank/office building the amount of usable floor area is significantly lower than the gross floor area due to laxge hallways and lobby area. The usable floor area is 45,100 square feet and the rented floor area is 51,900 square feet. The building is presently fully occupied. There are presently 161 parking spaces on the site, 155 surface spaces and 6 covered spaces in a detached storage building. Parking is allowed on Burlway Road in front of the building. EXISTING PARKING DEMAND Thursday, 1 /21 /99 160 140 120 �oo so so 40 20 � � � p"E �;. �,� �,. � � i� � � �; � 4'; :4° 9:00 am 11:00 am 2:00 pm 4:00 pm Parking occupancy counts were taken on two separate week days in the building's parking lot. The first count was taken on Thursday, January 21, 1999. Counts were taken at 9:00 am, 11:00 am, 2:00 pm and 4:00 pm. The findings are shown on the chart at the left. The maximum parking occupancy was found to be 119 spaces at 11:00 am. -2- �� The second parking occupancy survey was made on Wednesday, January 27, 1999. The findings of the second survey are shown on the chart at the right. The maximum observed parking occupancy was 118 spaces 1t 1 1:�� aT11. � so 140 120 100 The parking occupancies are fairly consistent from the 80 first to the second day of observation. One can so conclude that the data is reasonable and representative ao of the typical parking demand at this office building. 20 PEAK PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Wednesday, 1/27/99 The peak parking occupancy is lower than one could expect from a building of this size. Based on published data by the Institute of Transportation Engineers', the peak parking demand for a commercial office building of this size is on the order of 163 spaces for a gross floor area of 62,300 square feet. However, when considering only the useful floor area of the building, 45,100 square feet, the projected peak parking demand is 121 spaces according to the ITE data. This is projection correlates closely to the observed peak parking demand. The City Zoning Code requires one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area for a commercial office building. That requirement equates to a parking supply of 208 spaces, or 47 spaces more than presently provided. The City requirement is not reasonable in light of the findings of the parking survey. The new exterior curtail wall will add a small amount to the existing leased floor area of each of the tenants of the building. It will not be a 9,246 square foot addition to the building in a single location but rather, it will be spread out around the perimeter of each of the seven floors of the building. If the additional floor area was in one location which could be leased to a new tenant, there would be an increase in the overall parking demand at the office building. Initially there will not likely be any increase in parking demand at the building as a result of the new exterior curtain wall. Over time there may be a slight increase in parking demand as new tenants move in to spaces based on recalculated floor areas. A conservative projection of peak parking demand based on the new square footage of the building assumes that the 9,246 square foot addition can be occupied at the same or higher density of persons that presently occupy the building. That assumption translates into a peak parking demand for the modified building of 137 spaces, or 24 spaces less than presently provided. � Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, Second Edition, 1987. -3- �� 9:OOam 11:00 am 2:00 pm 4:00 pm RECOMMENDED PARKING SUPPLY There is considerable variation in what the zoning code requires for this building, what is currently provided and what is actually used. The table below summarizes the parking requirements and projections for the existing and modified building. Existing Proposed Parking Issue Buildings Buildings Gross Floor Area, SF 69,115 79,459 Zoning Code Required Parking, Spaces 210 244 Provided Parking Spaces 161 161 ** Parking Deficiency Based on Zoning Code 49 83 Peak Parking Demand, Spaces 119 137 Minimum Recommended Parking Spaces* 137 158 Additional Spaces Needed to Meet 0 0 Recommended Minimum * 15% above peak parking demand to minimize circulation ** Could be increased to 174 spaces by reducing stall width and converting some spaces to compact car spaces. The minimum recommended parking supply is very close to that presently provided for the office building and the detached storage building. The current parking layout could be modified to provide an additional 13 parking spaces. Based on the current building occupancy, there is no overriding need to increase the parking supply. The current parking supply would only need to be increased if the building occupancy significantly increased for some reason. � � M� CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Peak parking demand for the existing office building is significantly less than the current supply of parking and a conservative projection of parking demand for the modified building will still be less than the current supply. Unless occupant density significantly increases, there is no need to increase the current supply of parking spaces on the building site for the modiiied building floor area. Recommendations 1. Evaluate the parking demand of the building no sooner than 6 months nor more than 12 months following completion of the modification work to determine if the maximum parking demand has increased to the point of needing additional parking spaces. 2. Based on the findings of the parking survey, modify, if necessary, the parking layout to provide additional on-site parking spaces. Richard K. Hopper, P.E. Principal -5- �� RE�EIVE�� WESTATES BUILDING 851 BURLWAY ROAD, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA TENANT INFORMATION DEC - 3 1998 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. SQ. # OF HRS.OF SUITE TENANT'S NAME FT. EMP. TYPE OF BUSINESS OPERATION COMMENTS 100 Mana er's Office 441 1 Various 101 USA InYI Tour 938 4 Travel A enc 108 Mid-Peninsula Yo a 1211 3 Yo a Studio 5-8 PM 151 Peninsula Postal Credit Union 1014 3 Credit Union 168 Christine K. Youn 1898 6 Insurance A enc 4 of 6 outside sales 200 Excel Home Care 1450 4 Medical Care 201 Mark Dohert 200 1 Com uter Software Various 202 Camino Com an #202&205 1513 6 Numismatic 205 Cesar S. Gerardo 248 2 Insurance A enc 206 Master iece Int'I 443 2 Custom Broker 207 A riculture Air Ex orts 415 1 Ex orter Various 208 Hardwell Tradin 388 1 Tradin Business 5 PM - 1 AM 209 Allstate Trade Grou 497 2 Tradin Business Various " 211 Microunit Com uter Cor . 331 1 Com uter Hardware Various 215 United S ecial En ineerin 321 1 En ineerin Various 216 Ar enbri ht Securit Inc. 1914 7 Securit Business 300 Swedcom Cor . 6247 8 Com uter Com an 301 Ma ic A. or Others 861 2 Tradin Various 309 Marianne Leon 503 1 Insurance Various 311 Blue Horizon 567 4 Tradin Various 400 Net Earnin 1380 8 Com uter Software 403 Suntech International 331 1 Tradin Various 407 Yun Hon Enter rises USA , Inc. 250 1 Tradin Various 408 Dale Me er Associates 1440 6 Architect 409 Charles Anderson 258 1 Real Estate A raisal Various 417 Winthro Insurance #415& 418 2876 8 Insurance A enc 6 of 8 outside sales 419 Travelink InYI & Ex Co. 718 3 Travel A enc 421 M.H.G. Ad'ustin Com an 250 1 Insurance A enc Various 500 Humex/Income Tax 598 2 CPA 501 Phoenix Mort a e Co. 1518 7 Mort a e 6 of 7 outside sales 503 Global Tradin of America, Inc. 280 1 Tradin Various 504 Peter Chang 358 1 InsurancelFinancial Various Plannin 506 Peter Becker 718 5 Com uter Software 508 Steve Lee 600 1 Telecommunication Various 515 Mitsukan U.S.A., Inc. 993 3 Vine er Com an 518 Robert H. Goe 1118 5 Law Firm 520 Youn & Youn LLP 814 3 Law Firm 525 Presti e Financial Co. 1076 8 Mort a e Com an 7 of 8 outside sales 600 Atlas-Asia Pacific 2400 10 Oil Product Exporter 7 of 10 outside sales 601 EGI Financial Corp. 1828 8 Real Estate Mortgage 7 of 8 outside sales #601,605&608 Com an 610 Habitat 1076 6 Architect 618 Master Consultant A enc 1076 7 Personnel Com an 5 of 7 outside sales 625 Com ubahn, Inc. 828 7 Com uter Software 627 Nasser Brothers Theaters 535 3 Theater/Movie Business 628 T.W. Construction 360 2 Construction Com an 700 H att Hotel 1888 8 Hotel Resort 6 of 8 outside sales 704 Midland Tradin Co. 166 1 Tradin Various 704-A James Jensen, Jr. 248 1 Tradin Various 705 Hi h Sea Travel 548 2 Travel Business 708 Ram Mobil Data of S.F., Inc. 260 1 Telecommunication Various 710 Pakistan InYI Airlines 750 3 Sales 711 Conce t International 1083 3 Architect 715 American Dealer Services 661 4 Auto Finance 716 National Purchasin 250 2 Food Purchasin 718 Dericco Enter rise & Stora e 250 1 Facto Re . Various 777 Servecomm Inc. 750 2 ComputerNenture Ca ital ... . �. ...�. �� :a.�: t ,�: `;�, ,1 A' `:� ; r. ; ;t�: WESTATES BUILDING 851 BURLWAY ROAD, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA TENANT INFORMATION 'a� �� fVIA R 1 21999 �:ITY OF BURLINrnnnr ��ANN l� " " SQ. # OF TYPE OF HRS. Special Mode of 'Weekly SUITE TENANT'S NAME FT. EMP. BUSINESS OPER. Remarks Trans ort Visitors 100 Mana er's Office 441 1 Various 101 USA Int'I Tour 938 4 Travel Agency 1-Bus 10 Ticket ick u 108 Mid-Peninsula Yo a 1211 3 Yo a Studio 5-8 PM After hrs. 151 Peninsula Postal C.U. 1014 3 Credit Union 168 Christine K. Youn 1898 6 Insurance A enc 4 of 6 o/s 2 200 Excei Home Care 1450 2 Medical Care 201 Mark Dohert 200 1 Com uter Software Various 202 Camino Company 1513 6 Numismatic 10 #202&205 205 Cesar S. Gerardo 248 2 Insurance A enc 206 Master iece InYI 443 2 Custom Broker 207 A riculture Air Ex orts 415 1 Ex orter Various 208 Hardwell Trading 388 1 Trading Business 5 PM - 1 AM 209 Allstate Trade Grou 497 2 Tradin Business Various 211 Microunit Com uter Cor . 331 1 Com uter Hardware Various 215 United S ecial En . 321 1 En ineerin Various 216 Argenbright Security Inc. 1914 7 Security Business 10 mostly b bus 300 Swedcom Corp. 6247 8 Computer Company 1-Bicycle 2-C/P 301 Ma ic A. or Others 861 2 Tradin Various 309 Marianne Leon 503 1 Insurance Various 311 Blue Horizon 567 4 Tradin Various 400 Net Earnin 1380 8 Com uter Software 1-Bic cle 403 Suntech International 331 1 Tradin Various 407 Yun Hon Enter rises 250 1 Tradin Various 408 Dale Me er Associates 1440 6 Architect 3 409 Charles Anderson 258 1 Real Estate A raisal Various 417 Winthrop Insurance 2876 8 Insurance Agency 6 of 8 o/s #415& 418 419 Travelink InYI & Ex Co. 718 3 Travel A enc 421 M.H.G. Ad'ustin Co. 250 1 Insurance A enc Various 500 Humex/Income Tax 598 2 CPA 2-C/P 501 Phoenix Mort a e Co. 1518 7 Mort a e 6 of 7 o/s 1-Bic cle 503 Global Tradin of America 280 1 Tradin Various 504 Peter Chang 358 1 Insurance/Financial Various Plannin 506 Peter Becker 718 5 Com uter Software 508 Steve Lee 600 1 Telecommunication Various 515 Mitsukan U.S.A., Inc. 993 3 Vine er Com an 518 Robert H. Goe 1118 5 Law Firm 3 520 Youn & Youn LLP 814 3 Law Firm 2 525 Presti e Financial Co. 1076 8 Mort a e Com an 7 of 8 o/s 600 Atlas-Asia Pacific 2400 10 Oil Product Exporter 7 of 10 0/5 601 EGI Financial Corp. 1828 8 Real Estate 7 of 8 o/s #601,6058608 Mort a e Com an 610 Habitat 1076 3 Architect 2-C/P 2 618 Master Consultant A enc 1076 7 Personnel Com an 5 of 7 o/s 625 Com ubahn, Inc. 828 7 Com uter Software 4-C/P 627 Nasser Brothers Theaters 535 3 Theater/Movie Bus. 628 T.W. Construction 360 2 Construction Co. 700 Hvatt Hotel 1888 8 Hotel Resort 6 of 8 o/s 704 Midland Tradin Co. 166 1 Tradin Various 704-A James Jensen, Jr. 248 1 Tradin Various 705 Hi h Sea Travel 548 2 Travel Business 1 o/s 708 Ram Mobil Data of S.F. 260 0 Telecommunication Various Main frame com uter 1 er mo. 710 Pakistan Int'I Airlines 750 3 Sales 711 Concept International 1083 2 Architect Projects in China 715 American Dealer Services 661 4 Auto Finance 716 National Purchasin 250 2 Food Purchasin 718 Dericco Enterprise & 250 1 Factory Rep. Various Stora e � 777 Servecomm Inc. 750 2 ComputerNenture Ca ital � ' � � � ROUTING FORM DATE: February 10, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for an addition to an existing office building at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M, APN: 026-112-130. (Revised Plans) SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: T�esday, February 16, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben Z�1 Date of Comments �� G�r�- ��•� �� 2�� s�s � ,(/�'�� a� ✓�r{r�,� � /a ��s/ s-Y s �/e.�s a �� c � �l� o�-- �j acr�/, �� o � � � �oar,aao� -x� � � --- v ��r ROUTING FORM DATE: December 7, 1998 TO: CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for an addition to an existing office building at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M, APN: 026-112-130. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMIS5ION ACTION MEETING: February 8, 1999 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 7, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben �UEQ ��c�' "S � c�Av ,��60� � / � � Z ��ate of Comments C'�P �i��Pi.O ,�� a�J�i �T��6 � AAi i� �`�� `�` � . /��L� �y %v �" J�',�a�2j ��,r y /�7P��5c�: J � ,��T�%2 �x/5% /iS/b Cc��%9��v Gcsi�� ! � DATE: December 7, 1998 ROUTING FORM TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BiJILDING OFFICIAL �FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB,TECT: Request for parking variance for an addition to an existing office building at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M, APN: 026-112-130. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: February 8, 1999 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 7, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben 2 Date of Comments \� � � � 1�� Q`�C�T-ec,��..� � CS�`C Y � �YS �Ir�w� V �� .u�.-� S�� ► . �e C.I�eV�� Sh�� C �. ��, ► � -�.. ca� � �� S� �.s � ui �� r� � (^ %' �J V�( �Y �^� l�` ( l� a. z, �,� �e �� rew�°� �� , QX(s ^ �� (S� �� c�t�� S(,�.� i ►�� o � �� i � ` �- I �- �,� ,�� i� � _ _ _ � � (�V��w� �� c�- � � u ROUTING FORM �- � Date of Comments �� l � � Co�,w�e�� - z �.c�, � be c��r�� -f� �� `�. ��li � v� �v� �Cil� ��.e t � 5�� I � � e �� C� � � �-, `� Y�. � e� � DATE: February 10, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL �FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for an addition to an existing office building at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M, APN: 026-112-130. (Revised Plans) SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben CCSUVI.IMec.�.�� ROUTING FORM DATE: December 7, 1998 TO: �CITY ENGIlVEER _CHIEF BUII.DING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for an addition to an existing office building at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M, APN: 026-112-130. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: February 8, 1999 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 7, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben %� 6 o r c� V ci � i.`�t L,2 � - /� "- ILGI.,� � �� L � l l��`' Date of Comments , � � r, �- � t y -e-� � -��y�� ♦ , ROUTING FORM DATE: February 10, 1999 TO: �CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for an addition to an existing office building at 851 Burlway Road, zoned O-M, APN: 026-112-130. (Revised Plans and Parking Study) SCHEDULED PLANNING CONIMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben Z 2�'��7 Date of Comments � A „ � " �, ��,p-�t, � a� !e� �-ii I � �. a � 7� e ��, � � �� — � � ti� � �.� /�. � �� o n s� a� i� b a.1�� - �'� �"' f�- � �� ,� . �� l S, r a o ��u� �� ' I . �-�.a c..�.�t,v�t n. -� .-�Q- � �'T � ` `n � � � � 1 `t, c..rz � � � % s-c..�..c�e,a ✓ � GCd e� / . � i'�'CJ�-�-�-�- Gi. ,�L. GCri� � � � �� '� ti 6� ►1-c-�..t.�.c� F � �(-- �Q�_ � � �� , t yt, j I�t. ! h'�. tJ ✓✓l C l L C" "` _ � Lo-o�� , � � n�cc-er� . � ��, �,.1�1C � � � � S � 6 ! . _ �' ' 1'�'`� ,� r. �� 1 �_. .� � . � . 1 �� . ' . r, . . ��1►�" � �� - .�. � _,: � � � g4�o t3z e � ' t . .rw�� r- �; � ` . .-} \',� - *� 'r , � : S �1 � � . • , , -�� + � .� � �. �urlw�� Road � y �, , � . � � � � � -�� .. ,.�. � �� s�s � s5i �� .�� , � x 9 '��y ' i � i � • . ' - - � d , � ,, ��, � ' � , . . � 3 ' � � , k� �: ,� �� ._ �i � V � � V �.M ��-;`:: ll. �— � _ __ .. — — C - - _ µ. � ` � � -�r � t� �-uaN �,-� r� � � .. {. �� , i�r I��i ;��,� V � �,�; �� ; 1 � '� , s0 ` � I a , f! ti � 1 � �f � " � y � 1 f!� �� , -: � - � . � _ , .. .: �� -..' ' -~ -• j . � "�� '� . , ; � • •s �r :. u!!f''1/'ttrl7f77 a.*TM x �` �� r""�� +�� , �, ' � - �f� � � � d � �. ,�"' ! +� i � � � , _ � � ��' , � 1 � � �- � ' � � �- •`^ �� .� �' _ � �� , ,� ,y ' � � � F,. �,. � _. � � - � � 1� � � � � , / � -� �Q � � � � _ 2 � .,, i � ; /', � �{ 1 ; � � � � _ � �� + \_ �\', �� . � � .. ` � " �'�r� '��' �^N � RLSOLUTION APYROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, PAltt<ING VARIANCE AND Ct7NDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOI�VI�D, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHLI:I�nS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a uarking variance and conditional use � nnit to ex�and the tloor area of an exi ting office building. at 851 Burlwa� Roacl. zoned O-M, Westates Ventiire Inc , 851 Burlway Road, S�itP 100, B�rlingam�,� 94010,,��ro��v o�vner, AI'N: 0?6-112-130; WHERI:AS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 22, 1999 , at which time it i-eviewed and co�lsidered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, `I'HL-'REFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: l. On the basis c�f the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and adclressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set furtl� abc�v� ��ill have a signiiicant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Srction 153U1, existing Facilities, class 1(e)(2), Additions to existing structures provided that the adclition �vill not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF, and if all public facilities are available fc��- m�l\IlllUlll development permissible in the general plan, and the site is not in an environmentally �cnsitive. area is hereby approved. 2. Said ��arkin`� variance and conditional use permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit °A" attached hereto. Findings for such parking variance and conditional use permit are as set forth in the minut�s and recording of said meeting. 3. It is tiu-cher directed that a certitied copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the Cotinty c>t� San ��i�itc��. � . CHAIRMAN I, D�vc Lururi�l��, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the toregoin� resolution.was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of March , 1999 , by the following vote: AYES: COI��IMISSIONI:RS: NOES: COMMISSIONLRS: ABSENT: CUMM[SSIONERS: SECRETARY 1 9 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption, parking variance and conditional use permit 851 Burlway Road effective Apri15, 1999 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 10, 1999, Sheets A-02 through A-13, and date stamped March 16, 1999, sheet A-1, parking layout plan and shall provide a total of 170 parking spaces, 134 standard, 30 compact and 6 disabled accessible spaces, for a 69 space parking variance; 2. that the storage building with 6 covered parking spaces may be retained on the site, and the 6 covered parking spaces within the storage building shall never be converted to another use; 3. that the existing lobby areas and corridors shall not be converted to leasable ofiice space; and 4. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. : 2