The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About970 Davis Road - Staff Report (2)� � ITEM ��' 6 Y CITY OF BURLINGAME � Revocation of a Conditional Use Permit for Truck Storage Address: 970 David Road Meeting Date: 2.23.98 Request: Revoke the conditional use permit for outdoor truck storage at 970 David Road for failure to comply with the conditions of approval and for creating a public safety hazard. Applicant: Joel Beck APN: 025-272-160 Lot Size, Area: 20'x 253', .116 a.MOL Zoning: M-1 General Plan: Industrial, Industrial and Office Use Adjacent Development: Warehouse and Industrial Uses CEQA Status: Categorical Exemption, Section: 15321 Class 21 consists of: (a) actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued,adopted or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard, or objective, administered or adopted by the regulatory agency. Such action include, but are not limited to, the following;(1) the direct referral of a violation of lease,permit, license, certificate, or entitlement for use or of a general rule,standard, or objective to the Attorney General, or City Attorney as appropriate, for judicial enforcement. Previous Use: Vacant lot, part of railroad spur track right-of-way. Proposed Use: Outdoor, uncovered truck and equipment storage. Allowable Use: Outdoor/uncovered Truck and equipment storage with a special permit. Summary: The City Planner has found that use of the site at 970 David Road is not in compliance with the Conditional Use/Special Permit granted to the site by the Planning Commission on August 22, 1994. The use permit requested by BK Bobcat represented by Joel Beck was to allow outdoor truck storage at 970 David Road. The submittal of this application was the result of code enforcement by the city attorney (Coleman letter May 2, 1994). At the time of the application the lot had been regraded, covered with gravel, was partially fenced and had been used for two years to store trucks out-of-doors with out a permit. As a part of the use permit Mr. Beck indicated that he would complete the fencing and add a gate at the front of the lot. Subsequent to granting the permit (September 1994) this work was completed, as well as pouring a new curb cut to city standards. The conditions of the original permit required that the facility would be open from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees on site at any one time, that a curb cut installed to city standards should be placed on Davis Road, and that the project would meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. (Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1998, Action letter September 7, 1994). Subsequent to granting the permit the applicant has added two storage structures (a metal shed and a shipping container) to the site as well as a large plywood structure in which he stores and works on large equipment. A number of months ago the applicant requested electrical service to the site. It was installed and he commenced using it to enlarge his capabilities to work on equipment on the site. The city ordered this service removed because the buildings on site were not permitted nor had electrical work on-site been inspected. Further the electrical work had been performed in an unlawful structure. The work in the structure also had not been inspected and is presumed hazardous. Since the removal of the electrical service, the applicant has b Y 970 David Road Revocation of a Conditional Use Permit for Truck Storage � appaxently added, on occasion, a large electric generator so that he can operate a compressor used for _ equipment repairs. It is not possible for the applicant to apply for a use permit to repair trucks and equipment at this location because the recent amendment to the zoning code prohibits such repair businesses in the M-1 district north of Easton Creek.(CS 25.44.010 (4)). The original permit did not allow any structures on the site, only outdoor storage of trucks. Staff have followed all requirements of due notice to this applicant informing him of his violation of the city's zoning ordinance and of the need for him to remove the illegal structures citing the following reasons: that the conditional use permit is being and has been exercised contrary to the conditions of such approval or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or other regulation: a. the approval was for only fencing, installing a curb cut, outdoor storage of trucks, there was no approval for repair work, addition of structures or provision of storage structures of any kind; b. the placement of the large plywood structure does not meet any setback and other development requirements for the zone; c. no building permits were applied for or issued for the construction of any of the structures presently on the site, particularly the large plywood structure which provides shelter for large equipment being stored and/or repaired on the site, and this is a violation of the conditions of approval; d. the property owner's action is also in violation of Burlingame ordinances as a public nuisance (CS 1.12.040) and of the State Business and Professions Code (item # 7110- Disregard or violation of Statutes). According to Mr. Beck he holds a General Engineering Contractors License A qualifying him to construct freeway bridges and do demolition work. (Phone conversation with City Planner February 4,1998) 2. that the use for which approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance: a. building department inspection documents that the large plywood structure on the site is struciurally unsound and unsafe, was installed without permits and is a public safety violation. (See Code Enforcement Officer's Memo, January 26,1998, Exhibit 1, Chief Building Inspector's Memo) b. on occasion equipment stored at this location has been parked in the public street and even washed there in violation of NPDES and public works department requirements and city ordinance. Staff Comments: Attached for your review is the considerable file of complaints, follow up, site investigation and communication with the property owner/business operator at 970 David Road. Staff has invested considerable time and met with little success through the standard progression of code enforcement to this point. Therefore, in the interest of bringing this violation into conformance at the earliest possible date, the city planner has elected to take the revocation action directly to the Planning Commission for action. The record of violation and cause is clear. The City Planner recommends that the conditional use permit be revoked and the property owner clear the property of all structures and use within 30 days of your action. Should the applicant fail to clear the site and remove the use within that time, the City Attorney will pursue this matter in court. -2- 970 David Road Revocntion of a Conditionnl Use Pennie for Truck Smrnge The property owner/business operator has been notified of this pending action and public hearing as required by law. Findings for a Revocation: A previously granted conditional use permit may be revoked, suspended or modified on any one or more of the following grounds (CS 25.16.140): 1. that the approval was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation; 2. that the use for which such approval was granted is not being exercised; 3. that the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more; 4. that the conditional use permit or variance is being, or has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or other regulation; 5. that the use for which approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health,safety or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action on the revocation should include findings citing each of the specific grounds for the action. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. If commission upholds the recommendation for revocation by the City Planner all use of this site should cease and all structural improvements shall be removed within 30 days of the city's final action. The action of the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council before the end of their next regularly scheduled meeting, March 2, 1998. Margaret Monroe City Planner /M 970DAVI&.239 Attachments: Margaret Monroe letter to Joel Aaron Beck, February 17, 1998, notification of revocation hearing date. Jerry Coleman, City Attorney, letter to Joel Beck, May 2, 1994, re: code enforcement. Fred Palmer, Code Enforcement Officer, memo to Larry Anderson, City Attorney, January 26, 1998, re: illegal construction with attachments: Exhibit 1: Memo from Fred Cullum, Chief Building Inspector to Fred Palmer, January 21, 1998, re: code violations. Exhibit 2: Fred Cullum letter to Joel Beck, December 11, 1997, re: Unlawful Structures/Uses at 970 David Road. Exhibit 3: Letters of Complaint Exhibit 4: Building Permit for electrical work only Exhibit 5: Margaret Monroe letter to Joel Beck, September 7, 1994, confirming Planning Commission action on Use Permit for Truck Storage at 970 David Road. Exhibit 6: Planning Commission Minutes, August 22, 1994 Exhibit 7: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 22, 1994, for a Special Permit for Truck Storage at 970 David Road. Exhibit 8: Photographs of the site. -3- (`��P f�t#� u� �ixriir��ttme CITY HA�L - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD re� (4i5) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 940�0-3997 r�x (4i5) 342-8386 February 17, 1998 Mr. Joel Aaron Beck 607 Pisces Lane Foster City, CA 94404 Dear Mr. Beck, This letter is to provide written notice to you that the City Planner has set a revocation hearing for your conditional use permit at 970 David Road before the Planning Commission for Monday, February 23, 1998. The Special Use Permit approved and effective September 6, 1994 for truck storage at 970 David Road, zoned M-1 is proposed to be revoked because the conditions of the use permit are not being followed (see attached action letter). The manner in which this site is being used violates Title 25 and Title 18 of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. There is a plywood structure which has been erected on your site which is being used for truck storage; and the permit did not allow any structures on the site. In addition, this structure was installed without the benefit of a building permit, which is a public safety violation and not permitted by the conditions. A copy of the staff report for the February 23, 1998, hearing will be mailed to you 10 days in advance of the hearing. If you would like to present written information to the Planning Commission it should be submitted to the Planning Department no later than Thursday, February 19, 1998. The hearing will be held at 7:00 pm in the City Council chambers at 501 Primrose Road. You are encouraged to attend. Sincerely yours, M��- �►�. Margaret Monroe City Planner City Attorney Code Enforcement Officer A i - I `(��e f1�i#� � ��xz.Ciz�$�zrt�e PMNNING OEPARTMENT September 7, 1994 CITY HALL - 5pt PRIHROSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 9qpi0-)997 Joel Beck 602 Pisces Lane Foster City, CA 94404 Dear Mr. Beck: TEl' (415i 695-: rwx� C4t5) 3a2-F Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the city Council, the August 22, 1994 Planning Commission approval of your special permit application became effective September 6, 1994. This application was to allow truck storage at 970 Davis Road, zoned M-1. The August 22, 1994 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1• that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Depart7nent and date stamp�d July 12, 1994 Sheet 1, Assessors Parcel Map; •� 2- that the truck and equipment storage facility will be open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees at any one time; 3• that applicant shall install to �City standards a curb cut on Davis Road as approved by City Engineer; and 4- that the prcject shall meet all the re � the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes asm mended by the City of Burlingame. Al1 site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This � • _, ' ,� _ . , . September 7, 1994 970 Davis Road page -2- approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One� extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. Sincerely yours, Marga eW Monroe �� City Planner MM:smg c: Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (L.116 AC MOL BEING PARCEL C; APN: 025-272-160) � 0 C`�.�.e C�Y#� � ��xxXtz��ttz�t.e JEROME F COLEMAN CITY ATTORNEY May 2, 1994 Joel Beck B K Bobcat 607 Pisces Lane Foster City, Calif. CITY HALL - 50i PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 94404 Subject: Failure to obtain use permit Dear Mr. Beck: Te�. (415) 696-7207 Fnx: (a15) 342-8386 In February I wrote you concerning the parking of trucks on the property at 970 David Road. Since that time you have graveled the area, but you have failed to apply for the necessary use permit for this kind of business at this location. I understand that you picked up the application forms at the Planning Department some weeks ago, but nothing has been returned. This letter is to inform you that unless that department receives a properly completed application by June 15, 1994, it will be necessary for my office to initiate appropriate legal action to enforce our ordinances. Yo�rs rul � � �= C� � E � ME F . COLEMAN - City Attorney cc: Planning (S. Saisi) � p,��„�,�,,.._ z.,a�- t� City of Burlingame Office of the City Attorney Code Enforcement Bureau 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 696-7207 - Fax (650) 342-8386 January 26, 1998 To: Larry Anderson, City Attorney � �, From: Fred Palmer, Code Enforcement Officer ��. , -- Subject: Illegal Construction Violation of Use Permit Violation of Business and Professions Code 970 David Road Owner: Joel Aaron Beck DOB: 1-21-67 CDL: C3082956 State Contractors License # 685609 Home Address: 607 Pisces Lane, Foster City, Ca. 94404 Home Phone: 650-349-9157 Work Phone: 800-945-6925 This matter was referred to our office by the Building and Planning Departments as a code enforcement issue and action was requested. The original complaint was instigated by letters from the public. Recommendations: I recommend that we take action against Mr. Beck for the violations listed below. They are occurring at his property at 970 David Road. It appears that after numerous notifications by various city officials that Mr. Beck is not willing to take corrective action on his own and the city must enforce the provisions of its ordinances. I recommend that we: Take the necessary steps as outlined in city ordinance 25.16.140 to Revoke the use permit at 970 David Road due to the fact that the use permit is being exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of the approval and in violation of our ordinance. In addition the use for which approval was granted is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and constitutes a nuisance. 2. Abate and cause to be removed, the illegal construction as public nuisance as allowed in section 1.12.040 of the City Ordinance 3. File a written complaint with the State Contractors Board under section 7110 of the Business and professions code. Page 2- 970 David Road 4. Consider exercising section 1.12.015 of our code which allows for any violation of the city code to be punished as a misdemeanor. History: In August of 1991 the Planning Commission denied an application for a structure on the site. A 20� x 124' structure was requested to store automobiles. Due to the number of variances that were necessary the Commission denied the application. The applicant (a former owner of the properiy) appealed the decision to the City Council and the Council upheld the Planning Commission decision. On August 22, 1994 the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on an application for a special use permit from Mr. Beck. The application was for truck storage onl�This application was brought forth as a code enforcement item. The applicant had been using the site for two years without benefit of a use permit. The application was heard by the Planning Commission on 8-22-94 and the permit was granted with conditions . The conditions are explained in the minutes and also in a letter to Mr. Beck by Margaret Monroe, City Planner. CONDITIONS: That the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 12, 1994 Sheet 1, Assessors Parcel Map; (NO STRUCTURES ARE SHOWN) 2. That the truck and equipment storage facility will be open 7:00 am to 5:00 PM. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees at any one time. 3. That the applicant shall install to City Standards a curb cut on David Road as approved by the City Engineer; and 4. That the project shall meet all the requirements of fhe Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. All site im�rovements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department I monitored the tape recording of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Beck, was given the opportunity to speak. The only request he made was that his employees be allowed to park on the street rather than on site. The Commission allowed this request with the condition that MR. Beck install a curb cut where the driveway would be located. He did not request to perform maintenance of the vehicles on site. NO STRUCTURES WERE REQUESTED OR APPROVED There was no appeal to the Council. Page 3- 970 David Road On 11-1-96 Mr. Beck applied to the City to construct "New Electrical Service on a New Pole". This permit was granted on the same date. No other construction was requested or approved. A final inspection of the electrical was accomplished on 11-20-96 by a contract inspector. ILLEGAL STRUCTURE WAS BUILT At some point in time (We received the initial letter of complaint dated June 24, 1997) Mr. Beck had built a large plywood structure on the site without making an application for a revised use permit or even requesting a building permit. MR BECK WAS INFORMED TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL STRUCTURE He was repeatedly notified verbally by building officials that the structure was illegal and had to come down and that he was in violation of his original use permit. The notifications were ignored. It became necessary for building officials to notify PG&E to terminate the power source to the structure since it was unsafe. The safety factor is discussed in detail in a memo from the Chief Building Official Fred Cullum, dated January 21, 1998 (See Exhibit #1 attached). An in person meeting was held between Mr. Beck, Mrs. Monroe and Fred Cullum where Mr. Beck was again notified that the structure had to come down. On December 11, 1997, a letter was sent to Mr. Beck by Fred Cullum, Chief Building Official, again notifying him that no structures were permitted on the site and even though the power was ordered removed Mr. Beck installed a generator to replace the power. The letter directed Mr. Beck to remove all structures from the site by January 2, 1998. The demand to remove the structure was ignored. The letter was not returned. On January 6, 1998 I went to the site and the structure was still in place. See photos below �: ��. <� � . .. . .. ' �� 4 :�� . Page 4- 970 David Road More photos are attached to the file. Safety of the Illegal Structure: (Taken from Mr. Cullum's memo� Along with other factors, Mr. Cullum states that "The structure in question is a building, which is defined as "--- any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy". The owner claims that what he has is not a building, but just a structure for shelter. The distinction is irrelevant, as the code uses the phrase "building or structure" when referring to the need for permits and code compliance. The code further states that no structure may be used contrary to the requirements of the code and states that the building offcial may require such use to be discontinued. The structure was built without plans and permits required by the code, and is clearly substandard for lateral resistance to wind an earthquake loads and is deficient with regard to fire- resistivity. The building is therefore inadequate and is, by definition an unsafe structure under Section 203 of the UAC. The code states that no commercial building shall be occupied without a certificate of occupancy issued by the Building Official or the Fire Chief. In order to issue such a certificate the Building Official must find that there are no violations of the code or other laws enforced by the code enfarcement agency. No such finding can be made. Since the structure has been determined to be an S3 occupancy, exterior walls less that 20 feet from the property lines much be of one-hour fire resistance. The existing wood framed plywood wall is not only not fire resistant, but highly flammable. The exterior walls, since they are required to be fire resistant are required to continue above the roof (Parapet walls) in order to provide shelter for fire fighters on the roof during a fire and to aid in the prevention of fire spreading from this building to another. The roof is also substandard. For further details see exhibit # 1. ��. � . ... .. .� 9 A. &�� # �.. Page 5- 970 David Road VIOLATIONS: Burlingame City Ordinance section 25.16.140 allows for Revocation, suspension or modification of a use permit if one or more of the following grounds are present: (4) That the conditional use permit or variance is being, or has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or other regulation. (5) That the use for which approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance. 2. Burlingame City Ordinance 25.20.010 - Building Permit required before work started - Information required on application. States in part "Before commencing any work pertaining to the erection, construction, reconstruction, moving, conversion or alterations of any building, or any addition to a building, a permit shall be secured from the building official by the owner or his agent for the work, and it unlawful to commence any work unless such permit has been obtained.-----------------------" 3. Burlingame City Ordinance 1.12.040 - Violation of code is a public nuisance. Any building, property or structure erected, constructed, altered or maintained and/or any use of property contrary to the provisions of this code is unlawful and a public nuisance, and any failure, refusal or neglect to obtain a permit as required by the terms of this code is prima facie evidence of the fact that a nuisance has been committed-----------------------------------------------. The city attorney shall commence necessary proceedings for the abatement, removal and/or enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law 4. In the Contractors Disciplinary Proceedings section of the Business and Professions Code , item # 7110 - Disregard or violation of Statutes In part states: "Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building laws of the state, or of any political subdivision thereof,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------constitutes a cause for disciplinary action." The failure of Mr. Beck to obtain a building permit for his structure would constitute a violation of section 7110B&PCode Page 6 - 1994 Uniform Administrative Code Section 301.1 Permits Required - States in part "------------------no building or structure or building service equipment regulated by this code and the technical codes shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure ----------------------has been obtained from the building official. Burlingame City Ordinance 18.07.010 Adopts the Uniform Administrative code for the rules, regulations and standards within the city unless stated otherwise in the City Code. As of January 21, 1998, the structure was still not removed and therefore action is requested. LIST OF EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memo from the Chief Building Official dated January 21, 1998 describing code violations and safety status of the structure. 2. Letter Dated December 11, 1997 ordering Mr. Beck to remove the illegal structure. 3. Three letters of complaint from an unknown source about the property dated December 5 1997, September 15, 1997 and June 24, 1997 4. Permit application for electrical service dated 11-1-96 5. Letter dated September 7, 1994 to Mr. Beck outlining conditions of his use permit. 6. Planning Commission minutes from 8-22-94 where the 970 David Road use permit was approved. 7. Special permit application by Mr. Beck dated 7-12-94 along staff report and all related documents 8. Additional photos of the site EXHIBIT #1 11�1 I�:11(�)1Z .�� \' ll) l � ,1�11 DATE: January 21, 1998 TO: Fred Palmer FROM: Fred Cullum RE: Code Violations 970 David Road The following is an addendum to my memo of January 15, 1998 (repeated below). Emphases are added. The basic charging section of the model codes is contained in Section 205 of the Uniform Administrative Code as adopted by the City of Burlingame. This section states that "It shall be unlawfi�l for a person ...to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, zrse, occrspy or maintain any building, structure or building service equipment or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this code and the technical codes." The structure in question is a building, which is defined as "... any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy". Owner claims that what he has is not a building, but just a structure for shelter. The distinction is irrelevant, as the code uses the phrase "building or structure" when referring to the need for permits and code compliance. The code further states that no structure may be used contrary to the requirements of the codes, and states that the building official may require such use be discontinued. This structure would be classified as a Group S3 Occupancy, which "... shall include repair garages where work is limited to exchange of parts and maintenance reqz�iring r7o open flame or welding ... and parking garages." (If �ny cutting or welding occurs at the site, the structure becomes an H4 hazardous occupancy, and requirements for construction types and life safety are much more stringent). The structure was built without plans and permits required by the code, and is clearly substandard for lateral resistance to wind and earthquake loads and is deficient with regard to fire-resistivity (discussed in greater detail later in this memo): the building is therefore inadequate and is, by definition, an unsafe structure under Section 203 of the UAC. The owner claims that he doesn't need a building permit: the only structures exempt from permits are "... One story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 s•qatare feet ". The structure in question clearly exceeds this maximum. The code states that no commercial building shall be occupied without a certificate of occupancy issued by the Building Official and Fire Chief. The Building Official must find that there are no violations of the code or other laws enforced by the code enforcement agency (including local laws such as the Zoning Ordinance). Construction must comply with all the provisions of the technical codes based on building area, height, location, construction type and occupancy. Since this has been determined to be an S3 Occupancy, exterior walls less than 20' from property lines must be of one-hour fire resistance. Characteristically, this would mean a wall of concrete or masonry construction or a wood or steel frame wall with stucco on the exterior and fire-resistive sheetrock on the interior of the wall: the existing wood-framed plywood wall is not only not fire-resistant, but is highly flammable. The exterior walls, since they are required to be fire-resistant, are required to continue above the roof (parapet walls) in order to provide shelter for foremen on the roof during a fire incident and to aid in preventing conflagration (a situation where fire propagates from building to building over the roofs). The roof itself is required by State law, local ordinance and the code to be a Class B or better approved roofing system to avoid transmission of fire to other buildings from burning brands and to prevent this building from quick ignition from burning brands from other buildings. If this building has any roofing at all, it does not comply with Class B system requirements, since those requirements include the roof structure and roof sheathing, neither of which comply on this building. A major violation of State, County and local laws exists because the structure does not have a floor which drains to an approved oil separator. The separator is required to prevent road oils and lubricating oils from getting into either the ground or the bay. A further violation occurs because the drainage from the roof of the building is not directed either under the sidewalk to the City drainage system or to an on-site drainage system that ties into the City system. Drainage across the sidewalk is prohibited both by code and local ordinance. I directed the disconnection of the electrical service to the building (a contract inspector had erroneously allowed the connection earlier) on the bases that the structure is inherently unsafe and that cord-type wiring was being used in the building in lieu of permanent wiring methods: improper use of cords is the major cause of electrical fires. A further violation of the codes occurs in the use of electrical outlets less than 18" above the floor: these outlets must be raised to reduce the possibility of fuel; vapors being ignited by electrical sparks or ares. The owner then procured a generator to power tools for repair work on his trucks. The permanent use of fixed generators most likely violates air quality requirements, which only allow emergency generators or generators for construction sites. A generator within a building must be separated from the rest of the building by a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation: this is not only to protect the occupants from a constantly-running fuel burning engine, but to protect them from the products of combustion from the generator. Flame-spread, the rate at which flames propagate on building materials, is limited by the code: it is unlikely that the plywood and Douglas fir framing would meet the flame-spread maximums. Code minimums call for all structures regulated by the code to be supported on continuous concrete foundations: normally this would relate to taking earthyuake shear loads from the structure into the earth, but in this case the concern is with wind-created uplift of the structure with consequent hazard to the building occupants as well as all property around the structure, including all of the vehicles parked in the nearby lot. Code further states that all wood must be protected from dryrot and termite damage: this is normally taken care of by elevating the wood on a concrete foundation. If, as I assume, the sill for this building is "shot down" to an existing concrete slab, we can assume that the sill will rot out relatively soon, and the building will then simply blow over or lift off. In conclusion: this structure not only violates our Zoning Ordinance and the specifics of the use permit issued directly to this owner, it is a hazardous structure, dangerous not only for the building occupants, but anyone near the thing. It is a blight on the community and should be abated as soon as possible. Observations with regard to the structure at 970 David Road: � Section 103 Uniform Administrative Code (UAC). Structure defined • Section 202.5 UAC. Structure used contrary to the requirements of codes. Building Official may order use discontinued. • Section 202.6 UAC. Building Official may disconnect utilities. • Section 203 UAC. Structurally inadequate buildings deemed to be unsafe. • Section ZOS UAC. Unlawful to erect structure absent building permit. • Section 301.1 UAC. Permits required for structures over 120 square feet in area. • Section 309.1 UAC. Unlawful to occupy without Certificate of Occupancy issued by Building and Fire Departments. • Section 311.1 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Group S3 Occupancy defined. Vehicle storage. • Section 311.1 UBC. No open flame or welding in S3 Occupancies. • Section 311.2.1 (UBC). Structures to comply with construction type, areas and heights contained in Table SB and Sections 504, 505 and 506. • Section 311.2.3.1 (UBC). Floors shall drain to an approved oil separator. • Section 311.1 UBC. Structure shall be located on property per Section 503 (if exterior walls are not one-hour fire-resistive, must be 20' from property lines). • Section 413A State Building Code. Generators must be separated from remainder of building by one-hour fire-resistive barrier. • Section 503.2.1 UBC. Exterior walls for S3 Occupancy must be one-hour fire-resistive when less than 20' from property lines. • Section 709.4.1 UBC. Exterior walls must have fire-resistive parapets extending 30" above roof. • Section 804.1 UBC. Maximum flame spread for interior walls shall be a minimum of Class III. • Section 1202.2.7 UBC. Enclosed S3 Occupancies must be provided with mechanical ventilation. • Section 1402.1 UBC. Exterior walls must be provided with weatherproof barriers. • Section 1503 UBC. Roof covering must be a minimum of Class B. • Section 1506.1 UBC. Roof must be sloped to drain. • Section 1506.5 UBC. Roof drainage must be conducted under sidewalk to street or approved on-site drainage must be provided to a storm sewer system. � Section 1603.3.1 UBC. Structure must be designed to the minimum requirements of code. • Section 1806.1 UBC. Structures regulated by code must be supported by continuous concrete or other designed and approved foundations. • Section 2317 UBC. Wood must be protected from rot and termites. • Section 2320 UBC. Exterior wall coverings must comply with code. • Article 400-8 National Electrical Code. Prohibits use of fixture wires in lieu of permanent wiring. Discussion: If there is welding or operations creating an open flame (cutting torches) the structure would be classified as an H4 Occupancy. H4s have much higher construction requirements including explosion proof fixtures and wiring, two-hour fire-resistive exterior walls and a minimum of two legally separated exits. I am sure that there are many other violations of the State Business and Professions Code, Labor Code, Public Utilities Code and Health and Safety Code extant at this property, but the State Web server is overloaded, and I think the best solution is to simply get rid of this structure before someone really gets hurt. If necessary, I think we should go through the process to clear the site ourselves and recover the costs in any legally acceptable way. EXHIBIT #2 City of Burlingame City Hall -- 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 December 11, 1997 Joel Beck BK Bobcat 602 Pisces Lane Foster City, CA 94404 Re: Unlawful Structures/uses 970 David Road Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Beck; Building Department Phone 650-696-1600 Central FAX 650-342-8386 �'� ��' q. '. , • -. r�;}.,� � , 1g��% is�.;1t'� . , , .., As you are aware, electrical service at the above-referenced property was disconnected by city order on the bases that structures had been constructed on-site without benefit of permits and inspections and that the use of the site under the city- approved special permit was limited to truck storage only. Subsequent to the disconnection, you met with City Planner Meg Monroe and Building Official Fred Cullum. At that meeting you were again informed that the lot is limited to storage, not maintenance, of trucks and that no structures were permitted. Both of us told you to remove all structures from the site. As of this date the structures remain and you have installed a generator to replace the power lost by�the removed electrical service. ." It is now necessary to direct you to remove all structures from the site as soon as possible but in no case later than Friday, January 2, 1998. You are further directed to limit the use of the site to storage of trucks as approved under your special permit of 1994. An inspection of the site will be performed on January 2, 1998, and if the violations are extant, the matter will be referred to the City Attorney. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (650) 696-1595. Since ly, e Cullum Building Official c:City Planner City Attorney FredPalmer Address File EXHIBIT #3 DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIlVIROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 DEAR SIR, DECEMBER 5, 1997 WE HAVE WRITTEN TO YOU ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, THIS IS THE THIRD LETTER, AND NO PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE ON THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY EAST OF 980 DAVID RD. THE ILLEGAL STRUCTURES ON THE SITE STII,L REMAIN, WASHING THE TRUCKS ON THE STREET IS AN AWFUL AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM - ALL OF THE DIESEL, GAS, OIL, DIRT, ETC. GQ DIRECTLY INTO THE' BAY. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE PLANNING AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE PURSUED THIS BY NOW. ESPECIALLY 1N LIGHT OF OUR TWO PREVIOUS LETTERS. WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT FIVE MONTHS WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOUR DEPARTMENT AMPLE TIME TO ENFORCE THE CITY CODES. PERHAPS, NOW THAT THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF TI�E CITY COUNCIL ARE NOTIFIED - SOMETHING WILL FINALLY BE D4NE ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU, CONCERNED CITIZENS & NEIGHBORS CC: ROSALIE O'MAHONEY MIKE SPINELLI MARTI ICNIGHT JOE GALLIGAN MARY JANNEY PLANNING DEPAR'TMENT CITY ATTORNEY �� '� Q�� p 91997 �F g�R'��ti � �'vt�� ,�pLANN�Nu ��", June 24, 1997 Director Department of Public Works City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Sir, It has come to my attention that the property immediately East of 980 David Road is in code violation. Trucks are parked on a narcow strip of land (probably 20'), Apparently this owner has constructed plywood walls and roof on part of the property. I can't imagine the City granting a building permit for this. Please look into these violations immediately, as ['m sure that this is very dangerous - no electrical permit, plumbing, etc. etc. and represents a public nuisance and haaard. Thank You, A Concerned Citizen �� a C p�C � `� �, `:. �'� "`s A�OFe� � �y9/'' �NiN� <�;,;.: GF,�� ' September 15, 1997 Director Department of Public Works City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca 94010 Dear Sir, On June 24, 1997 I had written you a letter about my neighbors and my concern about the property in quest�on, A copy of that letter dated June 24, 1997 is enclosed. There has been no act�on taken for three months! We have decided to ask once more and hope something will be done. Our only other alternat�ve is to have a pet�tion s�gned (8 property owners at this time) and deliver �t to the City Counc�l dur�ng the public comment segment. Please do someth�ng, We all feel the City of Burlingame's Department of Public Works is a friend of the property owners, and as such would respond quickly to this public health and safety, and code violation issue. Thank You. ��C�� a�� a a �� CITY pF BURL,�fvGAME PLANNING DEPT. iTr .ti' „ �'�,�'�""E THE CITY OF BURLINGAME '�,,.,� � EXPIRATION DATE: 5/O1/1997 APPLICATION DATE: 11/O1/96 Permit Issue Date:11/O1/96 r l�%�G�/� r � _2� -�� i !�� { � 'Tc �.` 'r��i� �- ,„�: CONSTRUCTION PERMIT # 9601808 PAR.CEL NiJMBER: 00-000-000 Application Recvd By: MARY MINDERMAN Permit Issued By: MARY MINDERMAN JOB ADDRESS 970 DAVID ROAD PROPERTY OWNER BECK, JOEL 607 PISCES FOSTER CITY, CA 800-945-6925 94404 CONTRACTOR CALic # 685609 B K BOBCAT (JOEL BECK, OWNER) 607 PISCES FOSTER CITY, 800-945-6925 BusLic# WCExpDate Lic Class: CA A EX�-IIBIT #4 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER ENGINEER 94464 TENANT AS4-BLDGPRMT/bb Rev 5/97 ❑ OWNER-BUII.DER'S DECLARATION: I hereby aff'irm that I am exempt from the California Contractor's License Law for the follOwing TCaSOn: {Owner to Initial the appropriate one of the three items below, and sign.} � Please note the Workers CompensationInsurance responsibilities. [Business & Projessions Codc ¢7173/.5: Arry ciry or counry which requires a pernut to cortstruct, alter, improvt, demolish, or repnir arry structure, prior to its issuance also requires !he applicant for such pemut to file a signed stnitment that he/she is licensed pursuant to the provisions ojthe srate Conlractor's L,icense law, Chapter 9, commencing with $71700 of Division 3 oj the Business & Professions Cate, or that he/she is exempt d�erefran, ard the basis jor the alleged esemp�ion. My violation of §7031.5 by am applicanl for a permit subjats �his oppGcnnt to a civil pe�lry ojno� more than five hundred dollars ($500)]. ■ I, as OWNER of the property (or my employces, with wages as their sole compensation) will do the work, and the shvcture is not intended or offered for sale. � Owner to provide Workers Compensation Insu�ance. /Business & Projcssiau Code ¢7D04: The Conrracror's Linnse Law docs nor appty m an OWNER of properry who buildr or improves thtrton, and who does such work him/herse(f or through his/her own tmployres, provided tha! [he structure with such improvemtrtts is not intended or oj/trcd for sale. !f, howrver, the bui(ding or rmprovrmrnr rs rold within one year oj canplttion, the OWNER-BUILDER wi!! have the burAm of praving �hat he/sht did no! bui(d or improvt jor tht purpose of su/c.J ■ I, as OWNER of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed Contractors to consrivct the project; Each such Conh�actor must obtain a City Business License. � Owner is responsible to verify that Contractors have proper Workers Compensation Insurance. /Businrss & Pro/asiau Coee gxw4: Thc Cauractnr's License [aw dnts not appfy ro at OWNER ojproperry who builds or improves therron, and who contracls jor such x+ork with Contractor(s) (icensed pursuant ta rhe Contractor's Licrose Law./ ■ I am exempt under Business & Professions Code § for the fouowing ■ Signature• Date: ❑ LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION: I hereby atTirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9[§7000, etc] of Division 3 of the Business & Professions Code, and that my licease is in full force and effect. {Enter the following} ■ Contractor Name: License# Class: Exp Date: ❑ WORBERS COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury the following declaration: ■ I certify that in the performance of the work for which this perntit is issued, I s6all not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers compensation laws of Califomia, and agree that if I should subsequently become subject to the workers compensation provisions of Labor Code §3700, I shall forthwith (immediately) comply with these provisions. * Failure to comply revokes this permit. ■ I have and will maintain Workers Compensation Insurance as required by Labor Code §3700 for the work for which this permit is issued: WC Insurance Carrier: Policy # Exp Date: ■ I have and will maintain a Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure for Workers Compensation as provided for by Labor Code §3700 for the work for which this permit is issued. � A copy of my Self-Insurance Cenificate is provided herewith. WARNlNG: Fa//ure to secure and meintaln Workers Compensation coverage where required Is un/aw/u/, and sha// subJect the emp/oyer to Crimina/ Penalties and Civll �nes up to S f00, 000, in addition to the cost of compensation, damages per Labor Code 43706, interest, and attorney's fees. ■ Signature: Date: ❑ Construction Lending Agency: Name: Address: � None ❑ I iJNDEItS'I'AND that all work to be performed under this permit shall be completed within the time limit set forth above (Expiration Date). This permit becomes null and void at the end of the Expiration Date unless all work has been completed and Final Inspecdon approval has been given and recorded by the City on the project Inspection Record card; unless an extension of time has been specifically applied for by the permittee, in writing, prior to the permit Expiration Date, and approved by tt►e City Building O�cial. An expired permit shall be replaced with a new permit prior to continuadon of work. The new permit will require compliance with applicable codes and laws, and payment of applicable fees, in effect at the time of the �w permit application. ❑ I CERTIFY that I have read this application and state that the information given is complete and correct; I agree to comply with all local ordinances and state laws relating to building conswction; and I make this statement and agreement u�er penalty of law. I �nderstand that all work performed under this permit must be inspected by the City, and the results of the inspecdons recorded on the project Inspection Record card, prior to the work being covered or concealed. I hereby authorize representatives of the City to enter upon the subject properry for inspection purposes. Requests for inspecdons shall be made before 5:00 PM, one or two business days prior to need. [ J Contractor [] Ageat for Cantractor [) Owner [] Agent tor oemar Signatnret DBte: CITY OF BURLINGAME 970 DAVID ROAD Type of Permit: 911 Electrical work ONLY. Description of Work: NEW ELECTRICAL SERVICE ON NEW POLE. (PER OWNER: POWER FOR COMPRESSOR, ETC. FOR AIR COMPRESSOR - NO TRUCK MAINTENANCE) Type of Construction: Occupancy Group: Use Zone: M1 Flood Zone: N New: Add: Alter: Repairs: Demolish: Total New Sq.Ft.: 0 Schl Tax New Sq.Ft.: Lot Size-Sq.ft: Handicap Access Required: ITEM NAME Building Permit Electrical Permit Plumbing Permit Mechanical Permit Plan Check Fee Zoning PC/Sign Fee Public Works Fee Microfilm Fee Bay Front Dev Fee Parking Permit Fee Deposit Trust Amt Sewer Connect Fee High School Tax C� # PERMIT 9601808 No. Bedrooms Added: No. of Stories: No. of Units: Valuation: $0 Historic: N Unreinforced Masonry: Hillside Prmt Area: N Bay front Devlopmnt Area: Prop Line Survey Date: ** F E E S UMMARY ** CODE AMOUNT ITEM NAME CODE 85 86 87 88 89 84 91 92 93 95 96 97 78 Elem School Tax 68.50 Energy PC Fee Access PC Fee Seismic Fee Miscellaneous �� * * GR.AND TOTAL : AMOUNT PAID: AMOLTNT DUE : 77 73 72 75 $68.50 $68.50 � AMOUNT �� CITY OF BURLINGAME 970 DAVID ROAD ELECTRICAL FEES Base Fee Tem�orary Power Temporary distribution, lightin�, outlets Service (Amps) Meter Panel/Branch Panel/Sub Panel Receptacle, Switch, Lighting Outlets Residential or Non-Res Appliances <1HP or KW Residential New Sq Footage (SFD or Duplex) Reaidential New Sq �`ootage (3 or more unita) Private Swimming pool (Inground, SFD or MFD) Busways (Total Linear Feet) Sign Circuit Additional Circuit for Same Sign Power Apparatus (Rating in HP, KW, KVA, KVATL) Up to and including 1 Over 1 and not over 10 Over 10 and not over 50 Over 50 and not over 100 Over 100 Carnival/Circus/Other Traveling Show/Exhibit Generator Mechanical Ride Booth Lighting Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, Conductors Electrical Plan Check PLUMBING FEES Base Fee Fixture or Trap Building Sewer Interior Roof Draina Water Heater Gas Piping Outlets Industrial Waste Pretreatment Interceptor Water or Water-Treating E ipment Drainage or Vents (Replace�Repair) Landscape Irri�ation/Sprinkler System Atmospheric-T e Vacuum Breakers Back Flow Devices (up to ") Not Atmospheric Back Flow Devices (over 2") Not Atmospheric Private Swimming Pool Public Swimming Pool Private Spa Public Spa Other Equipment Plumbing Plan Check MECHANICAL FEES Base Fee Furnace (to 100 kBTU) Furnace ( > 100 kBTU) Floor, Wall Mounted, or Suspended Heating Boiler (<100 kBTU, , 3 HP) Boiler (100-500 kBTU, 3-15 HP) Boiler (500-1,000 kBTU, 15-30hp) Boiler (1,000-1,750 kBTU, 30-50hp) Boiler (> 1,750 kBTU, > 50hp) Other Heating , Cooling, or Refri eration Repair/Alter/Add to Heating�Cooling Evaporative Cooler Gas Appliance Vent Air Handling Unit (to 10,000 CFM) Air Handling Unit (over 10,000 CFM) Ventilation System Exhaust Hood Vent Fan connected to sinqle duct Fireplace Hazardous Process Pi�ing (HPP) Outlets Nonhazardous Procesa Piping (NPP) Outlets Fuel Gas Piping Other Equipment Mechanical Plan Check Qty. 200 1 Amt. 25.00 27.25 16.25 ELECTRICAL TOTAL Qty. Amt. PLUMBING TOTAL: Qty. Amt. MECIiA1�TICAL TOTAL: PERMIT NUMBER 9601808 $68.50 $.00 $.00 0 EXHIBIT #5 (`�� f1�t#� uf ��xrlirt�ttzne CITY HA�L - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD r[�� (4i5) 6%-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 940i0-3997 r�x (4i5) 34z_g386 September 7, 1994 Joel Beck 602 Pisces Lane Foster City, CA 94404 Dear Mr. Beck: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the August 22, 1994 Planning Commission approval of your special permit application became effective September 6, 1994. This application was to allow truck storage at 970 Davis Road, zoned M-1. The August 22, 1994 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 12, 1994 Sheet 1, Assessors Parcel Map; 2. that the truck and equipment storage facility will be open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees at any one time; 3. that applicant shall install to City standards a curb cut on Davis Road as approved by City Engineer; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This A � September 7, 1994 970 Davis Road page -2- approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. Sincerely yours, �r�W �l � �� Marga et Monroe City Planner MM:smg c: Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office � (L.116 AC MOL BEING PARCEL C; APN: 025-272-160) . . ,. . .. . '�'� . �� =� EXHIBIT #6 �'`�� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 � Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Art Michael, was present to answer questions relating to future uses, i.e., a warehouse building with variances; additional parking, etc. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted this is a routine procedure and in accord with the reasons cited in the staff report, moved recommendation to City Council with the following conditions: 1) that no site development is approved by approval of this map; 2) that a covenant on the Final Map create all the necessary easements shown on the Tentative Map; 3) that all fill material presently stockpiled in the drainage right-of-way be removed from the site prior to recording of the Final Map; 4) that all conditions of the Planning Memo dated August 8, 1994 shall be met; 5) that a special Encroachment Permit be obtained from the Burlingame City Council for any development within the 140' drainage right-of-way; 6) that flooding must be allowed in the 140' easement and any proposed uses or regrading must accommodate this flooding; and 7) that conditions 2 and 6 shall be shown as developmental conditions on this Parcel Map. Motion was seconded by C. Deal and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) voice vote. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1 (JOEL BECK, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 8/22/94, with attachments. Planner Gomery discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Joel Beck, the applicant, was present to answer question. The applicant asked that condition #3 be eliminated and they be allowed to park on the street. They have been doing so for two years and there have been no complaints . CA Coleman advised condition #3 be replaced conditioning the installation of a curb cut. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted the amended conditions in the staff report, he then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 12,.1994 Sheet 1, Assessors Parcel Map; 2) that the truck and equipment storage facility will be open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees at any one time; 3) that applicant shall install to City standards a curb cut on Davis Road as approved by City Engineer; and 4) 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. Jacobs and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -5- CITY OF B URLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT Special Permit for Truc]�c Storage Address: 970 David Road u�,�,,,a� ITEM # 8 EXHIBIT #7 Meetinq Date: 8/22/94 Request: Special Permit for truck and equipment storage at 970 David Road, zoned M-1 (25.44.030 - 17). Applicant and Property Owner: Joel Beck APN: 025-272-160 Lot Dimensions and Area: 20' X±253' _.116 Acres General Plan: Industrial, Industrial and Office Uses Zoninq: M-1 Adjacent Development: Warehouse and Industrial Uses CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(a), Grading on land with a slope of less than 10�: and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(c), Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site; and 15311 - Accessory Structures Class 11(b) consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including (b) Small parking lots. Previous Use: Vacant lot Proposed Use: Truck and Equipment Storage Allowable Use: Truck storage with a special permit Summary: The applicant, BK Bobcat, is requesting a special permit for truck and equipment storage at 970 David Road. This narrow lot (20' X±253' or 5,063 SF) has a PG&E easement on the east side and industrial buildings with parking lots on the west side. The lot has driveway access from David Road. For the past two years the applicant and property owner have been storing trucks and equipment" at the site. The lot has been regraded with gravel and is partially fenced. In the future, the applicant intends to complete the fencing and add a gate at the front of the lot. This project came to the attention of the Planning Department as a code enforcement item (May 2, 1994 and June 23, 1994 letters from J. Coleman to Joel Beck). The truck storage facility is open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday. The business has four part time employees and a maximum of six visitors per day. The applicant anticipates a maximum of two employees and visitors on site at any one time. According to the applicant employees and visitors park on the street. A condition of approval will state that all employees and visitors should park on site. History: In August, 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a new building at this 20' X±253' site (P.C. August 26, 1994 Minutes). A 20' X 124' structure was proposed to store automobiles. This application required variances to side setbacks, exiting in a backward direction, and parking; and a special permit for indoor �nd outdoor auto storage. The Planning I SPFsCIAL PSRXIT 970 David Road Commission denied the application. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision (C.C. September 16, 1994 Minutes). The City Council felt there were too many permits and variances required for this development on this site. They felt it would be difficult to for city to police its use and feared that in spite of the poor access the building and site would be used for car repair. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWEDJREO'D Use: * truck and equipment truck & equipment truck storage storage storage with a special permit * Special permit for truck and equipment storage. Meets all other zoninq code requirements. Staff Comments: City staff have reviewed this application. The Fire Marshal, Chief Building Inspector, and 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. Planninq 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 conditions should be considered: conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 12, 1994 Sheet 1, Assessors Parcel Map; � 2 SPSCIAL PBRXIT Conditions: (continued) 970 David Road 2. that the truck and equipment storage facility will be open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees at any one time; 3. that all employees and visitors shall park on site in the storage lot; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Jane Gomery Planner cc: Joel Beck, applicant and property owner 3 ' � ��, CfTY 0� l�� OO � ��L�UUIII�]GiWVII� BURLINGAME � o o �Q�QO �J �J QQ �� ° � �Q��j �Q ��V O��OOO DU '�� e 'q � 9 �RATEo JUN[6� Ty e of R,plication: �Special Permit Variance Other Project Address c'i 70 �►+�t9t�p Assessor's Parcel Number(s)_ �2��27Z< �(p� APPL/CANT Name: ��G � Address: �0 Z Pt`5�.� �L�i City/State2ip: _ ��_ �"�'�'� �4�� Telephone:(work) ! � �l'�"—(�-�"1d?S' (home) ��--��'7 ARCH/TECT/DES/GNER Name: Address: City/State2ip: Telephone (daytime): _ PROPERTY OWNEg Name: 5�c�, �,c_: Address: 5i�� = City/State/Zip: Telephone: (work) (home) Please indicate with an asterisk !•1 who th _ rnntact ne��n is for this nroieci. PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON: AFF/DA V/T/S/GNA TURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and best of my knowledge and belie . A licant's Signature ate - - correct to the I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. / Property Owner's Signature Date Date Filed: � �' � � 2rs2 w�i�aa.n,,, �33� � '� Fee Receipt # � Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: � P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing (datei P.C. Action Appeal to Council? Yes No Council meeting date Council Action ' • �r� cir� �� BURLINGAME `m�� U L�-D�YILIIIl1�l�IIdI1Lti � •\........ �U IS.��l� U IyYUU0��11 �P��`�O��IOIICOIJ . ' � �''.�,,. • ' • . � , The Pianning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or. infurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenfence. � �i�l� EJ� �� v� 'Q�O� Gd�C.L �i�l,S'C.� .Fo�2 7� (.�l� � �j�p� �'1-- STa �c �� Ceta��D f� ��v v'�� l� �2 T�� s� ��.-�-tQ��r' Twa iY�1�`'r '7'�f ��' u� c� �-�" ��l'C5 0� 7�f�' %' �TS _ � �h�c�� . Kb(%G�, , 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and canducted in accordance with the Burrngame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceJ ''` � �'�7- i 5 Zo,r�� /1� �2A�T �.t -iA.�, .t� 7%/%s zoK7�',�t1 G fI/�5 RLof 4� ��a' ' �.�"k�jp �i�ov�v0 . , a ,. > ��.. \: � , .. . '�� . . , _ - - ` . . . - ifat . . ` . t ' . � � Y . .. . . . . , . . _" ,. . . ' . . . .. . , .._ `i� .. . . - - � :. .. .. . � . � : . . � . 1 � . . � .. . . , ��{3. �Ho,w�w�//,.the;p�oposed project be compatib/e :with.,the aesthetics, •mass,�bu/k and character .� a�� , , , �.�a,�� ,��ofxthet�xist�ng,and{potentia/ uses.on�adpin�rrg properi,es in the genera/ vicin� T'� � �rr � i:j � �:. ;�:,,� �.,,,; 1 �Y . �.- �'�uk:. �t� ,-+t�;:�,�N_F. .•°f.$�e� ._ +C .•�3si X . . . � t ` . . . .:i .. �Y- , :. :::; I ;. ''� f , � ��i�; � � j ' � O�I �*.� � � � i Y '�a':�z�� '��`� ' ,��'��t��'°�'�ly �#'��?� x�'�:.� ,.� ., �J�r�rt 6'1,4 , �., ,� � � � �%Xe 4��"' .�' � t�s�D 1µr Q ��{� .... . :s._. .._.:..u_.., ...-Jn�rr/.�?.�c/7 . _...'i/ , n_._ , �_, _ _�.....,a. �.� _ .� �..._t .. �_,. _a..avr.� ._s .... .._ . ,�_,.,s .:,:'� .....x� ' . 'Jr i�Y '� .f��:i. �'��3x'" � fsF"�Fyy�s-z��+4 � �) 4 ��.�� ,r� .��',�� . i '��v�/ �r�i.�ti t' � E�� . `,,"L{iir�...l ,;o:t�h°i.� A 4t .i?i' r+K� ii2/92 > �j `+ ? -�� 7 :' ��iT(n . . }'� ��K� �" �:."v✓J`.�%^�"'��' � 7 T'� � •Y,;` . �{:, �?i�`"�,�?� ��".�t��;'k�t�&� �� f ��,;«��.� '" " � ,��1 l� �,,../ Yi ��F' �t1 �:+J "�i` � . . ��... t .. .. �..r . ,..�', , ... ... ;�i�'J..�iF*1tr%11tY\iN1L,�a%)f.l1i rrt.��:;"C {l`. 'y 7 , > �c. "'�i,.� �!�d��';'� "�!��?' 4??., .t_`3.�`!�' �LLS (�� ,�),. S � �+:��, � }.i. � t '�.-�i .F:1 � ;;�',� � . . t - . . , = ( . � Yu i.�� ...y � I [ � t • �r�fi .'�� Jx`rl'\�,�"s� '��' �F.s ,�,Y r+��,�, f,� ti �5 �Y,',�' /� �...'C� ' 1 . }'� �r,:.�f: .i � 1 � � � �€�� r��'�,� �.,i t�'� �+�'#� i�iC �,�f. . . .�P�.. . �,!`, x � i� ;e';i'��( �' -, } ' . .�, Kj },wi ��, .:� � y`y `.. rY� -,.� � t'd .'Sn �.� 7 th .�rY..: �"��" � � ,; � , + 4 ,�f`� �, 1�;�.r,�r`��'r't a �, �,((��,�A� y�l� `�, j �� {; [:%';I�` 3'^.'�,;�4^'�'�,. �� s!'i�.�RA ';;< r ;, ` � t � �. � :�` f . ,�� r.�t7al�`nf�_'�1•'4' �`h � � � ~ �� .�{S Y�17r��5��. a}� ' � �Ll�;a`1'2`V, A' \ At�f,�i' �rl�i•,r,' a'�{. .: J � �.�'02 . � � ��+ i� :, �i 3 �;, �t . .,��=`,rt;T.;'t"rr �+.h';` °��'f��'��'�s�' � � -; � ��3::;: � \� "`� �', � 4 ^' h�t'ca''� �' �� .�;.t}F• � ' I►:; �.i�%'�i4`1 � � � �� i'i�_= CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATIOA TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION COrII�RCIAL APPLICATIONS 1. Proposed use of site: �U�. /�J�i�� -b �,v,�n�T-- 5'f� R�4e� f'L.�'-�'. 2. Days/hours of operation: �'l�ih'T6 �Z�rn 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles (by type): T 4. Current and Projected maximum number of employees at this locaLion: Existincx In 2 Years In 5 Years After After After 8AM-SPM 5PM 8AM-5PM SPM 8AM-5PM 5PM Weekdays fulltime artime '?� Weekends fulltime artime 5. Current and Projected maxim� number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Existincr � After 8AM-5PM 5PM � In 2 Years After 8AM-5PM I 5PM In S Years , After 8AM-5PM I 5PM 6. Maximum number of employees and visitors/customers which can be expected to be on the property at any one time: �- 7. Where do/will the employees park?_ O� a`"�.E�T � � Where do/will customers/visitors park? 6/U �� Present or most recent use of site:��l� 9l�12Rj-t� 10. List of other tenants/firms on the property:_�� EXHIBIT #8 �. � �_.. _ �-�� w � � � _ ,,�. _ A � � - .�,� �� -.r.....,.� - � ;;, :,-,: ... 0 .r . ,: - �1 , ' �, � ��11Eki�il --�--_� ....�.. / / � 1 ;� ��>:L..� �� y�� . 'rL �' �`:.�4�,�1�'�_ ':i+`'-; •, . _ . � � � �� ( \i i` !ri�''� �4 r�' V" r > � � r - , .�4 , � �± �; . �� . �.,a��:t:� r �` .a,r � � k '-..... �.�. i � �`�; - �� ,,, . _ � '� e �� ,�� F �:��<: k � �� g , � �", eYt :. . -� 3.:.. A ' ' �: 9 ,' C . . . � . t . . . k � b,�. �. . P � �' , � y `� � �� : �,� � �� . , � � 4� � "e. i. ; ' .: i �t � . � � - , ks � �� : � .. . . ... . �:< � 4 �, '� '�i .. _ , . .�N . � � . . � .� �a ' ��' �" � ' . . �... . .� � - � - . � ' . � '.. a#,� . A .. � ��j�uwe. . . . . . I�['�`1{ } ,f- � ;�.., .. . � . � . . Q#�' ��. . . -� . �':, � ��.' .. a�i�`� �m t�q�.�� , ��'• ° r U$ � . �s�-R . �� a�,�, a � �� t: s� � `�,, '� ,. Sy�.q.y� � �A J n# .� . .�' � . . 3 �_ aX � �1"�� Jda�� , � , , i -� �,sc� pa�.� . H � ^-�. °� � **;�� ,.�;, a ..:.a��.y�� .. . � . . . . � . c '�. � _ y^ — l►s �." . � .�r x' �sc �� t � 3 ,.�.�.��, � � � �,��'� �� :�_� � �� _� � -� � � ' �� f �� ' ' � �� . ��_� � +'�'��, �: � 3 a ¢ � . � a , n•. ��nnn''' } - : .. 5't'�Y. . . � � �'Y . m � � � a ; �, �.:� � � a. . x�.,-, g � ��-. . � �� . � �_ ,*�k<` ` �� §'tl ?' �. ". �H � �u.. � .:.� F' ..� � ��z� :��r � ��`�`�� 970 DAVID ROAD, BURLINGAME �� ". � �� '�' *��z� �, a; �� << � � � ��. ;�, � .�•.�� <�� .�� _.�� _ "—� `� `� ° -s �* ., , �` � �" �x � � s , ''�� , �,. �x � �� n�� a . �� °� �� o �� I - �; , PHOTO TAKEN 1/28/98, lOAM, AJP � . • � � - .x � �,,. ,�,. �� .. � 4 �'„�` �'� ,��,'�r' �: ,�'� � � �`�, `— r,t�r, .� � , '�..a ��x� ,a€ � '��` °� e � " ��« ` r ,� � � r p � � ,� � 1 _t. ._ti+- � �+�.�. ::� , � ; � .� .. . �. ` ��'u +..a=.... e . � �' -M« . £ , - .. -< ;, � �f. .. , � . � �� a . -. ' .. �R' y r «.. „ � . a .x ,... �- a �# � , . i � � � i£ ., -«'�{.�. . � .. , �,�. . ��.,. � .�,. �,�',�� ,'� .ak. �^ x� "�an r�c � , x `� � ' , , � � � 1t�, �b�fi?�tk5a� � °� k s � �sw ' �, .� $' �,;' � '�' e =�fl 7 '�`m; � . . ? .a;t,.:.. -. . .. .s ca...aaw.�—r ��:ib �` -'� ,e. �. � � ., ' ,�. � ::��'� ' - � ... . � "� . � 'r � ,� ` _ ' ��`�� s . �. � =d1 „: �. .� __ ' ,., ,w- ., `J rj �gt $� �c. .p.. �� '� . . �n, .,,�., .,._�.,. .. ._ � ��$57;i � � �; . _ . .. � �� t�6..F�?r�t ' . ,#s � �� .y� �. m .�; � . ,_��- � � ` � ��• f r�y.� .a , , r� , 3 �� .�: W T��., V � M� � � � A d� � ^ A � � � � � � . „�1 ��...... �� y 5a> '� 7„ ➢y . r. � s � � u � '. � g�}Y�.�., : � �� 5� � a� ��. � ,r� . � � � � �1 ' � ,i ��4 ' �-1 � �`�: g `, � � �� ' � � � � �;� � � ��. + �C � 5 � �$ w � � ��.,� � �; �, N Y': .�'`i �1 �l� y � I� q�� '� h , � P,� � { � . � „ A% � t." � a �trr � �.•� O k � � O �' " � ' � u� �� a � �� 'J: L._,. � ' �'.. . � . , � �;. � .,. . � .rd�'� R,�• . $ � �. �� 24`s�M, 'x^`s'k"N" � Y1'+'b . ^�-}.AT� Jaa.'^ 3 A ,; k Q `^?" � �`3 y � } '�y y ,�. __t �r �, �t � i��,T�� : .�Ci`§� . ,t 5 Yf i '� t r � ""��i ��- � ' �,, '�$. �� ' e,;: - ` w � ,�««�4<, � �: Q� '� � �,� � , � � �= °` �f � �. � '> . � �°�`� � �� A j& � � �� O�� " �.�;�� i . �� . �� -�-� � � � . a �� #� � �: i�'��X � � �: � � � � � O � 00 � N � z � � � 0 H 0 � � �� . , E'�� ' ,'�� t - � � ��,�� ,;; �. � �� ,`i�"�`�..�:�""`��. �+ �r�;. ;. � �'" ,� �� ...� � � .�,�� ;., s� � � � � � � �� . +�. ��'��'` � � :� ,� ,��,�` '� ��":; �� ,� ..�'��#' '°�.�Y��`� � `��'�x �d� * 8��' a �� W �.�t �� r � �� tm9 V t ��' �" � �� "�� I � �� ^ �� '� �. � �'��" O �,,��{ � � �� , �, � � �#�� '�� , �� . � t� �G4�: ' �w�� "'��-' z � �� ' �..��. F� � � a, ��;� �: � I�� , �� : �� p `R: �� $ � ` � �� : '�'�,�� ; a�� ` �_ s'• z , �f �� i s,� �� yq. � ��. � � C q �■ � -�� <t:;` �; � � >' � w��°''► �ry' t� 9,�� s� x: � � � �� ' �+ �< >;� i'a �, � . � � � . :=. .� r ''�. .�,�,��. �� - �r . �:: �� . 4 g � � � � � � 00 C1 I �; � � � I Q� �N � � � � � ;? � � x �'. .,:a _1 �� ` .` � . 'F �L ': � . � ��. �,.. � `� �� , � � �� ,ti _� . _. � �� `�° ,w,. � � � � � '� � � #�� ,., _ �� — �� +� �4 �� `� . * ., � ";"_ ` � �"� �`�� _ � -. �M�� e � � � _� � O Y � � �� `�• � � � � ��d �� ,...� �"�� ` ` � � -. � ,A: �o �� o� 2 7� 4 � '} i �? � �'� .� . . . �Y� e � �_� t �; � ri. �� Y �'P ±��! � � �w �� a� �'r� ,.,_ <��...,��, � �_ RS#'. �.... . . �� '� � � `i � ��,� �� .�� a ;, �� , �;.� � �.. i� .� � �., � ��.� �' �� w'� <:'�s �� ^ M�� s� ,. �� °'�� a:. �'�.�x=:� . __ < � � � � � r"1 OC o� N � � z � � E-+ O h O � � CITY OF BURLINGAME SO1 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010-3997 (650) 696-7250 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 970 DAVID ROAD APN: 025-272-160 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT FOR OUTDOOR TRUCK STORAGE AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1. The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, February 23, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 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. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 696-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe Mailed February 13, 1998 � -.l. ��, .4 � .' ' ,� �... " '� .f��' • . � 1': '4\. • w�M , �-�, ��• ��^ e:a . - � ._ t k F .% t; Y .� %'S N � , � .��: � �� J'#�� .i. � . '�: ��::�'!�*�� _� ` �� , j ' .�, . � �• �R .�`;�..•. �C r�-'le�n( .�. ... .� � ' x' ~s. � .1.i. l � 4 � � � - �� ...a,v.a,...., ,.. �k a� r - �'� 1550� � � � ;� � �, ' �' � . . . - : . . l�,,.:.t � ,$ 1 `'�1 "�"'�; �2� ��'.'ff �,,� ; �e� o �� .i �� ` ' � �� b#T �a.. . , . ` i� rs � � ��is- � ' �' i .i 1 ` i � �: '� M 1��, *'�� '' ��, � � - �°�3. i��C'�2� . . `'�'� 1 :... -^� �•�,�� '?t� . . k x�� ;. � i� i � ti�: t i' 4� � , �.a '::: ` j �' 1 � � 4 � I . Fq` � S ! !, � �+� 1t� �� . � ^ � M j ' `�` i R �� .t O °' 4�� r . t,. ( '"��' � � ¢i ��i %; 3 � � , - . �� Q� M. � � � . . ( J` . ( �. � R` ,_ r� � . . � `�" � 1534 ' ��' ' � :a _ j � :. >�� • � .�t3� �` —� . ''' � -, ; , �l+kj �� '�i i �� E �`+c��;r ��R'�t ��,.:' �� .% , . #y a ).��i � F. t . fu� , �,',�.lr� ' ." X, i '�` 'r; •e ✓ ` . � f - '*�+"� � -%. . J. .� � � _.ti.� � ,. },�?,,,�,M�Sr� ;. � %� �� 1 � .�� t ,�'.,; �,` . �:. . , , -. Z ,� �-:i j ;�� "1!. �, i R �� i%' ji..�'t � r?v5�1 S;. j.13 J�A � ti,;;� � _� y� .`� O� g,i � j� ,�.� <>� .,� � �` 0 . '� �` �� f 4l0 � �' �� '� � �� ( k 'µ O } � � � r'' .� `� ; �- �� w'u+:'. r-i��r' �� ' � ;1t1 f f► r! - �� R . � ° 1 � .'a.' ' 1 � �_, �� ',�. � �oqD � � --� �AY►D ---�� q� � � �� - c r � . . -> �. , � � �'� "' - � � �� :u;. r � .-� ; r r�: ' � �� j' o#' �i, "�j �" .�c` �i''' . � �.. .� , ,. (� �s '�?. , 7 �t �. �� Y� A, � �, X� y �.Q;. 3 ; �: + ��, '��,��,5��. ' . . . . . J(.... �.I `. _ . �' � �� .� � �,:;.. , ...� , � � � r .. I S?-A- �, j ` � < �� ` �.. ! 51S � � ,:f �. ; ,� , �-� :�� L �;,�` A .��' . 4 ` � ' • M ' r fi �� ' � � _ . . � .. i xY��- � - , � _ t�,� .� < , 'x a f , . �. .., .) , . �i , "�`"��E^'., S �1 ��f� ��►� � t, : � � '� ? +i ` � , � �� , "° _ � �' i t = �v - Q s. '•� s` s�: : y� � � - � t ,.� '�� wt.a '":;{ .'� _� :x� 't.� • , � ' ' �-"'n , 1a F�� ' ' ' }I . �r � a ,_� �IS. �'��;,% � :� �� s � �3 �� .� � y� -� �� + fl� � . . � � r� + � z '^ s` �' . .�� $�'^ " � �� -..� {,] j'+; � �J6.. . • � 1 , � r � :� ��, `49 L � t tr - l� � -� - _ �� „� �,�. , � � � ; , . � ,�- �` : �1 �� :ai: ' ' r �,: .�� ,T .-�,r� ..:;a� � , � , � 1x ya �f�, �s �` ... %y `}�� ;�� I � � �+f��„asW� y..�.'�t .�] e �.� t ��'}�ey.�, �'. � � : �'�"x'�; r w. r p �" r- a�t �rY . .... t� ► ,:� t « , Y ��; • � �z 4' ` '. �Y,� - Cef -� � t �.;.� �s, "�"��iys�r'�c- M - ; ` -� k� - ,� g�,,,,+3.,Y�f� �� 'k�'?� i. � t+�k��j•!�f£'.rx 1 � �: #s � � Y, v�,ai�., s, x �i�t,s:: y�, .�- � �1 .}� '�� e5 ".�� ,�-r RS r 1 �'. .,c s�l•�� •�,e''�^+�;�d }i ��+ " i�}.� }�a� �,t + �� r �: 1+. �,`.f�`�+#'i'� -. ir.s^rr�* ��r- `'(�'' ��rt,' =� � i . .Ii:�,..i-�":,. � ]�ry ..�FiY�S� , P".�f� .+ Sr.,.�+-..�� , rr � 1 �� .�� ` �� v�' r } ,_.4- j t a.f� k� ,� ,� ,7 'rt � „s �� ,.. �' # ' � �` ' �, ; ""u ';:'r s ' �skFr�i� ff � �� { �,.� ��.�'' -`� ? � �i�...�dce.. .. -�-�-� ". -�.-�'�� .� { .,., ,.Tb S q : .�•r . t 1 � .a' '� ' "� � `� � -, � •; E ' y � . . ' '., ` '.?�' . RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMP'TION and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVOCATION RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: �t i � -_� � � � �. , •� � �' •�� •�, �- �� • � �� r , � .�- • - � •�n� . � �' �i� �1 � .�� • . ,�� -, �. �.� �, ,. � . • 1 �, � ;�,� •�'_� �t :'► 1 •1 •- :-. , �.1 .' - ..�- • : •��1� � ��-� �.�- WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Febn�aLy ?�, 1998, 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: 1. On the basis of 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 not have a signiiicant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption per Article 19, Section: 15321, Class 21(la) which consists of actions by regulatory agencies to revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued, adopted, or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard or objective, administered or adopted by the regulatory agency. Such actions include, but are not limited to (1) the direct referral of a violation of lease, permit, license, certiiicate, or entitlement for use or of a general rule, standard, or objective to the Attorney General, District Attorney, or City Attorney as appropriate, for judicial enforcement is hereby approved. � 2. Said conditional use permit is revoked, and the use should be ceased and the site should be cleared. 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, Je�y L. Deal, 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 23rd day of Febru��, ,�9�$, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY City of Burlingnme Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Dan McCleod, representing the applicant, commented that he recommends that Commission act because a tentative map is categorically exempt from CEQA. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that the planning commission's action on a tentative/final map was recommendation to City Council, based on the evidence presented he moved approval of a recommendation of this map to combine the two existing lots based on the information in the staff report as modified by the discussion with conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair Key called for a voice vote and the motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) vote. The Chair asked for a five minute break at 10:15 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:20 p.m. \�� PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ; �� FOR OUTDOOR TRUCK STORAGE AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1 (JOEL BECK, PROPERTY OWNER). (14 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 03.23.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Is there a plan for the use permit, no, since no construction work was being done the City accepted the assessor's map for the site as the project plan at that time. CA Anderson noted that one alternative open to the commission is to modify the existing conditions of the use permit but only within the parameters of the original permit, but cannot amend to add a structure or something not in the original conditions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. William Last, attorney representing Mr. Beck, spoke. He asked for a continuance so that his client could remove the plywood structure on the lot. He would apply separately to modify the use permit. If cannot grant a continuance does not feel that commission can make sufficient findings because there has been no fraud, the use is being exercised as granted, the use has not been suspended for a year, the use has not been exercised contrary to approval or in violation of approvals, he is not running a repair business, and use is not detrimental to public health, safety, is using what was granted. Commissioners noted: in looking at correspondence this problem goes back to 1994, more than a year ago Mr. Coleman, then City Attorney, contacted about problem, why would 2 weeks more at this time make a difference? Mr. Beck hired an attorney only 3 weeks ago, now feels he needs to remove. Attorney Last notes that structure only been there 6 months and two weeks short time to show good faith. Commission stated originally there was a plan to construct a building on this site which was denied, site had only 20 feet width to work with, could not build on; when Mr. Beck approached commission the site was to be open, no structures and it was determined to be all right; no shed, no container, no generator; wood structure is not OK; for compliance need to take everything off, then able to store trucks. Mr. Beck's attorney noted that his client would come back and apply additionally for what he wants. Is Mr. Beck aware that repairs are not allowed on the site? Attorney Last noted he would review ordinance to see how -12- Ciry of Burlingnme Planning Cornmission Mincctes Mnrclt 23, 1998 minor repairs are defined. CA Anderson noted that Burlingame has unique alternative that allows a determination by the Planning Commission of staff's decisions on code interpretation; also when grant a special permit it goes to the property, if he can reshape request you can consider an amendment. Commission asked how long to clean up site; structure 2 weeks, sheds longer because contents need to be relocated; not want to continue for 4 weeks; the problem for Mr. Beck is the container and storage shed and where to move the tools. Commission noted there are five iindings for a revocation; number 4 is that there are violations of conditions or ordinances. Attorney Last noted use is the same. Mr. Beck spoke commenting that there was a permit for the electric; needs to store hand tools so needs a container for security; did have a security problem until the wooden shed was built. What is the business, permit was for truck storage; general contractor, does truck maintenance, tires, oil change, keep up equipment; Sheri in Planning told him he could build a leanto of 100 SF, he was misinformed. How long has Sheri been gone, 18 months. Applicant wants to keep 2 shipping containers on the site; it was noted the site was permitted for truck storage; at tune permit allowed storage of equipment with trucks like loading bucket no discussion of container for storage. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: not favor a continuance, this has been going on a long time, applicant has put it off as long as possible; it was scheduled 2 meetings ago and continued until now. Is in violation of ordinance iinding number 4; permit says storage of truck equipment, nothing about storage facilities, plywood structure, washing trucks on the street, or truck repair, all kinds of violations of city codes are present; applicant has done nothing to eliminate violations; could have applied before to change conditions of use permit; favor revocation because we need to draw a line. Would have listened to presentation regarding continuation if it would have gotten us where should have been, but 3 weeks not enough tune to clean site, according to Mr. Beck; disappointed to see generator, compressor on visual inspection on site, can't help notice not storage, but active work taking place on site, would not need size of electrical service and box etc. if no work; when code enforcement office and Chief Building Inspector says major problem that should be sufficient notice. No use on the site is now appropriate, this did not just sneak up on Mr. Beck, he is not motivated to remove in 3 weeks. Finding number 5 is also present: is detrimen±.al, a health hazard and a nuisance. Plywood building is unsafe, afraid to put a person in , equipment looks unsafe and jeopardizes the health of those who work there. C. Galligan having cited the above reasons moved for revocation of the use permit by resolution. Motion was seconded by C. Deal. Commissioners voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) on a roll call vote to approve the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. -13-