HomeMy WebLinkAbout370 Beach Road - Staff ReportBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes
a problem over th
Page 9
May 24, 1993
e years; staff confirmed this was not-a code
enfo ement item. Additional comment: there is more we do-rr�"t know than
we do krioc��,�cannot agree to eliminating the outside.=�s�airwa
been there fo""�,,a long time and won't necessari,l:y" result inya second
unit; stair is next��to the property line, on�Yiour construction is not
possible, that staircase will be remov�ed'""'once the plans go to the
Building Department; the whole building°fiis a detriment, first floor has
been converted to living space.,� i�,t�°doesn't meet requirements of the
UBC, setbacks are violated, shqu�hd����:require the building to be brought
up to code, if approve a slipsfiod unit"'i� will remain slipshod. Staff
commented on disclosure�l�� and buying "a`sv,is".
C. Graham removed sta f's suggested condition� #4 "•-�from her motion to
approve, accepte�by the seconder, C. Jacobs. Motion���o,�,approve failed
on a 2-5 ro�a411 vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Kelly;�,,Mink voting
no.
"'.>7.�:
C. Ga�L�'igan moved to deny the application, seconded by C.��'I�Iink,
appraved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures we'e
a�ii s ed .
Recess 9:25 P.M., reconvene 9:33 P.M.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL OFFICE AREA EXCEEDING 20$ AT 380
�'_�_ BEACH ROAD ZONED M-1
� Reference staff report, 5/24/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comment, required findings. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Philip Anasovich, architect with
Blunk Demattei Associates, was present. He advised Piper Painting is
at 380 Beach Road now, they leave their truck there at night, exchange
their cars for the truck in the morning. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Graham found this would not be detrimental to other businesses in
the vicinity and moved for approval of the special permit for
additional office space over 20� by resolution with the following
conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 18, 1993
Sheets A-1, A-2 and Existing Lower Level Floor Plan and Existing Upper
Level Floor Plan date stamped May 4, 1993; (2) that if additional
office space is proposed in the future it would require an amendment to
this special use permit; and (3) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended
by the City of Burlingame. .
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
, , �t� ��o
CITY OF B URLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT
SpeciaZ Permit for Office Space Over 20� Item 4�9
Address: 380 Beach Road Meeting Date: 5/24/93
Request: Special Permit for additional office space over 20%
(C.S. 25.43.030, 22) at 380 Beach Road, zoned M-1.
Applicant: Blunk Iiemattei Associates APN: 026-331-030
Property Owner: Dr. Dean Mawdsley
Lot Area: 53,475 �F +/-
General Plan:Industrial, Industrial and Office Uses Zoninq: M-1
Adjacent Development: Industrial/Warehouse
CEQA status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section:
15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior
alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing,
and electrical co�veyances. ��
Previous Use: Office/Warehouse
Proposed Use: Office/Warehouse
Allowable Use: Industxial and Office Uses
History/summary: The structure at 380 Beach Road was constructed
in 1967 as an office/warehouse building. The original �ootprint
was 18,228 SF ar�d ha� remained the sam� since. No records were
found in regards to the amount of office �riginally built with the
structure. The amount of parking on site is adequate for the uses
as they exist inside th� building now. This consistency gives the
impression that �11 af the existing office areas were constructed
with the original building. Presently there is 11,433 SF of
existing office space (6,013 SF fir�t floor and 5,420 SF second
floor) and 12,64� SF o� warehouse with 53 parking spaces existing
on site. Fifty (50) parking spaces are required for the existing
uses. The addition of 840 SF of office space brings tY�e parking
requirement up to 53 spaces, where 53 are provided.
Lot Coverage:
Warehouse:
1ST FLR :
2ND FLR :
TOTAL(whse)
Office:
iST FLR : *
2ND FLR :
TOTAL (office)
PARRING:
EXISTING
18,228 SF (34�)
12,214 SF
431 SF
12,645 S�'
6,013 SF
5,420 SF
11,433 SF (62%)
53 STALLS
PROPOSEA
18,228 SF
11,805 SF
431 SF
12,236 SF
6,853 SF
5,420 SF
�2,273 SF(67%)
53 STALLS
AZ3,Oi4ED/REO' D
70�
10��
20� OR 4,815.6 SF
53 �TALLS
* Special Permit for office space exceeding 20% of the
total floor area in the building.
Meets all other zoning code requirements.
1
SPECIAL PERMIT
380 BSACH ROAD
Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official comments in his May 14,
1993 memo; that the office space must be reduced in size to no more
than 25� of the area of the warehouse use or all of the openinqs
between the office and the warehouse must have one hour fire
assemblies. The Fire Marshall and the City Engineer had no
comments.
Required Findinqs for a 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.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a
public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution.
The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public
hearing the following condition should be considered:
Conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 18,
1993 Sheets A-1, A-2 and Existing Lower Level Floor Plan and
Existing Upper Level Floor Plan date stamped May 4, 1993;
2. that if additional office space is proposed in the future it
would require an amendment to this special use permit; and
3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the
Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City
of Burlingame.
Leah Dreger
Zoning Technician
cc: Dr. Dean Mawdsley, property owner
Blunk Demattei Associates, Architect
2
��� �lT o ����l�Jl�ll1V1J�
Q�� Q�G=���O� IlU ll O� Il WLS � � IIU�IIU� �O� t1VlIl1VI10c�J��O� UU _ _' 1
Type of Application: X Special Permit _Variance _Other -- - ,-, P,>. ,-.
Project Address 380 Beach Road -�-._ -'�'�' _;�'�`�
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) C��- �-- 3 3 i�- � 3�
���e'� r<��i�
APPL/CANT PROPERTY OWNER i�}- ����' r.� -�-�, �
Name: Blunk Demattei Associates
Address: 1555 Bayshore Hwy., Suite 300
Name: Dr. Dean Mawdsley J
Address: 615 Chiltern Road �
City/State/Zip: Burlinqame, CA 94010
Telephone:(work) 692-9911
(home)
Name: Robert M. Blunk, A.I.A. *Philip
Blunk Demattei Associates
Address: 1555 Bayshore Hwv., Suite 300
City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone (daytime): 692.-9911
City/State/Zip: Hillsborough, CA 94010
Telephone: (work)
(home) 344-5225
Anasovich A.I.A.
P/ease indicate with an asterisk (*l who the contact nerson
is for tiris nroiect.
PROJECTDESCR/PT/ON: Add 840 sq. ft. of new office space, including toilet and
utility area for use by Piper Painting Co.
AFF/DA V/T/S/GNA TURE:
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
�� s 3
Applic t's Signature ate
I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application. , �
Property Owner's Sig tu D te
OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Filed: �` �' 93 Fee�✓���` Receipt #
Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete:
Date application accepted as complete: S- 4�3 �
P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing (date) 5- a�1 ��1,�
P.C. Action G%%�P/'�(1 �t? /�s! ��t, ,r��i � d F,��S°
,zis2 Appeal to Council7 Yes '�No' /
projapp.frm Council meeting date Council Action _
(� CITY '
;�;t. O,n
BURLWGAME
'.6` �''=' �l . li: ee I
CITY OF EURLII�JGAME
SPECI�L PERMIT APPLICATIOONS
t'�.-� l i ��1
a �. _. t �. _...
���c
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the C:ity;s ordinance-;
(Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will assist the„:Plannin;g��
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 �ack of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /�cation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
con venience.
The additional office space at 380 Beach Road will increase the desirabilit�� of the
property from all perspectives, reflecting the current needs of the tenants and
possible future tenants. This is a trend that has developed over the iast 20 �ears.
As there will be virtually no change to the building's exterior, there shall be no
effect on environment, views, health or safety. Increased convenience to the
handicapped will be provided by newly striped parking stalls with proper
identification.
��
3.
How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame
Genera/ P/an and Zoning Ordinance?
The building as completed in 1969 had a ratio of 28% office space to 72% warehouse.
As the building currently exists, it has 1I,434 sq. ft. of office space or 47.4%
of the total space. We propose to increase the existing 47.4% office space to
50.9%,which is an increase of 3.5;%. The zoning ordinance sets a 20% office ratio
limit. We feel that with the abundant on-site parking provided and moderate useage
of the site, our proposal is justified.
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/ vicinityl
As stated above, there is no change to the exter�ior of the building.
The use of our building as an office/warehouse is in complete accord with
surrounding uses.
i 2�sz
sp.frm
1. Exp/ain why
property or
convenience.
2
3.
, 2iez
ep.frm
the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to
impravements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
How wiil 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, lighting, paving,
landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighbQring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfarel
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., underground storage tanks,
storage 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 protection? �II alarm systems
or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services
(i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials,
or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and
goals for conservation and deveiopment7 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 sitesll Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or
handicappedl
How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/
Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also
ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated
designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would "fit" accordingly.
Ho w wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the
existing neighborhood and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing
architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl If a use will affect the way a
neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area
and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change
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 neighborhoodl Think of character as
the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more
traffic or less parking available resulting from this usel If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change,
state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity7 Compare your
project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state
why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
�r` vITY �� �
euRur+c,aree
�b,.m
CITY OF BUFtLINC�AMF.
SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNIN6 COMMI�SSION -- ��
COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS ..� ,.__._ __ , ,. ' `=
Proposed use of site: Warehouse/offices �
.r
1.
'_ . — „..-„ :-...,,�i J.��
4.;{:ii�[ '.- :�?e,i;'6�-,5e::sa:^'
. A .._ ,.. .:'at 1^ �.,. . �
Days/hours of operation: Monda.y throuqh Saturda.y, 8:00 am to 5:00 p.m.
�a
3. Number of trucks/service vehicles (by type) :±6 pickup trucks at site
4. Current and Projected maximum number of employees at this
location•
•Existincr In 2 Years In 5 Years
After After After
8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM
Weekdays
fulltime 17 0 22 0 30 0
artime 0 0 0 0 0 0
Weekends
full�ime 0 0 0 0 0 0
artime 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Current and Projected maximum number of visitors/customers
who may come to the site:
ExistinQ In 2 Years In 5 Years
After After After
8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM
Weekda s 16 0 18 0 20 0
Weekends 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Maximum number of employees and visitors/customers which can
be expected to be on the property at any one time: 33
7. Where do/will the employees park? i n parki nq 1 ot on si te
8. Where do/will customers/visitors park? i n parki nq 1 ot on si te
9. Present or most recent use of site: warehouse/offices
10. List of other tenants/firms on the property:
(384); Marathon Electronics - Avtek Svstems Division
on, Inc.
(TYP.)
STORAGE
OFFICE �3'-6'X9'-0'
e•-s'x
13•_2.
DRAFTING FOOM
23'-8'X23'-3'
STORAGE
17'-6'X BREA
9�-�� flOOM
'-6'X
15'-6'
OFFICE TORAGE
77'-6'X 7 -0'X9'-6'
11'-6' flINT
OM
9'-2'X
'-6'
OFFICE
11'-6'X
14•_0.
RESTROOM
9'-2'X12'-0.
WOflK AREA � �
16'-6'X 19'-0' g RESTFOOM
/� 9'-2'X5'-6'
12'-0'X
12•_0.
WAREHOUSE
4879 SQ.FT.
RESTROOM
6'-8'X10'-0'
�._Q.
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1/76'-1'-0'
TOTAL WAREHOUSE SPACE:12,214.5SQ.FT.
TOTAL OFFICE SPACE : 6,013.5 S�.FT.
TOTAL : 18,228 S�.FT. .
zir-o•
WAREHOUSE
3984 SQ.FT.
--�----"---�'---�
e
� �'r;� -
MA`� i°9:�
►
C'rY�; ;uit,.�t.:,r, y --
� :::�:�.� . =. �.
�
�
�
I
�
�
AREHOUSE
I992 SQ.FT.
OFFICE i
15'-6'X13'-6' I
�
OFFICE �FFICE �
11'-6'X72'-6 10'-0'%
12• _6.
e•-s•x �
e'-6'
OFFICE
24'-0"X20'-0'
I
I
I
�
�
I WAREHOUSE
732 SO.FT.
�----- --
CLOS. �p
OFFICE
10'-6'X �
22'-0' OFFICE I
13'-6"X �
27'-0' I
� .
�' 1
�
�
7
OFFICE �
24'-0'X17'-0' �
�
�
7
�
I
I I
�-- J---L — J'--- �
TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR: w• J
DR. DEAN MAWDSLEY H I
380 BEACH ROAD BURLINGAME, CA. oqre 4•28•93
' EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN �oe No.
� 1553 9AYSHORE HWY i300 BURLINGAME CA 94010 TEL (4151 692�9911 FAX 14151 692018� �
RESTROOM
8'-6'X9'-0'
RESTROOM
6'-8'XS'-0'
i�
�aRr �:I: �,,
c, n �� �� ;_� -
:> ,
H. SPACE
0'X3'-0'
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1/16'-1'-0'
TOTAL WAREHOUSE SPACE : 431 SQ.FT.
TOTAL OFFICE SPACE : 5.420.5 SQ.FT.
TOTAL : 5,851.5 SQ.FT.
TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR: A•�
DR. DEAN MAWDSLEY
380 BEACH ROAD BURLINGAME, CA. onrE 4•28•93
`;,;�i�;�;T" EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN �oe No.
� 1333 eAYSHOFE HWV i300 BURLINGAME CA 94010 TEL 14151 692�9911 FA% Id151 692�OIBI �
ROUTING FORM
DATE : ' J ' �' / J?
TO: x CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
PARRS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING
SUBSECT: REQUEST FOR S peGc cc,i I��Yvvu. 7` �y- O�-r�
�
��c�t�e- excze_�-✓t�,. �O i��. cuare,� o�.�.s� �v lc�q C �'!rtl,
AT _ �J �`O �J �G N �Z�D
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: IyI Ct.[.1 �CrJ, ���_
, ,
THANKS,
Jane/Sheri/Leah
� � �(..�.�..-.-,---Pl .
�'-,(�,,,;( � �
V� -
� �° �G' Date of Comments
/� _
_ � ✓� ,�;,,r�P�.�'
�
0
_�i "' _'"'..Ys'ri1✓5 ._.�.__. _��.� �.�„_, i _..____� ": _ _...._ . ,.... .., . ..
ROUTING FORM
DATE : ' � � � ' � 3
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL
T FIRE MARSHAL
PARRS DIREC.TOR
CITY ATTORNEY
e
FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN
SUBJECT : REQUEST FOR <S l'k�-� f 2Y IYu "� � o� ce� 5,�� �.p
� ce�-cP,�-r�q, �-v � �r: c� uJ c�.✓ e� n u se._ �� da .�i-1� M-- I
�
AT � �U � E��-�- �T .
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: M cu., L U�J l�
THANKS,
Jane/Sheri eah
S` I a" 93 Date of comments
[o ; T �N,�G
�h ; l`"� R� J'�] �4P—S t-4-� L
�o
Co Nt M E,./T"
��Z��
��...��,:n.:_�a....�'..e��rr✓,,,_ ... .-.- . .�_: __.:�_.�:�.: �_„_,:�.r ..:..:......:.. . .
ROUTING FORM
DATE : ' S • � • `�' 3
TO: CITY ENGINEER
_� CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
PARiCB DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN
$
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR s,Deccu�� jvPJ"rru7� � o�icc�
_�'pa �� e�cee�Cc.r�ci a--� % c� � a. u/a.rc�.dz�se �o� !�/-/
AT � �O � E/-�G �{- IZe�P•. D
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: l�l�� l Q q3
THANKS,
Jane/Sher� Leah
(� 0 5�0 !.�
/ZGdd G� .s! � 2 �-
°� 1�G,. e a� ��
�ro�e� �9jo���s
wu� f hm�✓ �re
Date of Comments
V'
�G� � h' 0 N�1 �✓� `%� vt Z� ��
�e �,,>arG-�v�s� v.s� e�
6�e,� ���e a�,l w�'� us �
2. SS��OI�e� .
�//����
�- � a �.� . ...
� �� . . ��� � � .
. .
..�. , ..,, � . �. � . . ... . . ;
.��. �. � ' .' . . .
�
� �
.. a.�. Q � � .
. � . i11 . �"'-
����
�� f �R�VE-2�i MoVfE �
�.< �
s
� -n TN�AT��- �� �
Q � . ; ��_ �
_�,. �� � �;r .�
. M�
� ��_: . . rf, . . .
' � �
:'"=��". � . �� - � . . � �"�� � � .. � � ..
� R �� - �E � �
- _ � ' ,� � � <'� � _-
C� �
J � i � �� � .�� —� � ��-
113 , .
��� =�,� � M- �
� �
�i�£ j . . . � � x.
V • � 1 _
- k � � � . ��
_ � � _ _� �.._ . �
� 3=�
.. 3� p
� � �,
��..: E.. _ _ 380 �EAG� �4oA�
, _ - ..
���� � �. �� `"
4 ?..i, � . - . . �- ���� '= _ -
^�� c' -� - - ,�,`
y" '€.F ..a L 'y.o? '1 y.,.�.,''�"ti. - �O C c . . � .� l '
P� �� � � � � 383�� 3�i�d� �� 3'Il-381 � � 1 -
�, ,
.
� � _� ���.�
� -� r ��� .� , .-
rt. � � ; �
,.
- � �: � � �
�w
Ak �� '
� � ,� #� ���,� k _. � � '� ; �� � , _
� � � � � m��
� '' ���� � �'� - a � � i � ; � � . �
� �� _ • � �
4 � � �y :`-�� � t �z i � °�. �s} � � �-�,�e��'� - ��` y,^ *�, � — �� �,s:
> " .. ..
? a�` �-� e�,: k �" _.
���- -:Ye �-
� F
� y� � -��,x� .. .
� M � � - : �. .w^ �. _
am'��. �•�' �"� h k � .� �. �� t =_ �� "� r` _,
r� F� � I . .,���� j s� - �-� t" � : . ,
,
�
. ..�. . . . � . ..
,. '� , . , .�. � .
� �# . _ � � _ .� >. - r � -. � ��` : � -�:.
� �� . 5 �. ' fi � ��
2 i .,, -- •` a . �
�� . ��' � . . . . .... ,
, , ' ^ '" _,. ,. ;: ' , .... .
; , ✓:� � � .J ' . ,.
E _ -� .�
, �' - .....,„. , :�_ . .. . ,.� __
�
er � � �
ry u' ,`', ?_'_� i. F '.'����r �".. - - . . . .. . ,_- . .
,` - ; ' � " - � � `���,��,�
� �
' � .�,- h a ,� :
x,s, `� � 3
�� LArJG' �oAiD
,�
�� Y, . . . . . . . . ..
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
(415) 696-7250
NOTICE OF HEARING
The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the
following public hearing on Mondav, the 24th day of May, 1993, 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.
380 BEACH ROAD
APN: 026-331-030
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE AREA
EXCEEDING 20$ AT 380 BEACH ROAD, ZONED M-1.
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.
Please note, when possible, and when multiple family development is
involved, this notice shall be posted in a public place on the
project site and on neighborinq buildings with tenants.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
May 14, 1993
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application
has been made for a special permit for office area.exceeding 20�
at 380 Beach Road (APN 026-331-030 �; (property owner:
Beach Road Associates, 615 Chiltern Road Hillsborough CA 94010 ); and
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the
City of Burlingame on Mav 24, 1993 , at which time it reviewed
and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning
Commission that:
l. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted
and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it
is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project
set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and a
categorical exemption, Sec. 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a)
Interior or exterior alterations, is hereby approved.
2. Said special permit is approved subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such special permit
are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution
be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I� , Secretary of the Planning
Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of-
the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of_ May ,
1993 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY