The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About247-251 California Drive - Staff ReportTO DATE � ��, �� , CITY � �� O� ' AGENDA BURLINGAME 1 r EM a �,��.;� STAFF REPORT MTG. A_�O_n^ b... DATE �* �� HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY � MARCH 25, 1992 FROM: CITY PLANNER gAYPROVED APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, 5„B,E�T: SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A LIVE THEATER AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B RECOMMENDATION• City Council should hold a public hearinq and take action. Affirmative action should include findings and be by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. (Action Alternatives and Findings for a Negative Declaration, Special Permit and Variance are included at the end of the staff report.) Conditions considered by the Planning Commission were: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 23, 1992, Sheets P-1 and P-2; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 21 and January 27, 1992 memos and the Fire Marshal's February 3, 1992 memo shall be met; 3. that there shall be a minimum of a one hour time interval between shows on the Saturdays when two shows are scheduled; addition of more days with two shows or extending the number of days with shows shall require an amendment to this use permit; 4. that any pedestrian queuing shall occur on the sidewalk to the south of 247 California Drive and the theater operator shall be responsible for insuring the queuing is orderly and allows other pedestrians room to pass; 5. that a passenger loading zone shall be provided in front of the theater on California Drive to the approval of the City Engineer and this loading zone shall be monitored and enforced for use, for loading only, before and after performances enforced by the theater managers; 6. 7. that maps and literature shall be provided to all patrons through promotional flyers and ticket sales indicating available parking lots around the theater; that the theater shall� operate four evenings a week Thursday through Sunday with one show 8:30 - 10:30 P.M. Thursday and � Friday, two shows 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 - 12:00 A.M. (midnight) Saturday and 8:00 - 10:00 P.M. Sunday with the maximum seating of 150 patrons and maximum employees of 15, and no food service excepting beverages; 8. that the theater premise shall not be used or leased for other kinds of theatrical, social, charity or civic events outside of the hours permitted herein for shows, without amendment to this use permit; 9. that the project as built shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame and all necessary improvements shall be made and building permits finaled before any tickets shall be sold or performances scheduled; 10. that the operator shall receive and maintain an entertainment permit from the City Council prior to selling any tickets or holding any performances; and 11. that this use shall be reviewed for conformance in six (6) months (September, 1992) and every two years thereafter or upon complaint. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on March 9, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-0 (Commissioners Galligan and Kelly absent) to deny the negative declaration, special permit for a 150 seat live theater in Sub Area B and a 108 space parking variance (there is no parking provided on site) in an existing building at 247 California Drive. In their discussion the Commissioners noted a comedy theater would be beneficial because it would bring people into the area to eat before and after performances, however parking in this area will be a problem, people are not willing to park across the tracks or to cross California on foot; the Business Improvement District will very likely increase activity in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area which will further increase parking demand including evenings and this use's parking could have a serious effect; there are other places in the city which could better handle the impacts caused by 162 people arriving/departing at one time; traffic congestion will be a problem, people will not walk very long distances and will unload at the site; people will walk across California unregulated, the street is wide and dark at this point and cars travel at high rates of speed; the flexibility in parking necessary as uses shift downtown will be consumed entirely by this use. BACKGROUND• Harry DeOrnellas, Jr., applicant, is requesting a negative declaration, special permit and parking variance in order to use a 4,993 SF site (3,112 SF first floor, 1,881 SF mezzanine) for a live theater at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Sub Area B. A mitigated negative declaration is required because of the potential traffic and parking impacts of this 3 use which will bring at least 162 people on Thursday, Friday and Sunday evenings. Almost twice 162 people will come to the site on Saturdays. There is no on-site parking. The negative declaration's mitigations address people queuing on the sidewalk before shows, curbside dropoff and pickup of customers, and increased demand for on-street and public parking lot spaces within an 800 foot radius (about three blocks) of the site within the Burlingame Avenue Conunercial District. The applicant prepared a traffic and parking study. The conclusion was that the traffic and parking impacts could be reduced by increasing the intervals between shows, theater manager policing the use of the loading zone before and after shows as well as controlling people lining up on the street, providing parking maps to ticket purchasers, not leasing the theater premise at other times than those on the permit, receipt and maintenance of entertainment penait, and regular review for conformance with the conditions (Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11). The City Council must decide in accepting the negative declaration if these mitigations reduce the impact of the project to levels acceptable to the community. The special use permit is required because the proposed live theater use is similar in character to other uses permitted in the zone (Code Sec. 25.36.030-15). There is no on-site parking at this location. Therefore a parking variance is required for all the parking generated at the site. The structure has access on California Drive and Hatch Lane. The proposed theater use would require a 108 stall parking variance. The applicant proposes to have one show at night three evenings a week, Thursday, Friday and Sunday (8:30 - 10:30 P.M.). There would be two shows on Saturdays, 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. and 9:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. (Condition #7 requires that the Saturday shows be spaced one hour apart, 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. to 12:00 midnight, because of the time required for parking turnover between shows.) Since there are 150 seats the peak turnover parking demand (or overlap) could be 162 to 216 vehicles. It is noted that there may not be sufficient parking within 800 feet to accommodate the overlap parking during peak retail seasons. The applicant proposes to have 12 employees and use the theater four evenings a week. The offices and ticket sales on the premise would be open seven days a week during business hours 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. even if no shows are scheduled. There would be 150 seats on the first floor and mezzanine. No prepared restaurant type food would be served; drinks would be sold. The exit to Hatch Lane would be used only in an emergency. No air conditioning will be provided; and the rear windows on Hatch Lane will be closed most of the time. The applicant plans to sell T-shirts, mugs and other souvenir items on the mezzanine during shows. There will also be an office for the manager, dressing room and other activities to support the show on the mezzanine. , 4 EXHIBITS: - Action Alternatives, Findings for a Negative Declaration, Variance Findings, Special Permit Findings - Monroe letter to Harry J. DeOrnellas, March 17, 1992, setting appeal hearing - Harry J. DeOrnellas letter to Judy Malfatti, March 11, 1992, requestinq appeal - Planning Commission Minutes, March 9, 1992 - Planning Commission Staff Report, March 9, 1992, with attachments - Notice of Appeal Hearing, mailed April 10, 1992 - Council Resolution - Project plans MM/s cc: Harry J. DeOrnellas, Jr. Eugene & Mary A. Ivani/Louis & Albina M. Ivani (property owners) r � ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant�s request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant�s request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to .the City Council is not the same as that heard by the'Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. FINDINGS FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prior to acting on a project the City Council must approve the Negative Declaration finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. VARIANCE FINDINGS (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,. SPECIAL PERMIT FINDINGS (1) 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; (2) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (3) 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. �j�. .- L �J�.L 1�G V'.L4�� .1� �.W�.L4a LM�%1-.l a L.G � �✓ CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-B625 March 17, 1992 Harry J. DeOrnellas, Jr. 6031 Meridian Avenue San Jose, CA 95120 Dear Mr. DeOrnellas: At the City Council meeting of March 16, 1992 the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Sub Area B. A public hearing will be held on Monday, April 20, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, ��' p' `N' ,� 1'� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/ s cc: Eugene & Mary A. Ivani, Louis & Albina M. Ivani City Clerk 0 F$��'"..,;� MQlodrama,%audQvillQ 171ayhousQ �� F`f��+� "The MVP of Bay Area EntertainmenY' — G(i l CLi +�:: fo� i;� �dlii�'�.Lt :iaS�,Rl;'� tECEIVED �flA� 121992 r �TY Uf BURLINGAAAE MARCH 1 1, 1 9 9 2 TO : JUDY MALFATTI , �N��'T- AS THE APPLICANT OF THE 247 CALIFORNIA DR. AND MVP THEATER IN BURLINGAME, I WISH TO SERVE NOTICE AND EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO APPEAL THE FIIVDING OF THE PLANNING COMl�1ISI0N ON MARCH 9,1992. SINCERELY; HARRY J. DE ORNELLAS t�arch 12, 1992 Honorabl e P�layor and Counci 1: Normally a hearing would be scheduled for the April 6 meeting, but with the BID hearings scheduled for April 6, council may want to set this hearing for the following meeting, April 20, 1992. -�-�y C 1 e rk � __.— �� ' I� P (�. c�� 2=17 Califorria Dri:�e • Burlingame, CA 9�1010 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 9, 1992 7. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A LIVE COMEDY THEATER AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B Z-T Dreger reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's statements in the submittal, required findings, study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Minor changes to these conditions were noted. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Harry DeOrnellas, Jr., applicant, was present. He responded to Commissioners' questions: they expect the theater to operate as presented in the application, they will discourage people lingering in the bar facility, the bar will close 15 minutes before the show ends; they have agreed to separate the two shows on Saturday evening by one hour as suggested by staff; it is their hope people will go to Burlingame Avenue to eat before and after the show; there are no intermissions, just brief periods when people could buy T-shirts, mugs, etc. inside the building; they must exclude anyone under 21 years of age because of the conditions of the liquor license, if they had applied for a license to serve food with beverages they could allow people under 21; many comedy theaters do serve food, they feel serving food would make the operation too complex. Berry Hurley, property owner, 231 Highland Avenue, spoke in opposition: there are two businesses in this immediate area now with liquor licenses, there have been businesses at these locations which broke his windows every two months, it was a real problem, the area is congested at present, two existing businesses trying to �make a living seems sufficient. The Chair advised applicant will have to go to the City Council for an entertainment permit for the use if Planning Commission approves the application. Dan McCarthy thought all seats should be assigned in advance, he had gone to comedy clubs where people were lined up an hour ahead of time which in this case means they would be there at the same time the others are leaving, he suggested presale of tickets and assigned seats. The operator of the California Bar and Grill, next to the proposed theater site, had no problem with the comedy show itself but stated parking is a big concern, he has been there for 10 years and has always hoped the city would alleviate the parking situation, need to solve the current problem before adding a comedy club. Mary Mackie spoke in favor of the application: she noted California Bar and Grill is open only until 3: 00 P.M. , they will be performing in the theater in the evening when there is plenty of available parking. It was noted by the Commission that Christie's, a restaurant on the same block, is open only until 3:00 P.M., California Bar and Grill serves dinner. Responding to a Commissioner question applicant advised when possible he would presell and assign seats but this may not always be possible and they would sell tickets at the door. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 9, 1992 Commission comment: think comedy clubs are a positive good for the community, people could go to dinner elsewhere and walk to the show, but am concerned about parking, in this particular area people are not willing to park across the tracks or to cross California Drive on foot, farther up Burlingame Avenue where there are more city lots available people seem more willing to walk; also concerned about the evening parking in light of the proposed business improvement district, if and when it becomes active evening activities on Burlingame Avenue would draw more people and increase the demand for parking by retail establishments, this proposal at this location could be a bottleneck; think 162 people at one time on California Drive will be a problem, there are other places in the city which could possibly handle two shows, with this much impact question whether people will be happy with the theater. Incorporating the staff report, testimony this evening and Commission's comments, C. Jacobs found this is not the place for a comedy theater because of the large number of people and the need for a substantial parking variance. She then moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: congestion will be a problem, would like to help this theater use but the figures are too big, people will not walk from very far away, a parking variance for 108 spaces may be somewhat over done, think there will be more than 1.5 persons per vehicle, but still it is too much for that area; have the same concerns as when Commission considered a theater on California Drive off Broadway, parking is a problem for a business on California, people will park on the other side of California and will have problems getting across the street, it is a wide street and dangerous, cars sometimes use high speeds, this is not the right location for this operation; downtown is always shifting its uses, with this number of cars there will be no accommodation in the downtown area, the theater won't shift as other businesses sometimes do, there will be no flexibility downtown; layout of the streets in the area makes it particularly difficult for pedestrian traffic across California Drive in this area, it is a wide street and it will be very dark; this is the wrong location and will intensify the existing parking problem. C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny the negative declaration, special permit and parking variance for a live comedy theater at 247 California Drive, seconded by C. Ellis, motion approved 5-0 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Hillside Area Construction Permit - 1401 Hillside Circle **************** NOTE TO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS **************** Item � 7 March 9, 1992 Neqative Declaration, Special Permit and 108 Car Parkinq Variance for a live comedy theater at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Subarea B. The project assessment reflects old information in regards to the calculation of the 54 car parking variance. The correct and most current calculations of the l08 car parking variance is located on the first page of the staff report. The increase in the parking variance is also correctly reflected in the Mitigation Measures for ND 450p. P.C. 3-9-92 Item # 7 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND 108 CAR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A LIVE COMEDY THEATER AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B. The applicant, Harry DeOrnellas, ,Tr., and property owners, Louis and Albina Ivani, and Eugene and Mary Ivani, are requesting a negative declaration, special permit and parking variance for a live comedy theater at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Subarea B. A special permit is required for the live theater in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (C.S. 25.36.030 - 15 "Other uses similar in character to those enumerated in this section"). The live theater will have no on-site parking and requires a parking variance for 108 stalls (C.S. 25.70.030). The total number of parking spaces is calculated based on the theater occupancy of 150 patrons and 12 employees for a total of 162. With 1.5 persons per vehicle there will be 108 vehicles coming to the site per performance. On the days that two shows are scheduled with one (1/2) half hour between shows there could be up to 216 vehicles traveling the same streets and seeking and leaving parking within a half hour period. If an hour were allowed between shows there would be a longer time interval for the first 108 vehicles to depart from their parking spaces and the next 108 vehicles to arrive. Assuming that only half (54) of the first 108 vehicles leave within an hour after the first performance there will be a total of 162 vehicles using parking for the next show (54 + 108 = 162). The parking study showed an average of 223 parking spaces available within 800 linear feet of the theater site at 7:00 pm and an average of 336 parking spaces available within 800 linear feet of the theater site at 9:00 pm. The theater would have shows Thursday through Sunday for adults 21 years old and over. The performances would take place in the evenings 8:30 pm to 10:30 pm on Thursdays, 8:30 pm to 10:30 pm on Fridays, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm and 9:30 pm to 11:3o pm on Saturdays and 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm on Sundays. There will be 30 minutes between shows on Saturdays with all performances running approximately two hours per show. The maximum number of people in the theater at one time would be 162 including 150 patrons and a maximum of 12 employees (6 or 7 would be the cast members, 1 bartender, 2 waiters, 1 stage manager and 1 sound and lighting technician). This is strictly a bar operation and no food will be served on the premises. Tickets will be sold at the ticket booth on the street and through advance sales by phone. Staff Review The City Engineer reviewed the Parking Survey prepared by RKH (January 21, 1992 memo) and agreed with the information presented in the report and the recommendations made to alleviate the parking impacts. The City Engineer in his January 27, 1992 memo indicated that the rear door shall not extend or intrude into the alley (Hatch Lane). The Fire Marshal noted in his February 3, 1992 memo that all fire sprinkler and exiting requirements must be met prior to occupancy. The Planning Department found that except for the on-site parking all zoning code requirements were met. Staff recommended some changes in the vehicle occupancy assumptions used in the parking survey. These are reflected in the mitigation measures for ND 450p. Staff has expressed some concern about crowd management during queuing between shows to reduce conflicts between patrons waiting and pedestrians passing by. Applicant's Letter The applicant notes in his special permit and variance application of January 23, 1992 that the building at 247 California is currently vacant and an eyesore. His proposal of a live theater would improve the aesthetics of the building and bring added commerce to the City of Burlingame and the businesses surrounding the site. If the building remained vacant the property would create a loss in revenue for the property owner, reduced tax revenue for the city, and loss of needed revenue to surrounding businesses. The applicant goes on to say that there will be no detrimental side effects from the use of this site as a theater. The patrons will arrive over relatively short periods of time, remain at the site during the duration of the performance, and leave the site when the performance is complete. The applicant notes that from his past experience with this type of establishment the patrons have never created a problem, either before or after the performances. Findinqs for Special Permit In order to grant a Special 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. Study Meeting At the February 24, 1992 Planning Commission study meeting the following questions were raised concerning this application. Are there any residences behind or near this site? There is only one residence listed at 240 Hatch Lane �3. The next closest residence is 161 Howard Avenue, zoned R-4 (This is approximately 3 blocks from 247 California Drive). There are no residences listed in the buildings on Lorton Avenue which backs on Hatch Lane. Where will the majority of the noise be originating from? The applicant states any discernable sound will come from the front of the building at the stage. All sound will be directed toward the center of the building and will be mitigated by the new facade and theater curtains to the front, and by solid walls in the rear. Is the exit corridor on the first floor for emergency use only or will patrons or others use this for access to Hatch Lane? The applicant states that the rear door will be for emergency exiting only and will remain locked from the outside with a panic bar on the inside. Will the rear doors and windows be opened during warm weather or will the applicant be providing air conditioning? The applicant states that correct ventilation will be provided for the building, but he will not be providing air conditioning. The rear windows will remain closed most of the time. What period of time was studied for the traf f ic report and how does this compare with the peak parking season November 25(Thanksgiving) through January 15? The parking survey was done on Thursday, November 7, Friday the 8th, Saturday the 9th, and Sunday the 24th, 1991 from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. (Refer to Traffic and Parking Study, December 2, 1991, page 6) There are 587 parking spaces available within an 800' radius of the proposed theater site. During non- peak parking season there are 223 parking spaces available within the 800� radius. During peak parking season RKH assumed a 15� increase in parking which would reduce the number of available parking spaces to 168. This 15� increase comes from experience with other similar retail areas in San Mateo. These numbers suggest that on the days two shows are scheduled, during peak parking season, there may not be enough parking to support the overlap of 162 to 216 vehicles. (This is based on the 108 cars expected to arrive per show). How will the excess mezzanine space be used and what is the purpose of the Green Room? The applicant points out that the excess mezzanine area will serve as a space for the sale of souvenir items such as shirts, mugs, buttons, etc. There will also be a small area for photographs with the cast. The Green Room is an old theatrical term and refers to the area where both the wardrobe is kept and where the cast dresses after make-up is complete. No receptions or parties are planned for this room. Does the applicant propose any other type of entertainment other than theater for this building? The applicant states that this establishment will be providing live comedic melodrama and vignettes which are completely scripted and run for 90 day intervals. If the theater is family entertainment for adults 21 years and older why are they excluding family of ages under 21? The applicant states that the age limit has been placed at 21 to comply with the state liquor license under which the "MVP Theater" will operate. Do the applicants have an existing operation of this type anywhere else, if so where is it and is it similar to the kind of operation which is being proposed here? The applicant currently has no ownership interest in any other theatrical property at this time, however both the resident artistic director and the cast have been engaged in these same capacities for a period of several years at the "Old Opry House" in the New Almaden area of San Jose. What experience has the jurisdiction in that area had with the business in regards to parking, noise or nuisance? Staff contacted the San Jose Police Department in regards to the "Old Opry House" in New Almaden and found that there were no records on file to show there has been any kind of disturbances occurring from their operation. What was the prior use of this site and will the proposed use be an intensification of parking needs? The previous tenant at 247 California Drive was a retail sailboard shop. Assuming the first floor (3,072 SF) was retail at 1:400 SF and the mezzanine (1,768 SF) was office at 1:300 SF the total required parking for the sailboard shop was 14 stalls. The live theater will require a parking variance for 108 stalls which will be an intensification of the use by 94 parking stalls. Do the Caltrans lots in front of and next to the train station have certain parking regulations or charges that are different than the city parking lots? The Caltrain lot to the north of the train station has 63 stalls that are primarily available for commuters. According to Connie Valentini at Caltrain the theater can lease spaces from Caltrain. It will be the responsibility of the theater to monitor the stalls they have leased and to make sure those spaces are being used by their patrons. Even then, commuters would have first priority to the leased spaces. Caltrain enforces use of the spaces through random sampling and by complaint. They have a similar arrangement with Artichoke Joes in San Bruno. The applicant has not proposed any special arrangements with Caltrain. Where did the parking study get the 1.75 persons per vehicle for employees? RKH clarifies that the 1.75 persons per vehicle was from observations at the Hillbarn Theater in Foster City. In the report (page 9) he has listed the vehicle occupancy at 1.5 per vehicle for staff, actors and crew based on the observation of three live theaters. The applicant adds that his actors will be taking the train to the site because they all live in San Jose. The parking study mentions 20 employees and the applicant mentions 9 employees. Why is there a discrepancy and what is the correct number of employees? RKH states that the assumption of 20 employees is conservative based on the observations of three other small live theaters and knowledge of their operations. The applicant updated his number of employees to a maximum of 12. These 12 would include 6 or 7 actors, 1 bartender, 2 waiters, 1 stage manager and 1 sound and lighting technician. How many on-street parking spaces will the suggested 50' passenger loading zone in front of the theater actually take? The City Engineer was not specific. A 30' truck loading zone is already in place just to the south of 247 California Drive. The CE would like to see how that works before he considers changing the location and making it bigger for the use of the theater. Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing . Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and reasons for any action clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. 2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submit- ted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 23, 1992, sheets P-1 and P-2; and that the conditions of the City Engineers January 21, and January 27, 1992 memo, and Fire Marshal's February 3, 1992 memo shall be met; 3. that there shall be a minimum of a one hour time interval between shows on the Saturdays when two shows are scheduled; addition of more days with two shows or extending the number of days with shows shall require an amendment to this use permit; 4. that any pedestrian queuing shall occur on the sidewalk to the south of 247 California Drive and the theater operator shall be responsible for insuring the queuing is orderly and allows other pedestrians room to pass; 5. that a passenger loading zone shall be provided in front of the theater on California Drive to the approval of the City Engineer and this loading zone shall be monitored and enforced for use, for loading only, before and after performances enforced by the theater managers; 6. that maps and literature shall be provided to all patrons through promotional flyers and ticket sales indicating available parking lots around the theater; 7. that the theater shall operate 5 evenings a week Thursday through Sunday with one show 8:30 - 10:30 pm Thursday and Friday, two shows 7:00 - 9:00 pm and 10:00 - 12:00 am (Midnight) and 8:00 - 10:00 pm Sunday with the maximum seating of 150 patrons and maximum employees of 15, and no food service excepting beverages; 8. that the theater premiss shall not be used or leased for other kinds of theatrical, social, charity or civic events outside of the hours permitted herein for shows, without amendment to this use permit; 9. that the project as built shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame and all necessary improvements shall be made and building permits finaled before any tickets shall be sold or performances scheduled; and l0. that the operator shall receive and maintain an entertainment permit from the City Council prior to selling any tickets or holding any performances; 11. that this use shall be reviewed for conformance in six (6) months (September, 1992) and every two years thereafter or upon complaint. Leah Dreger Zoning Technician cc: Harry DeOrnellas, Jr., applicant Louis and Albina Ivani, Property Owners Eugene and Mary Ivani, Property Owners CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 1992 , CALL TO ORDER A regular called to P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - AGENDA - ITEMS FOR STUDY The minutes of the February 10, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. Order of the agenda approved. 1. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1150 PALOMA AVENUE/1249 BROADWAY Requests: reason for the wall sign on��ie�'Paloma side. Item set for public hearing March 9, 1992. ��...� � .1w�.1'��•M' � • .. ., , 2. SPECIAL PERMIT - FII3Ar1�1'CIAL INSTITUTION - Requests: is thi usiness currently in operation, if so how long has it been in oB a��.determination from the Fire Department if there is suffic�� t exiting from the second floor; since all brokers must be licen��d real estate agents why is this brokerage business determined to be a financial institution. Item set for public hearing March 9, `" 1992 . 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE - LIVE COMEDY THEATER - 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Requests: are there nearby residences and/or second floor apartments which might be impacted by noise, show them; is exit corridor on the first floor for emergency only or will patrons and others use for access to Hatch Lane; will the rear door or windows be opened in warm weather; what period of time was studied for the traffic report, would like a comparison of these numbers with the peak parking season of the year; how will excess mezzanine space be used, purpose and use of the Green Room; does applicant propose any other type of entertainment, what type of theater is planned for this building; family entertainment for adults 21 years and over is proposed, why are they excluding family meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, February 24, 1992 at 7:30 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 24, 1992 under 21; do applicants have an existing operation of this type anywhere else, if so where and what kind of operation, what experience has that jurisdiction had with the business, parking, noise, etc.; parking regulations and charges for the parking lots in front and next to the train station; where did the traffic study get the figure of 1.75 persons per vehicle for employees; what was prior use of the site, will the proposed use be intensification of parking needs or less; staff review says there will be nine employees, negative declaration mentions 20, clarify this; how many on-street parking spaces will the suggested 50' passenger loading zone in front of the theater take. There was a request that business operators within the block as well as property owners be noticed of the public hearing; following discussion it was suggested staff post a visible notice on the site and a notice be mailed to all businesses in the 200 block of California Drive. CA pointed out if this use is approved by the Commission, applicant still needs to have another public hearing and to receive an entertainment permit from the City Council, entertainment permits are reviewed annually. Item set for public hearing March 9, 1992 if responses to all requests are received in time to prepare the staff report. 4.'\ SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION \ AT 2101 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 \ Refere e staff report, 2/24/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed detail�f the request, staff review, statements in the application, study meet�'ng questions, required find��ngs. Three conditions were suggested f�consideration at the pyb3�ic hearing. Staff responded�t� questions: the�"metal shed at the rear of the garage was counted in the°�ti�ot covera.ge figure of 41.6�, it is 2-1/2' x 16-1/2' ; the interio`�. side.-�•setback is 4' ; regarding condition #2, if applicants are grantecl�'�4l 6� lot coverage, any second story addition in the future would be su j�ee,�t to second floor zoning requirements at that t ime . � '� r '� Chm. Kelly ope,n�ed the public''= earing. Rick Jeffery, applicant and property own�r', was present. �i�s comments: interior side setback is 3' -6" exis,�ing, they are proposirrq 4' , want to maintain the current building,��'line; regarding the vari nce for lot coverage, they are keeping°5' and 4' side setbacks since hey want to meet code as much as poss�ble, this will bring lot coverage��o 41.6� rather than 42�; they ar��'�at a disadvantage because this is a�rner lot with 7'-6" required side setback; a half bath exists in the ��Space they want to expand, there is a cutout area which they will fil�:.with a shower and extend the space to meet the 4' setback requirement;� they would like to have a straight wall on the Vancouver side, would lik,e to match that line in �� Cfvii and Transpartation Engineering February 28, 1992 Mr. Harry DeOrnellas 6031 Meridian Avenue San Jose, CA 95120 RE: 247 California Drive, Burlingame Dear Mr. DeOrnellas: RECEIV�D �+aR o-�.t94� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DFP'' This is in response to the questions posed to you by the Burlin- game staff. Holiday season Parkinq Demand3 The parking occupancy study was conducted in November 1991 prior to the holiday season. The maximum observed parking occupancy durinq the four day study was found to be 65�. Assuming a 15� increase in parking demand during the holiday season, the peak parking demand (early Friday evening) would be 75� of the study area supply. The 15� increase in traft'ic during the holiday season is based on experience in and around retail centers in San Mateo. 1.75 Employees Per Car? Table C of the report dated December 2, 1991, summarizes the findings of the vehicle occupancies at three live theaters. The average vehicle occupancy found for the Hillbarn Theater in Foster City was found to be 1.75 persans per vehicle �or all persons coming to the theater. The assumption stated in the report for occupancies of staff, actors and orew vehicles was 1.5 persons per vehicle (p. 9) based on the observations at the three theaters. Number of Employees? The refiort aseumes a conservative number of 20 for staff, actors and crew. The number, again, is based on the observations made at the three theaters and knowledge of small live theater opera- tions. I assume this adequately responds to the City's questions. If you have any further questions, please call me. Very truly yours, RKH Richard K. Hopper, P.E. 978 DESOTO LANE FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 (415) 572-0978 FAX (415) 574-3150 RECEIVED FROM 4155743150 P• 1 izcseo[vs�n �ru i�i.�iJN I flc ni�;i�ni;�r�ii�,N'f (?UI'.S'L' LONS n�r 2-2a—��z r�i,�i�tNc RECEIVED P,�AR 0 ? 1992 ,, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. (�)<�— nraY i>1 ;c;i;izr�i r,i,r, �:c�urvr� �ac�ni,r� cor�i: rizor•� �riir, r�►totaT. ALL :iUUfJU IdILL Rl�; UCf:I�.C'.Cf'sU TUbJARll TIIG Cl:N7'I;lt OC THL T�UiLD1.fJC: AfIU nLP1US'1' CUt1PLl;'I'GLY P1I'T[GA'I'L:D IIY Tllr NGW P11CAt)li: �PJI) 'Clll�,n'CF:K CUf:7'AINS TO TI1G FKONT ANll BY ---— _.. __ SUL,LI) LJALI,:� 1't) '1'lll: RGAR. • . (1)b— '1'lll: t)�,11.Y �111,IPil�,l) PIUSLC IJILL I3E TIIAT NEE�.I)I;ll �S I,�.!:!'. C�ftnlltJl� I�cil� 'I'lli�, ffUS [CI1T. NUP1IiGI:S 4JlI i'CCII �Itl�. I,IIII'I'I;li I'U 1�)tt)PI L�'IVL: '1'U 'I'LN PLR SIIOW A[JU :�— i 11I Nl!'1'I:S I�! LI;NG'.I'1(. 7'lIL iOUNU TKACS flRi: KL,CURUGD C)fJ �rn��r; �Nl) UPJI,Y I,IGII'i'LY Ah1PL[!'iI�,U. 'I'llfi, PUI:P�7;;1; �)� 7'lll: A1US1C IS S'i�iCKLY AN �1� '.l'(1 'I'IIL; �;n:.�r nt�u I;: NO'C US(�.l) AS t�iUSLC L�OIZ PUR I'�1'ItU?1,; 'C(� 1.1t\NCG 'l'0. ( j)c— T'lIG UtJLY AP11'I.,i�ICl1"i'IO['d OI� {'ERFORMAN(;GS 01'f1ER '1'll�il �11,R1�,�1)ti' AUURf?SSI?D IS ACCOt•iPLiSIIED WI'I'll ShIALL ld [ KI;I.,I�,S;; lit)UY Pf iY.1:5 '1'll I: PUIZPOSli Ol� lJli ITCfI IS '1'(� ;;I,I(,II'I'I,I' I�:PJII�P7CG ']'lll; UTALOG Or TIIL C/1:i'1'. 7'lll;l:l�, ll l LL l�r sr-in�,L RF�,PGATGK SPI;AI:I;k:S LUCA'fl�;l) IIJ �NU NI?�R TI11�; AUl1ILNCL 'i'0 ]:Pll'I:OV1: COIIPIZGfII;NSLuN Ui' '1'I[G I'I�,IZL�UI;ttANC��.. '1'f(IS LS USGb ONI.Y �;; r1PJ rr�i�nra�:f;ffrN7' AS T[IG P1:KFORPI�IZS NATl11t�L r\1311,1'1'�I;: '1'U PIZUJGCT ANU Ti113 SPIALL ANll fN'I'IPI�17'I; S1;;I'. OF 1'f1G 'CIIBA'TLR WILL Pd0'I' 1tGQUIRI: t1OI;I? 'CIIAfJ A Al1NITli�L LNCRI�ASL ANl) SI�I;VG ONLti' f(l t1l��:f11;N'I' 'I'IIP; LI.VI�, I'I:ItF(1RPIANCI;. (2)a— N() (2)b— NO (3)a— NO (4)a—b—c— SGI: I;I�; :I'(JrdSl? PRUA1 RKII . (5)a— '1'ill�.Sl; ARf;A'; ldlLl. SGI;Vf; AS SPACI; FOR SALG vE SUUVEIvIR � L'I'I;IIS SUCII A;; 'I'l;l�,—SU IR'fS, t1UGS, BU'TTONS, GTC. TItERL ALSO lJ 11,L I�i•: P IC I'URGS W 1'1'll 'T{[C CAST AVAILAI3LG. , (5)b— Tlll: Cftl?t?tJ ROOPf IS nra OLU 7'llGt1'TItICAL TI�1:1�1 �ND 1tFFERS 'i0 7'lIG /1RfsA l•111GR1'. 130T11 Tl1L WARI)K013G IS hGYT AND 4�JIII?I;I; 'Cfll', C�:,'1' UI;I�:S5[:S �l�'i'ER PiAI:G—UP [S COMPLLTL. (6)a— T{l1S ld[LI, I,P: LiVP COP1GI)I.(; P�11;L011RAMA ANU VLGNLTTrS TI(I:SG AR(•: CUPIPI,I;'CLLY SCl:IP1'LI) AND IZUN FOR lG IJGGK INTLKVALS. ( 7)a— T[lI: RI�,A:il)N 'Cli f; �CI�: Li lI I'I' IIAS I3[?I�IJ 1'LACL.� A"1' Z I IS '1'U C01�iPLY �•]I7'll 'i'llA'1' t'OR'TLUIJ UF Tfll; S'1'ATG LIQUOR Li.CGNCE UP�I)I�.R llfl I'I'CII TIIG PIPV 'TIIGATGIt 6JILL OPGRATE. (F3)a— Tlll: �1PPi,tCAfJ'f CUI�RGN'CLY fiAS NO UWN);R;i{I [Y I.N'CFRL,ST IN �IJY U'I'III:R 'I'IIP,A7'R[CAL PI:UI'CR'TY AT TliLS '1'IML, IlU1JI�;VGR Iju'I'll 'l'lll; KL'S [UI:N'I' ARTISTIC UiRI?C'TOIt AND 'L'lll; Cn;��r iinvi�; I;I;I�,�J I�:r�cn��I;U IN Tlll?SE ;>nriii, (:AI'ACITIES PUIt � I'I?RIUU OF SI�.VI;KAL YI',AKS AT TIIG OLU OPRY HOUSE " LN '1'lll�; Nl��td ALr�ni�i�;tJ nizcn UI� SAN JOSL. � -------------------"_______==�===�mva STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNINQ COMMISSION I. PrOjeCt Address: 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE II. Project Description and Permits Requested: NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARRING VARIANCE for a live comedy theater at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Subarea B. The special permit is required under code section 25.36.030 (15) Other uses similar in character to those enumerated in this section. The parking variance is required under code section 25.70.030 Requirements for particular uses. After calculating the breakdown of the proposed uses in the building it was determined that a 54 stall parking variance would be necessary for this project because there is no on-site parking available. The theater would be open to the public Thursday through Sunday for adults 21 years old and over. The performances would take place 8:30 pm - 10:30 pm on Thursdays, 8:30 pm - 10:30 pm on Fridays, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm and 9:30 pm - 11:30 pm on Saturdays and 8:00 pm - 10:00 pm on Sundays. There will be one show on Thursday, Friday and Sunday nights and two shows on Saturday nights at two hours per show, with 30 minutes between shows. The theater will serve an audience maximum of 150 with 117 on the first floor and 32 seats on the mezzanine. Tickets will be sold at the booth on the street and through advance sales by phone. There will be a total of nine employees, including two waiters, one bartender and 6 actors. No food will be served only beverages including liquor. The maximum number of employees and customers on the property at any one time will be 160. There is no on site parking for the theater. The total number of required parking stalls for this use is 54 (Refer to Parking breakdown at the end of this report). All existing metered public parking available in Burlingame ends at 6:OOp.m. Just to the north of the theater is public lot M with 25 stalls. Along Lorton Ave. at Donnelly is Lot D with 35 stalls. Also on Lorton to the south of Burlingame Avenue is Lot E with 68 stalls. By the train station on the east side of California Drive are Lot V and Lot O with a total of 121 spaces within a 800 foot radius. The applicant has provided a traffic and parking study by R.K. Hopper dated December 2, 1991. There are three copies available for your review. This study shows that there was an average vehicle occupancy of 65� at 7:30 pm for the parking lots within an 800 foot radius of the proposed theater site. Iii. Property Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 029-211-0�0 Lot No: 25'x1119.33' COM 225' FR Burl. Ave. Port. of Block 11 Subdivision: Town of Burlingame Map No. 1 Lot Size: 3112.45 SF Zoning: C-1 Subarea B General Plan Designation: Commercial - Service and Special Sales IV. Esistinq Site Conditions and Adjacent Land IIses: Existing vacant building with adjacent restaurants and retail sales establishments. All are zoned C-1 Subarea B with a Service and Special Sales General Plan Designation. V. CEQA Status: Negative Declaration ND - 450p for 247 California Drive. Due to the traffic and pedestrian circulation impacts, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of this project. Please refer to the Mitigation Measures for further explanation. V�. Pro j ect Data : Proposed New Construction: None, existing building is built lot line to lot line. Existing Area: 4,993.45 SF Total: 3112.45 first floor and 1881 SF of inezzanine. Proposed Percent Increase in Area: None Front Setback: Side Setback: Rear Setback: Lot Coverage: Building Height: Declining Height Envelope: On-site Parking Spaces: Parking Breakdown lst Flr. Assembly 1:60 (fixed seats)Assembly 1:6 Storage 1:1000 2nd Flr. Assembly 1:60 Office 1:300 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING = Proposed N/A N/A N/A 100% 24' EXISTING N/A None Required N/A N/A N/A 100� OK 35' Max. N/A 54 SPACES 31 spaces 4.5 spaces .85 spaces 14.5 spaces 2.5 spaces 53.35 spaces or 54 parking stalls CITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND - 450p at 247 California Drive The City of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on February 19, 1992 , completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) (xx) It will not have a significant effect on the environment No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed development of this site is for a live comedy theater whose operation is limited to four evenings a week. This project is compatible with the surrounding uses as long as certain mitigation measures are met to reduce the impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The previous use of this site was retail sales of sailboards and the building is now vacant. The proposed theater with bar is compatible with existing uses in the area which include food establishments and retail shops. There will be no available on site parking for this use creating some traffic and circulation impacts. To reduce these impacts the following mitigation measures shall be part of the conditions of approval for this project: a one hour time separation between shows on the days that two shows are scheduled; pedestrian queuing to the south of 247 California so that other existing food establishments will not be affected by the people waiting in line for the shows; a 50 foot passenger loading zone in front of the theater; and maps and diagrams shall be given to all customers outlining available parking in Burlingame. Existing public facilities including water, sanitary and storm sewer, have appropriate capacities to serve this development. Existing public parking facilities will accommodate parking demands so long as the hours of operation do not overlap with retail peak activities. In the prime shopping season public parking lot availability may not be adequate. All potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to levels acceptable to the community through conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence from the Initial Study and City review that this project will have significant effect on the environment. ► �c�. l�Q. , l� 2. Si a re of rocessing Official tle Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days determination shall be final. hereof the date posted, the Date posted : �� - / �% - `� =� �- CITY OF BIIRLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 19, 1992 File No. ND - 450p at 247 California Drive Page Two Declaration of Postinq I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) �To �- JUDITH A MALFA ��v l / , 1992. � � � �.1�, � �, . . ,F,�. , CITY CLERK, CITY BURLINGAME INITIAL STIIDY SUMMARY The INITIAL STUDY determined that the project, as proposed, will NOT cause the following environmental impacts: �� EARTH: This proposal will not result in; dv� Unstable earth conditions, displacements or compaction of soil, destruction of unique geological features, increased water or wind erosion of soil, changes in a beach ecosystem, exposure of people to hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, or ground failure. f �� AIR: This proposal will not result in; I� L' Deterioration of ambient air quality, creation of objectionable odors, or alteration of climate, locally or regionally. {� �� WATER: This proposal will not result in; /� Changes in directional course of marine or fresh waters, changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or rate of surface run-off or alter the course of flood waters, alter the direction or flow or ground waters, changes in quantities of ground waters by any means, changes in the amount and availability of water to the public, exposure of people to water related hazard. �'�) PLANT LIFE: This proposal will not result in; Changes in diversity or number of any species of plants including endangered species, introduction of new species of plants into the area, or reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop. ANIMAL LIFE: This proposal will not result in; �`a�� Changes in diversity or number of any species of animals including endangered species, introduction of new species of animals into the area or result in the barrier of normal migration of any species of animals or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat. NOISE: This proposal will not result in; �� Increases in existing noise or exposure of people to severe noise levels. LIGHT & GLARE: This proposal will not result in; �,�� Extreme increases in the amount of light and glare in the environment. LAND USE: This proposal will not result in; �� Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area. N� NATURAL RESOURCES: This proposal will not result in; Any increase in rate of use of any natural resources. RISK OF UPSET: This proposal will not result in; }� �; Any risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances or materials ( including but not limited to, oil pesticides, chemicals or radiation ) in the event of an accident or upset situation, possible interference in an emergency response or evacuation plan. POPULATION: This proposal will not result in; �`,�{..� The alteration in location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population. ��;HOUSING: This proposal will not result in; Displacement of any residents or create a demand for additional housing. �; TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: This proposal will not result in; �,��i��J Generation_ of substantial increase in vehicular traffic, strains on existing parking facilities or new parking, substantial impact on �r- existing transportation systems, alterations in present patterns of �� circulation or movement of people or goods, increase in traffic � � `�� hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians. -�PUBLIC SERVICES: This proposal will not result in; �� The need for new or altered governmental services, such as, fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or recreational facilities, maintenance of public facilities, including roads and/or any other type of governmental services. N� ENERGY: This proposal will not result in; The use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy, the need to develop new sources of energy. �fJ UTILITIES: This proposal will not result in; The need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities ( not including initial hook-ups to existing systems ) power or natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer or septic tanks, storm drainage, solid waste disposal. N J HUMAN HEALTH: This proposal will not result in; Creation of health hazards or potential health hazards or the exposure of people to potential health hazards. (v ('� AESTHETICS: This proposal will not result in; The obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public, or the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public. ��J � RECREATION: This proposal will not result in; Any negative impact on the quantity or quality of existing recreational opportunities. �; C CULTURAL RESOURCES: This proposal will not result in; ' The destruction of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, the destruction of any unique ethnic or cultural values or restrict any existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. A:\INSTDSU.FRM (short form summary) �€ �i�( T�i� ��i�ts ttt�T rL�� S,�'.cti,�� /�zu:� S�f-��u�.�;D — �u��,rti�, ay ��s�x��s mR c►a�,cs� ��w� �o��-�sr'�o� �►rt r�� `� ��T � N��t+�o� �a� �� TA-� s� m�TSiS 1`�R�� P��o.��t�..s ca��l� �t '�P�� Re��S �► Tt�teu--t� Trtt� P.-� r��' 0� �A� 4A�NC�`n- �v c4 c� ��-zOn� ��'l� c�E `Cl2-��i� M i?�( P,o ►J 6��"� '6t�-2u r�� Pt� E, ts��-To tJ ,��J�.P Iktip t�- i ra,-kc.R'Nr �(k�1l.i� S � i�TJ ��h Ll_'�� `(�"T� l.�i� � N �rl '�YZo`M ONk` � �fU� �1-% � 0�'fl� �S �--ts �.j,,,�� ? . . , . � � � ■ � � A .L� T h ! I � I � � I ■ , . 1 -.1—/ �� i r i'. 1 �'h.= T . � � - � r� -�n n.■ n � r/ 1 ■ � � � MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ND 450p AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE After completing the initial study it was found that this project would require a mitigated negative declaration. The following mitigations are proposed: 1. It is proposed that a one (1) hour time interval between shows (on days that two shows are scheduled) would allow for less congestion in the parking areas and on the sidewalk in front of the theater as the theater patrons are exiting and entering for the consecutive shows. The current proposal for this project is only one half (1/2) hour between shows. This only allows fifteen (15) minutes for exiting and fifteen (15) minutes for entering for the next show when patrons must walk up to 800' - 1500' to their cars. The proposed one (1) hour between shows would give patrons a longer interval within which to arrive and leave between shows which in turn would cause less pedestrian and vehicular congestion on the streets, parking lots and the sidewalk. The traffic study proposes that each show will have approximately 200 patrons coming to the theater at 2.0 persons per vehicle, and 20 employees coming to the site at 1.75 persons per vehicle. Based on these assumptions approximately 111 vehicles will come to the area to park before a show. On days that two shows are scheduled approximately 111 vehicles will be departing the surrounding parking areas, while ill vehicles will be arriving at relatively the same time. This brings together 222 vehicles traveling the same street in a one half (1/2) hour time period. A longer interval between shows would mitigate this circulation impact by allowing a longer transition time between arriving and departing vehicles. After receiving updated information the number of patrons has decreased from 200 to 150 and the number of employees has increased from 9 to 12. This will create a parking impact of 108 vehicles per show at 1.5 persons per vehicle and 216 vehicles on the days with two shows. 2. Tickets for the shows are sold by advance sales which will force people to arrive early to pick up their tickets and wait in line for seats. This will cause congestion on the sidewalk and potentially inconvenience patrons of existing food, retail and other establishments in the area. Pedestrian queuing should only be allowed to occur on the sidewalk to the south of 247 California Drive and then turning down the block to Highland Avenue. This would avoid pedestrians blocking the entrances to existing eating establishments to the north. 3. As suggested in the traffic study a 50 foot passenger loading zone should be provided in front of the proposed theater. The loading zone will eliminate approximately five (5) existing parking spaces between 6:00 pm and Midnight. The exact location of the loading zone should be determined by the City Engineer. This loading zone will facilitate passengers arriving and departing from the shows. It can still provide parking during the day for customers purchasing tickets. This passenger loading zone is also necessary for those people who will inevitably be dropping off a member of their party to hold a place in line and it will be helpful for disabled patrons. 4. As suggested in the traffic study by RKH, maps and other diagrammatical literature should be provided through promotional flyers and mailed tickets showing the location of the nearby public parking lots. Also directions to the theater from both Highway 101, E1 Camino Real and Highway 280 should be provided. These visual aides will help patrons, who are unfamiliar with Burlingame to find available parking.2 $TAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION � ProjeCt Address: 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE II. Project Description and Permits Requested: NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARRING VARIANCE for a live comedy theater at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Subarea B. The special permit is required under code section 25.36.030 (15) Other uses similar in character to those enumerated in this section. The parking variance is required under code section 25.70.030 Requirements for particular uses. After calculating the breakdown of the proposed uses in the building it was determined that a 54 stall parking variance would be necessary for this project because there is no on-site parking available. The theater would be open to the public Thursday through Sunday for adults 21 years old and over. The performances would take place 8:30 pm - 10:30 pm on Thursdays, 8:30 pm - 10:30 pm on Fridays, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm and 9:30 pm - 11:30 pm on Saturdays and 8:00 pm - 10:00 pm on Sundays. There will be one show on Thursday, Friday and Sunday nights and two shows on Saturday nights at two hours per show, with 30 minutes between shows. The theater will serve an audience maximum of 150 with 117 on the first floor and 32 seats on the mezzanine. Tickets will be sold at the booth on the street and through advance sales by phone. There will be a total of nine employees, including two waiters, one bartender and 6 actors. No food will be served only beverages including liquor. The maximum number of employees and customers on the property at any one time will be 160. There is no on site parking for the theater. The total number of required parking stalls for this use is 54 (Refer to Parking breakdown at the end of this report). All existing metered public parking available in Burlingame ends at 6:OOp.m. Just to the north of the theater is public lot M with 25 stalls. Along Lorton Ave. at Donnelly is Lot D with 35 stalls. Also on Lorton to the south of Burlingame Avenue is Lot E with 68 stalls. By the train station on the east side of California Drive are Lot V and Lot O with a total of 121 spaces within a 800 foot radius. The applicant has provided a traffic and parking study by R.K. Hopper dated December 2, 1991. There are three copies available for your review. This study shows that there was an average vehicle occupancy of 65� at 7:30 pm for the parking lots within an 800 foot radius of the proposed theater site. zII• Property Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 029-211-0�'0 Lot No: 25'x1119.33' COM 225' FR Burl. Ave. Subdivision: Town of Burlingame Map No. 1 Lot Size: 3112.45 SF Zoning: C-1 Subarea Port. of Block 11 B General Plan Designation: Commercial - Service and Special Sales IV. Existinc Site Conditions and Adjacent Land IIses: Existing vacant building with adjacent restaurants and retail sales establishments. All are zoned C-1 Subarea B with a Service and Special Sales General Plan Designation. V. CEQA Status: Negative Declaration ND - 450p for 247 California Drive. Due to the traffic and pedestrian circulation impacts, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of this project. Please refer to the Mitigation Measures for further explanation. VI. Project Data: Proposed New Construction: None, existing building is built lot line to lot line. Existing Area: 4,993.45 SF Total: 3112.45 first floor and 1881 SF of inezzanine. Proposed Percent Increase in Area: None Front Setback: Side Setback: Rear Setback: Lot Coverage: Building Height: Declining Height Envelope: On-site Parking Spaces: Parkinq Breakdown lst Flr. Assembly 1:60 (fixed seats)Assembly 1:6 Storaqe 1:1000 2nd Flr. Assembly 1:60 Office 1:300 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING = Proposed N/A N/A N/A 100$ 24' EXISTING N/A None Required N/A N/A N/A 100� OK 35' Max. N/A 54 SPACES 31 spaces 4.5 spaces .85 spaces 14.5 spaces 2.5 spaces 53.35 spaces or 54 parking stalls �� a�A�A�u�� CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAC APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION . gURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401C Type of Applicati : ��t�%�D �Special Permit Variance Other ' � .IAN 2 3 1992 Project Address � �,q�./��j,�'i✓//% ,�lr-. CITY OF BURLINGAME Assessor's Parcel Number(s ) � _.� �� a // C" •� [.�' ^��-VEPT. APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER� AG j,,N � S�Hr� r �f�� . ��.t� , i Name : ,q �j�� — `,,� � ��^/fLL ame : �� c��,�c ,�� /.z Address : l�'C�o�� LF�nj,r�i3 / �''/� . Address : �(� (°Hf,�'%�'i� ST: City/State/Zip ,q,{/ �.f"f�.�S��'City/State/Zip�,gT „ ,�_�jc�/�� ;�.r�� Tr: �.s�T Telephone : ( Work �/�%l�� 5'% Telephone ( Work ) �y�S,�Sc� --7.�crri - A�.tivT' � ( Home�r/n�-i �v;b f 90c�p ( Home ) ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: AMUS ��i/��1� ��-S%�itJ Please indicate with an asterisk �*1 who is the Address : � �7 � — � �`' �" contact person for this proiect. Telephone ( daytime ) : �y� S%7�'''� -' S�/t/� PROJECT DESCRIPTION C� �.' ✓ ��t T �..tXi.lTiN�" -r�c/C�1`v� � %71 /%�J�f-?-- Tf-/� �/F f.."�S� c��' .Q �iv�� "i?�G%t-,�I.�4it1c' � 7`�i�i4- %£/�7 AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the infoxmation given herein is true a correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. \ / /-��t� -/ � App ican Si ure Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. � Property Owner's Signature Date x -------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------- Date Filed: Fee Receipt # Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: ' Date application accepted as complete: P. C. stud meetin date � P. C. ublic hearin date ;-=;> _ �� Z. Y � � ) ��` - -� P g i ) P.C. Action /, � �j � Appeal to Council?� Yes No Council meeting dat� -"� " _> Council Action ,Q�.�,�//�'Q kI��7'C-/d U ! (��JUB1C�� CITV O� CITY OF BURLINGAME °5"�`'"�°��''� SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATiON TO THE PLANNiNG COMMISSiON COr�IERCIAL APPLICATIONS �� 1. Proposed use of site: Li v� P� �n� -,��.. / Ht�t- �',� �� J A�! 2 3 1942 p.� �..r, , �•� �.�� CITY OF BURLII� f��hours of operation: �'flc,c�2s'�- fS-' 3c� - ic� :"sc� �iC"R� - f1. So -- iC.�:; �'� PLANNING '�" 7�c�, „ � ��.., ; �j�� /l' 3Cr_r� .T'��.v� - �f•nc - �c�:cJc� :�.�y, . ��-r�� 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles (by type): �-- 4. Current and Projected maximum number of employees at this locaLion: ExistinQ In 2 Years In 5 Years After After After 8AM-SPM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM Weekdays --�- � �_ -� _� fulltime artime �' � � / �� Weekends -�-� �. � --� �_ -�-- fulltime ' artime -�-- c�, -�-- � �- �' 5. Current and Projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: T�vlLs. Existina ,t n ��. After Cn�c,/ 8AM-SPM 5PM Weekda s � � � � Weekends ---G"`- � � � In 2 Years After 8AM-5PM 5PM � /� / � � / I --�-- I / � � In 5 Years After 8AM-5PM SPM -�'`' / S / 6. Maximum number of employees and visitors/customers which can be expected to be on the property at any one time: %(c(;� 7. Where do/will the employees park? C:�� SiT� S'�lZ�'�-�- ��.rz�:n,�,� 8. Where do/will customers/visitors park?_ ��rF �i7� STiZ�,�_ T/�,A,�'/<'i�;�• 9. Present or most recent use of site: k�T!-�iL - S�iL �'��/�L�,i 10. List of other tenants/firms on the property: n/r�n>� CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Please answer the following questions as they apply to your property and application request to show how the findings can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information , for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. ��CEIVED 5� ��T JAN ?_ 3 19�� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT b. Explain why the application request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. S L� �rr�t�1 �6 N � c. Explain why 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. S �=t � �Ct J�c= i-E �ti•► � �iv � d. Discuss how the proposed 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. �� _ ta r�� N T RECEIVED JAN 2 3 f99� ATTACHMENT TO VARIANCE APPLICATION CITYOFBURLlNGAME PLAN�!!NG DEPT A. THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDT_NG LENDS ITSELF AETHETICALLY TO THE PROPOSED USE. THE GENERAL PHYSICAL APPEARPNCE AND LOCATION IS BOTH UNIQUE AND SPECIAL WHILE CONSISTANT WITH THE OVERALL SPECIAL QUALITIES OF THE DOWN- TOWN AREA. B. THE BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED BY THE BURI�INGAME BUSINESS DISTRICT AND RESIDENTS BY VIRTUE OF BRINGING COMMERCE AND POSITIVE IDEN`I''ITY WOULD EXEMPLIFY NO HIGHER OR BETTER USE OF A PROPERTY. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS VACANT AND IN ITS PRESENT CONDITION AN EYE SORE AND DETRACTION TO THE POSITIVE QUALITY CHARACTER OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN AREA. DENIAL WOULD RESUL� I1V THE BUILDINGS CONTINUED VACANT STATUS, AS WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. THIS WOiJLD RESULT IN LOST OF REVENUE TO OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, REDUCED TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY AND COLLATERIAL LOSS OF NEEDED REVENUE TO SURROUNDING BUSINESSES. C. THE PROPSED USE AS A LIVE THEATRE WILL IN NO WAY BE DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA, BUSINESSES OR GENERAL PUBLIC. TH7S IS A CLOSED PER- FORMANCE THEATRE FOR ADULT PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. PER- FORMANCES ARE FOR SPECIFIC TIME INTERVALS IN LATE EVENINGS ACCOMPLISHED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CONFINDS OF THE FACILITY AND GENERATING NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL BY PRODUCTS. D. THE PROPOSED USE AS A THEATRE WILL LEND ITSELF TO THE GENERAL APPEAL AND CHARACTER OF THE BURLINGAME BUSINESS DISTRICT. THE COLLATERAL EFFECT TO THE COMMERCE OF THE AREA WITH REGARD TO RESTAURANTS AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES CANNOT BE IGNORED. ADDITIONALLY AS THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PHYSICAL AREA OCCUPIED BY THE EXISTING BUILDING AND ITS PROPOSED CONVERSION EXCEPT TO UPGRADE AND ENHANCE THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF THE OVERALL DOWNTOWN AREA. !, CITY � 4� �' { • sueuN�nr�ie �� _ CITY OF BURLINGAME +SiT�PLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT t1PPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for a Special Permit, the Planning Commission is required to make findings as defined by the City�s ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Please answer the following questions as they apply to your property to show how the findings can be made for your application request. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. 1. Explain why the proposed use at not be detrimental or injurious in the vicinity, and will not be health, safety, general welfare, � �T��GHM�{ the proposed location will to property or improvements detrimental to the public or convenience. ��+�� JAN 2 3 1992 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 2. Discuss how the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. St� �`n-�r1 �1 ��-iv`�j 0 3. Discuss how the proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing neighborhood and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Per Code Section 25.52.020 (3), the Planning Commission may impose such reasonab�e conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of Title 25 (Zoning) in the operation of the use. �� 4 M� , °,• � . . �� a •. � ��/�� Q �� . ATTACHMENT TO SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION `�hN � ti t9g�- C1TY OF BURLINGANiE PLANNING DEPT. 1. THE PROPOSED USE AS A LIVE THEATRE WILL IN NO WAY BE DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA, BUSINESSES, OR GENERAL PUBLIC. THIS IS A_'CLOSED PER- FORMANCE THEATRE FOR ADULT PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. PER- �ORMANCES ARE FOR SPECIFIC TIME INTERVALS IN LATE EVENINGS ACCOMPLISHED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CONFINDS OF THE FACILITY AND GENERATING NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL BY PRODUCTS. 2. THE PROXIMITY TO THE EXISTING BUSINESSES SHOULD HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE GENERAL AREA AS IT WILL BRING ART, CULTURE AND FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT IN GOOD TASTE. AS THE CUSTOMER WILL ARRIVE FOR RELATIVELY SHORT PERIODS OF TIME AND REMAIN FOR THE DURATION OF THE PERFORMANCES WITHIN THE CONFINDS OF THE FACILITY AND EXIT WHEN COMPLETE. IN OUR EXPERIENCE THIS HAS NEVER CREATED DIFFICULTY WITH REGARD TO CONDUCT OF THE PATRONS EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE PERFORMANCES. 3. THE PROPOSED USE AS A THEATRE WILL LEND ITSELF TO THE GENERAL APPEAL AND CHARACTER OF THE BURLINGAME BUSINESS DISTRICT. THE COLLATERAL EFFECT TO THE COMMERCE OF THE AREA WITH REGARD TO RESTAURANTS AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES CANNOT BE IGNORED. ADDITIONALLY AS THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PHYSICAL AREA OCCUPIED BY THE EXISTING BUILDING AND ITS PROPOSED CONVERSION EXCEPT TO UPGRADE AND ENHANCE THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF THE OVERALL DOWNTOWN AREA. � --_' - -i � t i�f� ,�� EXISTING REAR ELEVATiON - AT HATCH LANE . not to be mod�f�ed. 9�ECEIVED JAN 2 3 1g9� - ' CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANI�ING DEPT tXISTING FRONT tLEVATION - AT CALIFORNIA DRIVE . to be modif�ed - see sheet �'-2 z47 �A�iF��liA ��IVE BURLINGAME �A. � 1 MEMO T0: FROM: DATE: RE: PLANNING �CEIVED ��Ih� �� 1 1992 ° ,,\� :;u,�;iiv�M� ,y�;iv!Nt; DEPT ENGINEERING JANUARY 21, 1992 TRAFFIC AND PARKING SURVEY - LIVE THEATER 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Engineering staff has reviewed the traffic study and its recommenda- tions. The study appears to be representative of the conditions of which staff is aware. The conclusions and recommendations included in this study appear to reflect the expected impact and needs for the maximum demand. djm > � � /� � ��,/ �� ,," 6'�'� '� �,.� �,�,Z� � t�--� — ----- � Frank C. Erbacher, P.E., T.E. City Engineer ROUTING FORM DATE : ' I � v� 3 " � .Z TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN ��N� SUBJECT : REQIIEST FOR �5f��=G ff�L. P�,��y�i r,�►,vi� �i�,e�.4iv [. � Fc�� A `i�'�. GumC� D� r7tE�4i�i�= AT �� C'�Ll�ti/'c, /!/-� /.�2! l/� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: I�AI2C.hI / REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �/M�•�i �� 1 � THANKS, Jane/Sheri ea /� 2 � Date of Comments ,� / �a .' �6�C��r _ ` , ��,�'�-e�!"�� ,-, , � � �fu �� h� Q�� L��s� l •1 ��=�"l �v "'`�' �h � � � � ��vr�--�> . � ` � /� / j � �� /� %72c !" LE�+- J 6iC j,/ � �� Q� f�� % �G �� o�y -.�Ci� �� C� ��-e - � ; `� � ROUTING FORM DATE: � a � � `� TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : REQIIEST FOR 51�� 1� � 7 � T ��' J 1�/3�� l C!ti �- � �)1� [ /�N Cf; �'�` !L f} L ( (/L� Ce�i%1 E� D �J� �(�-� %�j2.� AT �� L.. � L� FL� � tt�' � t) T.�2 � UZ:;- SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: r� l��`�� ,� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �l�lv �� rTr 1 l��- THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah � � ��N,� G �.�-, : F�. l�-��-� �i l� S��-,,..,c c�- ��, /�- �2� �(C Tn Z- j- 9 2— Date of comments . . �x� i7��6 � Wy�ic�% s �ui� oac,�r p�,,c y 0 ROUTING FORM DATE : � ' ,� -3 ' f� `3- TO: CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : REQIIEST FOR S t�� = ��- ��^--Rl�'� 21 T��I f� Pa� t2-1 � l� 6'� �;��a (�� /��..�t-t; � 1�- f=� L l V �: C.'o n't E rJ �/: 7J+z=7=� %"��z- AT � `� �7 �-� � L[ �C:�.h/' r� /� (J /Z t V�' SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: 1"I��L'H � REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY :_�I�'I ,�` `t: I�� cl a- THANKS, Jane/Sheri/ eah � Date of Comments _ / �� c.j_ CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 9�010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 9th day of March, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE APN: 029-211-0�0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARRING VARIANCE FOR A LIVE COMEDY THEATER AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE� ZONED C-1 SIIBAREA B. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER February 28, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit and parking variance for a live comedy theater at 247 California Drive (APN 029-211-050�; (property owner: Eugene & Mary A. Ivani, Louis & Albina M. Ivani. 96 Chester Street. Daly City. CA 94014); and WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 9, 1992 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that said special permit and parking variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the Cot�nty of San Mateo. � r �� ,� � � � � � � 1 � ��, �� J �� cxAz�rr � _ __� I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of March , 1992 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSZONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY . CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME CITY COIINCIL announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 20th day of April, 1992 , at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE APN 029-211-050 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARRING VARIANCE FOR A LIVE COMEDY THEATER AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 SIIB AREA B If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER APRIL 10, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit and parking variance for a live comedy theater at 247 California Drive (APN 029-211-050), 1Property owner: Eugene & Mary A. Ivani, Louis & Albina M. Ivani, 96 Chester Street, Daly City, CA 94014 1; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 9 , 1992 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on April 20 , 1992 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that said special permit and parking variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. M �r�z�i `,7 . I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Surlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of April , 1992 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: CITY CLERK