HomeMy WebLinkAbout860 Stanton Road - Staff Report�YY�C!
City of Burlingame
Parking, La�dscape Variances and Canditional Use Permit
Address: 880 Stanton Road . Meeting Date: 12/13/99
Request: Variance for pazldng space dimension, landscape variance to allow less on-site
landscaping than required, and conditional use permit to vary from the front setback landscaping
requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development at 880 Stanton Road, wned
O-M.
Applicant: Russ Hora APN: 026-302-580 &-590
Property Owner: Alberto and Marta Rodriguez
Lot Area: 56,400 SF (1.29 acres)
General Plan: Industrial and Office Use Zoning: O-M
Adjacent Development: Office and Wazehouse
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 conveyances.
Previous Use: Office and Wazehouse (shipping)
Proposed Use: Office and Wazehouse (shipping)
Allowable Use: Office and Warehouse allowed, must wmply with O-M and Bayfront Design
Guidelines
Current Project Revisiona (December 1, 1999 plaos): After the November 22, 1999, Planning
Commission meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped December 1, 1999, Sheet
1). Planning would note that the applicant provided five parldng stalls for trucks at the rear ofthe
site, therefore reducing the number of employee/visitor parking stall from 62 stalls in the previous
application to 52 stalls.
Summary: The applicant, Russ Hom, representing JSI Shipping, is requesting a vaziance for
parldng space dimensions, a]andscape variance to allow less on-site landscaping than required and
conditional use permit to vary from the front setback landscaping requirements of the Design
Guidelines for Bayfront Development at 880 Stanton Road, wned O-M. The following
applications are required:
1. Parl�►g vaziance requirad for width of parking space dimensions (8'-5" x 20' parking space
widttt proposed, 9'-0" x 20' parldng space width required) (CS 25.70.020, 1):
2. Landscape variance to allow less on-site landscaping than required in the O-M District
(10.5�'0, 5957 SF proposed where 154b, 8460 SF is required) (CS 25.43.070, 1).
3. Conditional use permit to vary from the front seWack landscaping requirements of the Design
Guidelines for Bayfmnt Devedopment (554b, 3936 SF soft ]andscaping proposed where 80'Ya,
5760 SF of minimum front setback (30') is required) (CS 25.43.030, 1).
PanHng, Zardscaping Ya�ioncss ard Coedltloeal Uss PenNit 880 Stanton Road
Summary: The existing office/warehouse building, most recenfly occupied by a shipping
company, is currenfly vacant. The existing building has a footprint of 19,529 SF and covers
34.6% of the 56,400 SF parcel. The footprint includes an enclosed loading dock area attached
to the side of the building. M ezisting truck ramp is located along the right side of the building
in front of the enclosed dock. The existing building contains approximately 7,891 SF of office
and 11,638 SF of warehouse (including an enclosed dcek area).
The applicant, Russ Aora representing JSI Shipping, is proposing tenant improvements to the
interior of the single story commercial building which would include increasing the existing office
area. The remodel would increace the office area from 7,891 SF (4056 of the building) to 13,207
SF (679b of the building), a 5316 SF increase, and would decrease the wazehouse azea from
11,638 SF to 6,322 SF. The exterior of the building will remain unchanged. A conditional use
permit is required in the O-M District when office spaee excceds 504b of a warehouse building.
The proposed increase in office area intensifies the use of this site and requires an increase in the
number of parldng spaces on this site. Currendy, the site contains eight mazked on-site pazlang
spaces in front of the building. The remaining area on the site is paved with several mazked
parldng spaces which appeared W have been erased by dme and weather.
With the project, the applicant is proposing a new parldng layout for this site. A Wtal of 52 on
site pazking spaces aze provide�, where 50 spaces are required for the proposed uses [1:300 for
office (44 spaces), 1:1000 for wazehouse, (6 spaces)]. Of the 52 proposed parking spaces, 43
pazking spaces measure 8'-6" wide x 20' dcep. A parking variance for parldng space width is
required (8'-6" proposed where 9'-0" is requirad). Staff would note a compact parldng stall is
8"-6" x 17' ('m terms of width the proposad would result in 83 4b compact spaces). The applicant
notes �at an 8'-6" width is proposed in order W provide more on site parking spaces. Nine trucks
are expected to be parked on the site for this business. Five of the nine trucks will be parked at
the rear of the site in an area not counted in the required parldng, and the remaining four trucks
will be parked in the loading dock area.
With the new parldng layout, the applicant is requesting an exempfion from the Bayfront Design
Guidelines which require that 8096 of the front 30' setback be landscaped (5,760 SF). Planning
conducted a field inspecflon and found that only 4.496 (323 SF) of the front 30' of the lot is
landscaped. With this project, the applicant is praposing to increase the landscaping to 55%
(3,936 SI� in the front 30' of the lot, or 1824 SF less than required.
In the O-M District, the code requires that a minimum of 154b of the entire site be landscaped
(8,460 S�, but the applicant is proposing 1U:54b (5,957 Sl� of landscaping over the entire site.
Therefore, the applicant raquests for appmval of a landscape varianee W provide a total of 10.5?b
]andscaping where 15 9b is the minimum iequinad, or 25()3 SF less than required. Planning would
note that currenfly, only 1%(620 Sl� of the e.ntire site is ]andscaped.
2
Parktng, Laedscaping Varlances aed CaidiNonal Uae Penelt 880 Stanton Road
The proposed shipping company will be open 24 hours a day, Monday through Sunday. On
weekdays, thete will be 63 full-time and 2 part-time employces from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 12 full-
time employees after 5 p.m. On weekends, there will be 9 full-time and 2 part-dme employees
from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 2 employees after 5 p.m. The number of employees is expected to
increase W 72 in 5 yeazs. The applicant notes .that JSI Shipping is an international shipping
company and consaquently many of its employees often work off-site for extended 6me.
Therefore, the applicant projects a maximum of 53 employees on site at any one time. These
employces would include 10 truck drivers, 6 salespersons, departments heads, the president and
vice president. The maximum number of clients is ezpected to be 8 per day and is expected to
increase to 14 per day in 5 years.
Proposed
Use: office/wazehouse
(13,207 SF office)
(6,322 SF warehouse)
Paddng:
Parking
Dimensions: �
62 spaces
8'-6"W* x 20'D
Front Setback
Landscaping:*
Total
Landscaping: *
55'% of front setback*
3,936 SF
10.5 % of site*
5,957 SF
F�ing
office/wazehouse
(7,891 SF office)
(11,638 SF warehouse)
Allowed/Req'd.
office/warehouse
8 spaces 50 spaces
(1:300 office)
(1:1000 warehouse)
n/a
4.4%
323 SF
9'-0"W x 20'D
80% of front setback
5,760 SF
1%
620 SF
15 % of site
8,460 SF
• Variance for parking space dimension, landscape variance to allow less total on site
landscaping than required, and conditional use permit W vary from the front setback
landscaping requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development.
17iis project meets all other zoning code require�ents.
Staff Comments: The City Frgic�ees, Chief Building Official and Fire Mazshal had no comments
on the project.
Study Meetiog: At the Nrnember 22, 1999 PLvu�ing Commission study meeting the Commission
asked sevenl questions regarding this project (November 22, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The
Commission asla�d how manY parking � would be in the �ng lot if the parl�►g stalls were
provided to the required dimensions. In a written response dated Nmember 30, 1999, the
applicant notes that there woutd be the same number of parldng spaces provided if the stalls were
Parhtag, ladseapieg Varlpncea aed Co�ditloeal Usc Pen�lt 880 Staetoa Road
9'-0" wide, instead of 8'-6" wide as proposed (refer to revised site plan, date stamped December
1, 1999). In the lower center of the site plan, the applicant provides the stall and aisle width
dimensions for both 8'-6" and 9'-0" stall widths and how each width would affect the parking
layout.
The applicant points out that the 8'-6" parldng space width generates three additional feet of
landscaping for the full width of the landscaped areas at the front of the lot, therefore increasing
the landscaping by an additiona1165 SF compared to pmviding 9'-0" wide spaces. The applicant
submitted photogaphs of the current landscape conditions on the site (dated December 1, 1999).
The applicant also notes that the 8'-6" width also provides the employees a wider access from the
parking lot across the loading dock to the employee entrance.
The Commission oomm�►ted that nine hucks would be parlaed on the site and asked if this number
included the three in the loading dock area. The applicant notes that the nine trucks included those
parked in the laading dock azea. The revised site plan notes that four trucks would be parked in
the loading dock area, and an additional five ttucks would be parked at the rear of the site (shown
at the rear center of the lot, not in required parking spaces). The sizes of the trucks coming to
the site would range in size from 22' to 45' in length.
The applicant clarified the visitor and employee parldng on the revised site plan. The nine visitor
parldng speoes (7 spndazd, 2 disabled aocessible) are located at the front of the lot and designated
by the letter "V". The remaining parldng spaces would be dedicated for employees and truck
ParkinB (S.sPaces)•
In regards to visitors and employees on the site in 2 and 5 years, the applicant notes that the
commercial applica6on indicates the nced foc more spaces than is possible. However, the sales
staff and other department heads travel and are often out of the office for extended periods of
time.
Planning staff researched the history on this site and found that a lot combination was approved
for this site in 1986 to combine four lots into one. At that fime, a site plan was provided to show
that the parldng would wnform to the office/warehouse use on the site. The site plan shows a
total of 31 parldng spaces. Planning could not verify if all 31 parl�►g spaces were striped on the
lot at that time. A copy of this site plan is included in the staff report for your review.
Planaing would note that the applicant summarizes his rational for the variances on page 2 of the
written response.
Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that
the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or exhaordinary eircumstances or conditions applicable to tlie property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
4
Paniixg, La�dscopixg Varlaects aed Coeditlanal Ust Penelt 880 Swatos Road
(b) the granting of the applicahion is neces.sary for the preservaflon and enjoyment of a substantial
properiy right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrim�tal or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity and will not be detrimental W the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(d) that the use of the property will be wmpatible with the aesthefics, mass, bulk and character
of existing and potential uses of pmperties in the general vicinity.
NSndiugs for a Conditional Use P�ermit: In ordes W grant a Condidonal Use Permit the Planning
Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the pmperty (Code Secdon 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 Uris tifle;
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such rea4onable conditions or restrictions as it deems
necessary W secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner
compaable 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.
Affinnative action shoutd be taken by resolution and should include findings.
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following
considered:
Conditions:
The reasons for any
condifions should be
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped December 1, 1999, Sheet 1, with a total of 52 off-street parldng spaces
designated for employees, 9 off-strcet parldng spaces designated for visitors and disabled
a�ssibility, and a total of 5957 SF of landscaping, 3936 SF of which is located in the front
30 feet of the site;
5
Pcr�Eiag, I�ndscaptng �'ariances and Coadi�ioaal Use Pemrit
880 SWntox Road
2. that the variance for parking space dimension shall automadcally expire if the existing
wazehouse/office structure is demolished (more than SOR6 of the exterior walls aze removed
or changed) and/or the use of the structure is changed including adding more office to the
existing structure;
3. that the 10.5 %(5957 S� of the site in landscaping as proposed shall be installed with
imgation and maintained, and that failure to maintain the on-site landscaping and the required
5957 SF of landscapad area st�all result in review of the variance, and the final inspection shall
not be scheduled until the landscaping an irriga8on system aze installed;
4. that during the demolition and reconstruction of this parking lot and landscape areas, the
applicant shall comply with Burlingame's Storm Water Management and Discharge Ordinance,
and shall apply Best Management Practices (BMP) pursuant to C.S. 15.14.140.3 to the
greatest ext�t possible to reduce off-site �osion and sedime�►tation resulting from this project;
and
5. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998
Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Plant►er
c. Russ Hora, applicant
Paul Bessieres, azchitect
City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minu[es
November 22, 1999.
largest of the ellings on site; how w uld providing a 15' re�etback instead of 1' affect the project. her er
no further co nts and the item was s t for public heazing o December 13, 1999, roviding all the info at n is
submitted to the anning Department in t e.
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIIvIENSIONS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
�TO VARY FROM TI� FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING REQUIItEMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INCREASE 1N OFFICE USE AT 880 STANTON ROAD, ZONED
0-M. (RUSS HORA, CORK REALTY INC., APPLICANT AND ALBERTO M. RODRIQU$Z, PROPERTY
S?WI_1ERl
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the Commissioners asked: if the parking spaces were provided to
required dimensions, how many would be in the parking lot; indicate 9 trucks parked in the lot, does this include the
3 in the loading dock azea; what aze the size of the trucks which come to this site; clarify on the plans where the visitors
and employees will pazk; show a site plan with the required parking, how much more landscaping can be gained; need
a better rational for the vadances; the commercial application is incomplete, does not address visitors and employees
on the site in 2 years and 5 yeazs; what is the history of the site, why are there only 8 parking spaces there now. There
were no further comments and the item was set for public hearing on December 13, 1999, providing all the information
is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
LICATION FOR
D NSIONS AND C
BA ONT DEVELOPr
FRO GE AND FOR BZ
IN T FIVE-STORY
(DAN L , GLENBC
CP Monroe pres�
this study would 1
about the environ
ask any ques6ons
� the Revised P
)NAL USE F
FOR APP
fG HEIGH'T FO
)INGS ON A 16
iH REALTY T
IMPACT REPd�
ITS TO VARY F
WIDTH ALONG
i SITE AT 301 ,
, APPLICANT
VARIANCE FO PARKING SPAC�
�I THE DESIGN UIDELINES FOR
E NORTH AIIiPO T BOULEVARD
OF A 488,000 SF OF CE PROTECT,
ORT BOULEVARD, ONED C-4.
GLENBOROUGH ARTNERS,
ed briefly the Revis�
different from the ty
�al document, to wh
�e might have about
Project and the Su
ical since the Com
�ESA, the city's
th project, which
rtal Response to C't�
should first identify
nts, would respond.
�e addressed in the ;
�nts Document no ' g that
questions they mig t have
en the Commission s uld
�eport prepared for ac 'on
On e environmental do ument the commissi ers asked: City of n Mateo raised issues der From the Floor,
shoul be addressed, traffic ngineer responded s ce issues seemed to ve been brought up at study meeting held
duririg t e summer which he id not attend, he wo d respond in writing, a part of the project r view, to the letter
the City f San Mateo repre ntative indicated he ould send; feel app ant should do addition study, of wind
turbulence d intensity from the ther wind directions i icated, CP noted tha since wind was identifi as a less than
significant e ct in the environment document this study so could be requeste as a part of the project nalysis; how
does the repo address the project d traffic impacts in t future if this project 's built over a very long 'me frame,
traffic engineer ack Hutchinson res onded, the environm tal document looks t the traffic now presen with the
proj ct and the c ulative analysis is sed on the project w h traffic growth in th azea (two models were sed), it
is di ult for any ne to detemune wh t might occur to the conomy or growth i the area in the very lon term
because ere aze bac ound issues outsid of the area which ot be detemuned, th cumula6ve analysis ' old
up reason bly well fo the future; can you erify the a.m. and p. . peak hours and w happens in the time le in
between, tr c engine Jack Hutchinson r ponded, the peak ho is a 60 minute win w within th0 2 hour pe
period identifi for the a. . and p.m., because issues of data, espec ly for freeway segm nts, they usually use the
2 hour period; th general e erience in the Bay Ar indicates tl�at the pe 60 minutes is 7:30 m.-8:30 a.m. and 4:30
p.m:-5:30 p.m., operational they design for the eak two hours in a. and p.m. because t t provides adequate
3
, ,,
/ .:, �.�' �;
�....-'•.'.. . r:,���'9i9:; � ......��... ��..;%;,.,��.. 4,?:i r �;r::,s'i'
594 Howazd Street #200, San Francisco, CA 94105 546-6737
November 30, 1999
To:
�
Ciry of Burlingame - Planning Commission
RECEIVED
UEC - 1 1999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEP7
880 Stanton Road, November 22 1999, Study Session Commission Comments
Responses to Commission's Study Meeting Questions:
1. The same number of pazking spaces are provided by either parking space size, 8'-6" or 9'-0".
2. The 8'-6" width parking space generates 3 feet more landscaping area for the full width of
the pazking lot area providing a total of 165 square feet of landscaped area.
3. See the plan for the 9 truck pazking space locations, 5 in the parking lot and 4 at the dock.
4. The size of the truck vary in length — from 22' to 45'.
5. The 8'-6" width option provides 7(9' x 20') short-term pazking spaces that are shown
bordering Stanton Road.
6. The option for the 8'- 6" parking spaces will provide:
a). 165 more squaze feehof landscaped area bordering Stanton Road and
b). A safer access from the pazking lot across the loading dock to the employee
enuance.
7. Vaziance rational:
a). The 8'- 6" wide parking spaces generates 165 squaze feet more of landscaping at
Stanton Road.
b). The 8'- 6" wide pazking space (for full day employees) permits the addition of a
walk way for a safer access to the emplbyee entrance at the loading dock area,
8. The projected visitors and employee parking, shown on the Commercial Application:
2 years S years
Visitors 10 14
Employees 2 17
Please note: This indicates the need for more spaces than is possible, however the Sale
Department staff and other departrnent heads travel and aze often out of the office for
extended times.
�.
880 Stanton Road Smdy Session —Responses — Page 2
CALCULATIONS
880 STANTON ROAD AREAS
Warehouse
Toilets
Offiee space
Total
Pazking Required
Warehouse 1:1000 =
Office 1:300 =
Provided
Employee spaces
Handicapped
Trucks
4,635 square feet
850
12 24
17, 891
5 spaces
�
SO required parking spaces
SO spaces
2
9(5 + 4 at the loading dock)
VARIANCE REQUESTS
/•�
The 8.5'wide parking space will provides for:
l65 square feet of additional landscaping
1
Three moce feet of landscaping for the 55' that borders Stanton Road
:
A 4 foot wide walkway that provides a safer access to the employee entry vs. -
A 62' walk through the length of an active loading dock.
2.
Two I7' wide circulation aisles at the northern area vs. -
14'-6"widths
3.
Seven 9' wide parking spaces are provided for visiiors or short-term parking.
�
The extent of the proposed site landscaped area with the 8'- 6" stalls.
The eadsting site has 620 sq. ft. of landscaped area which under this proposal would
�n�rease to 6,20o square feet- a 10�'old increase of the landsca�ed area!
2.
. - _ _ � �� . _-_. . Q
_ - : �_ �
..,., ' ' � �- -;�i .
�� �
_ {��-� I _
� : _ �_ �=
-- �...�-- - \�, i;
— i Q � a11�/ i
, i �
I'I I � � nl�'� ,N ..I �..
��I � . , I . " —
. . . � . _ _ ! ..I : . ... — _�r� :.
. 'J. j _—
1. A1
� �_ '� � I '�i I i`I 1 la �d� � I
�' a
_� --- -- + ��� � ��� � � �
" k
i,� ,,; _ _.
� }� I
� �� :
'z-;-::+;,r, :
�,�„ .. .
r}�.�r ,
'
' J.
l Y
F•�. ,
+^ C
�. .
�; :
aiJr
� ',
" (Ela5vuel.T PamuG �,-- . . .
RE4�VC WLEDSyPG�'WG'•�•. � . . . •.• ..•�• _•...�
RePue ps ueEo-0
�'\
I
p ' \ I I � i .
-1- ' I:-�:-a--
. ..�--- � LL ]vec[5 9 9'.G' . �IU.p•
. � -� � ��(l1UTC4�p�4Yllt...�. � I
; . ._
�
�
,
i �
A� . .
��J
i . � . . m�ww�r
° I E
s�rrrc..d..—
�v, . �,,. . ... .. . ..
Y\ � Mf! Fes r�rc � � �
\ I ..I, CyYG Ponp . .
y
.� 1`M]o�T�YiIY�/NM�I�W
. \ 3[E( i.�ylA�NfIYfO.
, �,
eee are arueu �
__� 3Ni.4.! OffYlL.hqSR
1'
cq a �*.e•
I _a vee
/. �y_ I
3= I� �i_
; �L, I
0t — � I
1
� � � O. I
�. �
r� O � a� ii �
. I iSll .. ... •
Psv. ,:7.i - —' ---� — — —
3� � �s
� Y
t44locc!
�.,.w�......,� J .
� � I I
� 4NGCESfl9'd'r I •.n• � +!:
. ,� ' ti
�vi�
� � � � K1�.M1WR LL6 ELEV. 4y5
,,� . .. ... . � 'i . /
/ . . � '� . . . i
•
I 1
s i .
� ' ♦ o� /
�fYn�tntfwv o� m:M u![� uith t�t pb e[.lv mCL N[Hwq�
j i' f�eal m.-.h . ea m<q Ix tKx...can .:d. of ed. me.e wu m�d uctd � / � -
� . �ae ro.n a. �x., e f... .i.�e .�i... ' . "
r _ _ . ._�_� ._—.. . . .
� f �• ' . . .: ' ' . .'.... . -. � .
' . - .iLO�FICE/WA2E4IOIJSE Blp� .
�.
I ; r � �
� . � �: ' . . � .
� � . - � �.� . .
i�. }� .. ... -, �. � �:..� �� -.f:.. -
� �+' Ixe+a uon �,y ri� ' � �< e i y m<a 111 9 iYrt 'I � � �� �'
� �/. ISr O ley Y. .[. .�nGrL. 1 >6 eW!res �11 IIS�.ir3 flztures [0 4 /. ' - .
ysl:IrelY a::a:r.H t0 Nt pmoeMeO «�Ilrq SYSSd. AI�O in aEJitl
�� .,liSl i) fla:uru eelyMni k[vem IO PunOs �n< 55 µunEl fNll lu ��'. �'��
, , ml i o. �w �e. li g�u5e Nqen mmttteE frw tLe flaturc Mufl { to ' .� �
�,/ ibe$ 1�itn9 �Y%:n ��n9en ar w t�e s[rvaure �mre. inu �Nres iuy . .', .%l
�i e^���L��
"a � - _'--- ------- �-------'— m v r.a.._: _ � . �t�
� _ .. mr r.v.e.:.. , _ , �����
. '. W2 ADDIi�alaL lury,04
� 41TE UTILITIEI'6CEfURVLY DWG.
.• M' Kf0l�10N0 W>ISH�R.c.E.
fR2N10¢ YN' �
,�e�l.c«.I-.:xl. S
WN, �
�14LT f�yyG �
: ,i�• �i_
+���� b�d'
. . ClFI1CL '—�—
'D e�x
��
I' R� fE"""_"—
7 e I �I
�> s�
; �t
o F I , �.
; ; v�
� I <fl I� _ I...
I� I
Ir
IS p _ .,"
�� I. yl
FI:.
_ Oj .
n1
� '
�i
1 .' �.
I_ :.
f OI .
� . �I
_ �r
FI ..
SI
m �—T�T
f11T �o
TfA
e
' ?17E PLAN _ ' �
x .
-- � i.iL E,i.Ri7; C:'.:. � ...
. . �111C0"iS Td G C:=..: �
''"' ':
� c� n � •���0'•':
-'?��"•_'T'�,, �V?LLSE t°'�ti�Srl� � HA�rilICAPPLD R5'?li;RF:14'c\'T �i� �w,l
-C'•h _tlILT 17'�1 i. C_.T CL:11.I. �.�.�'.Yli�i'. •- � , � �.... S � , � u �'f_JIJ � . /�� 7
_ T: r. . o�z �, s�: - .�: ` ' •:-� ..� i..��. �.: s ��/v � �.r
ir°s_�,:c'r:Oti3 Ai�iD P1C•rn� Fo. �_..._ -_ '_;,�i ;.:� .
' � ... � . . . . . . :.. ..�... :: .� r7. :'_� ,.f-. s.t�, wn�i.n..�r� !nliiYT:i•1 ii7?PT�r�.� . . . � .....
' . . ...... ..,. ,..u.:.:iw�ca� : `.�', : � ...
Se�7t by: CARR McCLELLAN 1 650 342 7685; 10/15/99 5:40PM;Je� q592;Page 3/3
no�mlvea: lU/75/a9 6:s7AM;
, 7•Y CAqA MCCL�LLAN� PApe 2
� ' 10itSi99 99:53 � 1 C
02
. �
� � CITY O�' BURI.I1�TGt+►ME I
'�. ._.f APPLYCATION TO THE PLANNING CQMl1�ISSION
�'P� a� �+pPilcatian:_Spccix( Permit�Vadance_Othcr I
�'rojcctAddtcss:_��C7 ST.SH�r'r�,-.l �-,..,--�
Assessnr's Parcel
Z-
A.PPLICANT � t��� F�� �� GF'� P12oFERT'1' �
Namc: Gpf'�.K �.�� L�TY I Fi�� Name:, ��-'L
Address; �ln �s • 1. 5� ��� ��_ Address; �''i�
C1ty/Sut�e/2ip: i �? � � f,`a ,v�Ll�rth i-�O�i[y/S[a�e/7_ip:
Yhone (w): �' ��T3• 6�( � 3�(a$
�
- ��J
G .
-�--- � PhOnc (w):_._
�h)� ._. _-----... {h):�-
I H O -'�—
fax; �'�_]• °�"� fax:.... I .
ARCIiI7'EC7Y1)rSIGNER ' .
� •
�- Name:_���'-�� i G_K' F� S/,r , j.y�.. 1'l�:;ty� inJ�cat�: with yn uyterisl: *(he
�`�'=1--
nddre.vs: %_� �I{- ��'/a f__r� S �' v �
•-- � JT-L�_._._ _�Y.o contac� pers<m for this apptication.
ct�y�s�a�c��ip:_s/� �,-.r ��JcjSc:.o_ `�•�-�C�
Ph�ane ����: 4 � r.=s..9—G , 6 r- •,� ...
---L'Z...
(h)•
fax: _..._.�_�• D(n 3�'j _..
PROJECT ]"I�SCk!!'7'ION; '
usG _
__.... . . .... _ - /�t�o L�r-Ec�,a 1��, ' `�E .r-�.�c _.
A�'FIUqVIT/STGi�A1'U2t1�: 1 hCrnby ce[Yify under penaliy of perJ�ry c�t thC in� ��yen
he;rcin is true and correct t be� niy knowledge xnd betief.
,�J� . ^ ..�0 1-� �j'�
Applicant's Sig�laturc T)aic
] know about the proposeA appliretion :u�d hetcby authpri�.e the Ibove a lic
apolication to the P1anninF. k.ommissio�_ _ `� PA �� to submit this
/
„v _--_,.
Datc Fi��; 10 21 qq ,_ Fcc:�� �'SS �OO
Pianning CanmiyYion: Study uatc: 11 2z qq
'_•� Action Datc _
`S
RECEIVEQ
3
OCT 2 1 1999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
`v::)::n:"iii :y!4,>;�. _ . .
..li .:.�
� , {,.
,i:.=: "z>.>.
�n ;x.:>� ;o.z":'1'
{ + . _ ' R . } S � y �..� v��F'C '�' d .: .. . . '. � i.f _.'.
R�!H4PME ' �i^�£sa���3(? '^s �s����� '���� ai7���1�����(���.�/��� fi.�'�'ay�� �����e��
� £�S/� �I w�'�4� r�a�n � nn "*rt}��p^' `3rs�y?93as �gc.
'�..e.... i `� ��L 3�'�'�'6� 3, a � � � `YI 3 s¢T � tiT�a r a'� i ��� . ..
� ?e..: .s �w3 i� �'�a`+�yl -� .� E�"HZ��R"r`��s ��F�N.Y`c��,yga,�3
.; . Y .�`�s.<.ei ..A�:>t 'y ..YK4 'I`4 3. ., '3i
.. . . ::.: �..:y �. n.
. ��t, . ....,v r. ,�7 _ . . . . , . . . .. .. . . .. .. R�.::+, ..I..: i.;,2Y�ini
� , � � �� .. .. : o\ ,i� ... .:"., a� _ • as: :i"':..: .
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.52.0.20). Your answers to the following .questions, can, assist: the Planning
� .�„..:_.
Commssion in makiri`g the.decision as to,whether:the findings.can be made fior your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer: to.the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
, . .�•.� ;. ; -. ._ . , _ �, _.. ..
1._ Explain why.the �roposed use at the_proposed:location will not be detrimental or injurious to
:;'prope.ity or irnprovements in the vicinity oc to pub&c health; sc{fety, general welfare; •or convenience.
�--TN� �x��Ti�-Ic� u�� '��1�:� c�-+-r�t-�u� - TI��.','S
.�. . ,:
�v�Ur- e�.�c.�� ��...:._�.20�,.:���� .r� %4%
-r�--�I� I c� - 5b% ��� �-+cn� .. T�._.. �� f.--------- - -. .
s
t'
2. , How will the proposed use be localed arsd conducted in accordance ivith the Burlingame General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
��Ir� oE-}�r--�� �r-�----rlk�.. �'�I���i 4.�5��
— _7�Y.» I-j'� t� t-G �F . ��NI�SG.�i �?� C� �'�6��1� — _
�''�� �`r��N'T" I�`�Icj'rf ��ii��l�l-F-{�'�
3.'
O
How wilC the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and chamcter of the
existing anil potential uses on cu�joining properties in the general vieinity?
-._.-t-1�'"i G��al-IG�P 'i0 '(1-EL
----- �!-�-5'r I t-4Gj t31J1 L.OI I-L�. .
_��'r_t�:��._. : .-. w .-:._-- ----------- . .:� _.
�
51 z ��M�� � P 'f I-1-�i
� I-1 �L�j �} r�''�-I-��.� .
-��1=r� �nN�j�_10 -Ci��._G�}.-nl�'.�TCh, �vi?1-�
-��_��r�i j.�.��-{ �� ..?.I-F� fe�t�Ul I?�I� LJ51-1t�6G,,��
. .. , RECE,:I�/ED
... OCT 2 1 1999 . ���'„nrisa
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
n �
FROM : SSI SHIPPING PHONE N0. : 650 637 3879 Oct. 20 1999 02:16PM P2
' ie.ia�es �e�si a � c aa
- COMM�RCIAI, Ak'pLICATYp1�8
�_ •'' PLANNIIv�G COMMISSIOIV APPLICATIQN SUPPX.�MENTRL FORM
1. Pmpo.ced use of the site.�I / ��/�J�'���t7:Jj��
2. bays and hours of
3. Number of trucka/s�rvice vehicles W pe parkc:d at sitc (by �
'7Y� uC(�S oU� �kaQE �,',p�2
rncr�.,�.�s ov�'- ,q �"-� 5� o 0
4. Cuacnl and projected maximum numbor of empIoyees (incle
Hxisting In 2 Years
I�3ours of g-Alvt- Aftcr � AM- Aftet
dperation S�!'M S:W Plvf PM 5:00 PM
w��x�ays lD3
Full-timo
Ptut-time
Weckcnd9 �
Full-tinte
Pert-Ume �i
5, Current und proj
L'xisting
I� Haurs of � AM-
( Opera!ior. � PM
Weekends
6
7
�
9.
�
(o j�
r
c;ct� maxintum numbcr of visitors!custo�
Fn 2 Ye:trs
" Aftcr Ahi- Ahcr
S:QO P?vf PM 5:00 PM
Pe) • � '— vVE--��
� `�`
ing owner) at this lacatlan;
In 5 Xears I
� A M- Afrec I
SPM S:OD PM
1� �
� �'C/
�
�
who may come to lhe site:
In 5 Years
� .4M- After
SyM S:oo Phz
What is tl�e maximum numbcr of peopIc Cxpecced On site at alty vtte tinic (inctude owaCz,
employers and visitars/eustomers}: �
i
Where dolwill thc ownx & employecs park? �N ,Sifi�
�'ltere do/will cusWmCrs/visitors paz1�1_ �/� s j'��
I
� ^-
Pcasent or most recent use of
S0. Tast of othor tcnants on property� thelr a¢mber nf empioyees,
Iist ii ncccssary). ��/✓r�
of operation (attach
RECEIVED
OCT 2 1 1999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
, �
i
. �
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: 860; 880 Stanton Road; Warehouse Conversion to Office Space
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: ' City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margazet Monroe, City Planner
(650) 696-7250
4. Project Location: Pazcel with an address of 860 Stanton Road; 880 Stanton Road,
Burlingame, Califomia
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation: Office and Manufacuring
7. Zoning:0-M
APN:
8. Description of the Project: Merger of six parcels and conversion of two existing office/wazehouse
buildings to include 100% office azea and no warehouse. Project requires parldng variance,
landscape variance and conditional use permit from Bayfront Design Guideline standards.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
Office and manufacturing uses
0. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Building Department
Fire Marshal
Department of Public Works
GCAG - traffic analyzer
San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health
E1�TVIItONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
im act that is a"Potentiall Si nificant Im acY' as indicated b the checklist on the followin a es.
Ia¢cl Use and Plenning Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Populatioa and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources
Geology encl Soils Hazanls & Hazardous Recreation
Materisls
X Hydrology & Water Noise Agricultural Resources
Qaality
g Air Quality Public Services Mendatory Findings of
Si�ificance
X Transporfation/Traffic Utilities and Sarvice
Systems
DETERNIII�TATION: (To be completed by the I.ead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fwd thet the proposed project COiJLD NOT have a sigpificant effect on the environment, ancl a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find thet although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, thera will not be
a significant effect in this case because revisions in tha project have been macie by or agreed to by the project X
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposecl project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVII20NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fircl tl�et tl�e proposed project MAY have a"potentielly significant unpact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effec[ (I) has been aclequately analyzecl in an earlier
docament pucsuant to appGcable legal standards, nnd (2) has been addressect by mitiga[ion�measures based on
tl�e earGer analysis as descdbed on attached sheets. An ENVII20NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects tUat remain to be ecldressecl.
I fi�l that although the ptoposed project could have a significant effect on the envuonment, because all
potentially significent effects (1) have been analyzecl adequately in an earliar EIIt or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, end (2) have been avoidecl or mitigxtecl pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATNE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures thxt are imposed upon the proposecl project,
nothing fuRher is required.
Mazgazet Monroe, City Planner Date
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlelly Potentlelty LeasThan No
Significent Slgniflcent S(pd6cent Impect
Issaes Unlesa Lnpect
Mltlgetlon
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tha project:
a) Physically divide an establishecl community? 1,2,4 X
b) Conflict with eny applicable land use plan, policy, or regula[ion
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the genaral plm, specific plen, local coestal program or
zoning ordinance) adopted for tha purpose of avoiding or
mitigating en environmental effect? 1,2,4 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat consarvation plan or natural 1,19 X
community conservation plan?
2. POPi7LATiON AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either d'uectly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or 1,6 X
inclirecUy (for example, through extension of roacls or other
infrastmcture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the constxuction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, neoessitating the
coustmction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3 X
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would tha projecr.
a) Expose people or s[cuctures to potential substeu[ial adverse 6,7,8 X
effects, incluciing the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a]mown earthquake fault, as delineatecl on the most 6,7,9 X
recent Alquist-Priolo Enrthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by [he
State Geologist for the azea or based on other substential evidenca
of a]mown fault? Refer to Division of Mines a�l Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic grouixl sbaldng? 6,7,9 X
iu) Seismic-releted ground failure, including liquafaction? 6,8,9 X
iv) Lanclslides? . 6,8 X
b) Result in subatantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,6,8 X
c) Ba locatecl on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 1,6,8 X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be locatetl on expansive soil, as definecl in Table 18-1-B of the 6,8,9 X
Unifortn Building Code (1994), creating substential risks to life
or property?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ��rc� I Potenffally Potentielly I�Tn� I N,
Si�rsnt SieN6cent Signilirsnt Impect
Ieeues � Unless Impaet
Mldgatlon
e) Have soils incapeble of adaquately supporting the usa of septic 1,6 X
tanks or altema[iva wasta weter disposal systems where sewers
ere not availeble for the disposal of waste water?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITP. Would the project:
a) Violete auy weter quality standanls. or waste discharge
requuements? 1 X
b) Substantially depleta grounclwater suppGes or interfere
substantially with gmundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit iu aquifer volume or a lowering of [he local
grouixlwater table (e.g., tUe production rate of pre-existiug
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing ]md uses or planned uses for wluch permits have been
granted)? 1,15 X
c) S�bstantially alter tha e�cisting drninxge pattem of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or rivar, 1,6,9 X
in a mmnar whcih would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or azea,
including through the alteratioa of the course of a stream or river,
or substentially increase the rate or amouat of surface ruuoff in a
mannar which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1,6,9 X
e) Creata or contribute xunoff water wluch would exceecl the
capacity of wcistiug or plenned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substential adclitional sources of pollutecl :unoft? 1,9 X
� Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,9 *
g) Place housing witivn a 100-year floal hazard area as mapped on 9,15 X
a federal Floal Hazanl Bounclary or Floal Insurance Rate Map
or other floal hezanl delineation map?
h) Place witUin a 100-year floal l�azard area structures whcih would 9,15 X
impede or reclirect floal flows?
i) Ezpose people or sttuctures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving floaling, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam? 1,9 X
j). Inunclation by seiche, tsunnwi, or mudflow? 1,6 X
5. AIR QUALITP. Where available, the significance criteria establishetl by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relietl upon to make the following determinatioas. Would the projech
a) Conflict witl� or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quelity plen? 1,16 X
b) Violate aay air guxlity staudard or contribute to an e�cisting or
projectetl air quality violation? 1,16 • X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources S°urces Potendelly Potentlelly LesaThan No
Slcnifieant Sip�ificent Sl�tBcent Impeet
Issues ilnlesa Lnpecf
� Mltlgadon
c) Resul[ in a cumulatively considoreble net increase of any criteria 1,16 X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attaiument uncler an
applicebla federal or state ambient air quality sfandanl (including
releasing emissions wluch exceed quentitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose aensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1,16 X
e) Create objectionable odors affec[ing a substantisl nutnber of 1,16 X
1�OP�e�
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project
a) Cause enincreese in tra�c wltich is substential in relation to the 1,14 X
existing traffic load and capacity of tha street system (i.e., result
in a substantial increase in either the number of velucle trips, [he
volume to capacity ratio on roecLs, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either iudividually or cumulatively, a level of service
standenl established by the county congestion memgement 19,18
agency for designated roeds or highways?
c) Result in a change in a'v traffic pattems, including either an
increese in traffic levels oi a changa in location tl�at resul[s ia �
substantiel safety risks? 1,17 X
d) Substentially increasa hnzards dua to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,9 X
curves or dangerous iutarsections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 9 X
� Result in inedequete paddng capacity? 2,9 X
g) Conflict with aclopted policies, plans, or programs suppoRing 1,9 X X
alternative trenspoAation (e.g., bus Wmouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial azlverse effect, eitl�er directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identifiecl as a candiclate,
sensitive, or special staWs species in local or regional plans, 1,19 X
policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish
md Game or U.S. Fish md Wildlifa Service?
b) Heve a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,19 X
other sensitive natural community identifiecl in local or regional
plens, poflcies, reguletions or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish ancl Wildlife Service?
e) Have a substantial aclverse effeet on feclerally proteetecl wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
no[ limited to, marsh, veroal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
ramoval, filGng, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1,19 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentletly Potendally LessThen No
SigniBcant Slgniticnnt SIgnlOcant Impact
Issues Udess ImpaM
. ' MlHeetlon
d) Intarfere substantielly with the movement of eny netive or 1,19 X
rasident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with establishecl
nativa resident or migratory wildlife comdors, or impede the use
of native wildlife muaery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or onlinances pmtecting 1 X
biological resources, such as a tree.preservation policy or
onlinence?
� Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1 X
Plan, Netural Community Conservation Plsn, or other approved
local, regional, or stete habitat conservation plan?
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the projec[:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1,6 X
would be of value to the region ancl the residents of the state?
b) Result. in the loss of availebility of a locally impoRant mineral
resouroe recovery site delineated on a locxl general plen, specific
plen or other lencl use plen? 1,6 X
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significent hezard to the public or the enduonment
through the routine transpoR, use, or disposal of hazanlous 1,9 X
materials?
b) Create a significant hnzard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foteseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazanlous materiaLs into the
env'uonment? 9,10,12 X
c) Emit hazxrdous emissions or handle hxzxrdous or acutely
bn7ardous meterials, substances, or waste within ona-quarter mile
of en existing or proposecl school? 1,9 X
d) Be located. on a site which is included on a lis[ of Uaznrdous �
meterials sites compiled pursunnt to Govemment C«le Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazanl to
the public or the environment? 20 X
e) For a pmject located witltin an airpoit laixl use plen or, where
such a plan hes not been aclopted, witttin two miles of a public
airport or public use airpoxt, would the project result in a safety
hezard for people residing or woddng in the project area? 1,17 X
� For a projec[ wititin the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety liazxnl for peopla residing or working in
the project area? 1 X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adop[ecl
emergency responsa plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,12 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources S°�� p��++�r PotendeDy �zn� No
9ignificent Slgniticant SlgniOcant Impect
Lwues Unless Lnpact
Mltlgadon
h) Expose people or eWctures to a significent risk of loss, injury or
death involving wilcllaad fires, inclucling where wildlancis are
edjacent to urbenizad ereas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlends? 1,12 X
10. NOISE. Would the project result iu:
a) Hxposura of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of X
staudnnls establishad in the local general plen or noise onlinance, 1
or applicable standarde of other egencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or geaeration of axcessiva groundbome X
vibration or groundbome noise levels? 1,9
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1
d) A substential temporary or perialic increase in ambient noise X
levek in tl�e project vicinity above levels existing without the 1,9
project?
e) For a project locateci witivn an aitport land use plan or, whete X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
ai[port or public use aicpoR, would the project expose people 17
residing or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X
pmject expose people residing or worldng in the project area to 1
excessiva noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project resul[ in substanfial adverse physical impacts associatecl with the provision of new or
physicelly alteted govemmental facilities, neetl for new or physically altered government facilities, the constmction of wltich could
cause si�ificant environmental unpacts, in onler to maintain acceptable service rxtios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,12 X
b) PoGca protection? 1 -X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requuements of the applicable 1,10 X
Regionel Water Quality Control Boarcl?
b) Require or result in the consWction of new water or wastewater 1,10 X
tzeatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
conshuction of wluch could cause significant environmental
effects?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlelly Potende�y Leae Then No
S�guiBcant SlgniDcent SigniBcent Impect
Iasues Unlesa Impact
Midgetlon
c) Require or resnit in the constmction of new storm water drainage
facilities or ezpension of existing facilities, the constmc[ion of
wlilch could causse significant envuonmental effects? 1,10 X
d) Hava sufficient watar eupplies available to serve tl�e project from 1,10 X
existing entitlaments and resources, or ara naw or expandecl
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a datemtination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,10 X
which serves or may serve the project that it hes adequate
cepacity to serve t6a project's projectecl demand in aclJition to the
providar's exis[ing commi[ments?
fl Be servecl by a landfill with sufficient permittecl capacity [0 1,10 X
accommalate the proj�t's solid waste disposel needs?
g) Comply with fetlernl, state, end local staWtes and regulations 1,10 � � X
related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
s) Hava a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Subatan[ially demage scenic resources, including, but no[ limited 1 X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and lilstoric buildings witUin a state
ecenic Itighwsy?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,9 X
the site and its suaoundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,9 X
edversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
14. CULT[JRAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create e substantial aclverse chenge in the significance of a 1,9 X
historical tesource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signi£icance of an 1,9 X
archa�logical resource pursuant to §I5064.5?
c) D'uectly or indirecfly destroy a unique paleontological resource ar 1,9 X
site or unique geological feature?
d) Dislu[b any hnman remains, including those iutened outside of
formal cemeteries? 1;9 X
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhoal and 1,9 X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such thet substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
acceleratecl?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ��« I P°�nNally I PotenHelly I� rn� I No
SientBcent SI�dOcant Sl��dcant Impact
Iseoes Unlesa Impact
Mitlgetlon
b) Does the proj�t include recreational facilities or requira the 1,9 X
conetruction or expansion of recreational facilitias wluch might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTI7RAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may rafer to the Califomia Agricultural Lend Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (199'n prepared by the
California DepaRment of Conservation as an optional modal to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) ConveR Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Fermlancl of X
Statewide Impoitance (Facmland), as shown on tha maps 1
prepared pursuant to tbe Farmland Mapping end Monitoring
Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, [o non-agriwltural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Willinwson X
Act coutract? 1
c) Tnvolve other changes in the existing environment wluch, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use? 1 X
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGIVIFICANCE.
a) Does the pmject have the poten[ial to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaming levels, threaten to eliminate a plent or animal community, 1 X
reduce the number or restrict the range of a raze or endaugered
plant or animal or eliminate importecrt examples of the major
periocls of Califomia history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that aze inclividually limitecl, bu[ 1 X
cunuilntively considerable? ("Gtimuletively considereble" means that
the incrementel effects of a project are considerable when viewecl in
connection with tha effects of past projects, the effects of other
cunent projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effec[s wluch will cause
substantial azlverse effects on human beings, either d'uecHy or 1 X
indirectly?
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The Ciry ofBur[ingame Geneml Pl�m, Burlingeme, Celiforoia, 1985 and 1984 ameixlments.
2 City of Burlingeme, Municipal Code, T:tle 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, Califomia, 1995 eclition.
3 City of Budingeme City CouncIl, Hausing Element, Gtity afBurlingame, Burlingame, Califomia, 1994.
4 Burlingame Bayfront Spec�c Area Plan, adopted by the Burlingame City Council on May 4, 1981.
5 1990 Census
6 Depa�ent of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised 1981.
7 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptrbi[ity in San Mareo Counry, San Mateo County, California, 1972.
8 Petldns, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumufative Damage Poteiuial from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San
Mateo County: Califomia, 198Z
9 May I1, 2000, Preliminary Plan of the Site.
10. Engineering Memo datecl , regarding
11 Cluef Building Inapector Memo datecl , regarcting .
12 Fira Department Memo dated May 15, 2000 reganling
13 Pub[ic Access Guidelines for the Anza Area, aclopted by the Bay Conservation and Developmeut Commission on January 21,
1982.
14 Bur[ingame TraB'ic Analyzer, 1999 Eclition
15 Map of Approximate Locarions of I00-year Flood Areas, from the National Floallnsuranca Progrem Floal Insurance Maps,
September 16, 1981
16 BAAQIYID CEQ11 GUlDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacrs of Projects and Plans, December, 1995
17 San Mateo County ComprehensiveAirport Zand Use Plari, San Francisco International AirpoR, December, 1994
18 San Mateo County Congesdon Management Program, 1997
19 Map ofAreac of Special Biolagical Importance, Sait Frmtcisco aiul San Matea Counties, California, State Department of Fish
ancl Game
20 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998
inistfrm.YiS
10
Land use and Planning Sunwiary: The proposed conversion of wazehouse space to office use and the
merging of six parcels into one pazcel is consistent with the office land use designation of the General
Plan. The O-M zoning district permits office use. Variances aze required from the pazking
requirements to permit the use of 51 unistall spaces (8.5' x 18') where only 20% of the required
pazldng (30 spaces) aze permitted to be compact size. A landscape variance is also required because the
applicant proposes xx % landscaping in the front setback where 80% landscaping of the front setback is
required. The project proposes to double the area of office use on site, which increases the intensity
and occupancy of the site from xx SF office and yy SF of wazehquse to 100% office. This has the
potenfial to affect the traffic in the area....
Mitigation: Variances for landscape and parking are required before any development is allowed. A
pazking variance may be required. The project will have to meet the requirements of the
Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding azea are planned for office and
manufacturing uses. The area is not zoned or designated in the general plan for housing.
Geologic Summary:
Mitigation: The project design shall conform to the latest edirion of the 1995 California Building Code
and the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All
applicable requirements of NPDES will be adhereci to in the design and during construcHon. The
applicant has indicated that they will upgrade the buildings to meet the seismic reinforcement
requirements.
Water Summary:
This project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water
Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigadon plans at time of permit application.
Mitigation: All runoff created during construction and future dischazge from the site will be required
to meet National Pollution Discharge Eliminaflon System (NPDES) standazds. Provide a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
applicadon.
Air Quality Summary: No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature or
change in local or regioaal climate is anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal. The change in
emissions generated by traffic to and from the development as compared to all development in
Burlingame is insignificant.
Mitigation: The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
consWction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standazds of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District.
Transportation/Circulation Summary: The proposed project consists of square feet of
uses.
Mitigation:
ii
Biological Resources Summary: Biotic resources on the site aze very limited. There is no record of
any raze, unique or endangered species of plants or animals on the project site. There is no farmland in
Burlingame. Because this azea is already disturbed, no significant changes are anticipated in the
diversity or number of species of plants or animals, or in the deterioration of existing wild life habitat.
Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The amount of energy used to grade, drain, pave and
construct the project is negligible. Substandal amounts of fuel will not be needed to construct, develop
or maintain the project. Solid Waste Disposal - recycling; location of trash dumpsters....
Hazards Summary: This project is not expected to expose people to health hazards, nor is it expected
to create a health hazard. An NPDFS permit is required to ensure ffiat runoff from the site does not
contribute to pollurion of adjacent waterways.
Noise Summary: The site is impacted by noise from traffic on adjacent and from aircraft
landings and takeoffs at San Francisco International Airport, which is located about miles _
northwest of the site. Construcdon acrivities may affect adjacent , and noise levels may
increase during construction.
Mitigation: All construcdon will be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the
City of Burlingame Municipal Code. .
Public Services Summary: The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provision of
other public services, as this is an urbanized azea with existing public facilities in place.
Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in
place in the azea, or will be required to connect to these systems. Waste disposal
Aesthetics Summary:
landscaping % pazking lot
screening pazldnglot
Cultural Resources Summary: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites at the
location ofthe proposed building.
Mitigation: If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all
work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protecflon measures, as
determined by qualified experts, can be implemented.
Recreation Summary:
tz