HomeMy WebLinkAbout980 David Road - Staff ReportTO:
DATE
�%�,�I�
~�� e�^ �(
� ,' ��.>! �� � _ �
�- J��.,
�, CITV p
�� * 1
�� � l�� CP�nC�cr ,�k ^ 5 A
BURLINGAME
�:;� STAFF REPORT ��� "'T�. 3/5/84
�� �' DATE
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED I/����� ��
BY Y
FEBRUARY 27, 1984
APPROVEQ
FROM: CITY PLANNER eY
S�B,E�T: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A
CHARTER BUS SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 980 DAVID ROAD
RECOMMENDATION:
The Council hold a public hearing and take action. At the public hearing the following
conditions should be considered:
1. that when the site at the corner of Rollins Road and David Road is
developed the access easement on the south side of David Road be fully
developed (20 feet) to allow access to the rear parking area and that
parking not be allowed in the easement area so that the larger vehicles
can get through;
2. that the applicant operate his business as described in the Planning
Commission staff report of February 14, 1984 and his project description
(date stamped December 21, 1983); and
3. that this use permit be reviewed for compliance with conditions in one
year's time (February, 1985).
Action alternatives include:
1. reverse the Planning Commission's action and grant a use permit as
conditioned by staff;
2. uphold the Planning Commission's action and deny the appeal; or
3. based on new information
prejudice returning the
additional action.
BACKGROUND:
or a change in circumstances deny without
applicaciun to the Planning Commission for
The applicant, Hansruedi Muggli, is requesting a special permit to operate a charter
bus service in the M-1 District at 980 David Road. The applicant is currently
operating this business by renting a 620 SF office space from which he and one full
time and one half time employee manage the chart,er bus company. The charter company
has six buses (one for 14 passengers, the rest for 20 passengers). These buses are
parked on site when not in use. He employs 13 drivers to operate the buses. Buses
are radio dispatched and leave the site between 5:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. and return
between 1:30 F.M. and 6:00 P.M. Two or three buses operate at night, leaving the
site at 7:00 P.M. and returning between 10:00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M. Bus drivers park
on site or in the area when driving the buses. Maintenance is done at a site in
South San Francisco.
-2-
Several years ago this site (980 David Road) was divided into two parcels, one fronting
on Rollins Road and one on David. The Rollins Road parcel was sold. However, a paved
driveway with a curb cut on Rollins Road still extends across the Rollins Road site
to the rear of the David Road site. The charter bus company buses now gain access
to their six parking spaces at 980 David Road from Rollins Road across this property
which is no longer a part of the David Road site. The Rollins Road site has been on
the market and, in the last.two years, the city has reviewed at least one project for
the site. Thus the continuation of the access to the rear of 980 David Road from
Rollins Road is tenuous.
At the time of subdivision a 10 foot access easement was granted along each side of
the corr�non property line between 980 David and the Rollins Road site. Currently there
are 24 parking spaces on the 980 David Road site. Three of these spaces are within
the 10 foot access easement. The terms of the easement are such that these three
spaces can remain in this area for the exclusive use of 980 David Road only by the
mutual agreement of both property owners. The previous plans for the Rollins Road site
showed required parking for that project in this same easement area. The easement is
not big enough to provide the parking requirements for both sites as currently needed
and previously shown.
Based on the original approval, the 980 David Road site was required 18 parking spaces
and provided 21. The current site plan shows 24 parking spaces (three in the access
easement). However, usage on the site requires 27 parking spaces. On-street parking
on David Road appears to be a problem both because large trucks are left on street
for extended periods of time and because of cars parked on street during the business
day.
- Planning Comnission action
At their meeting of February 14, 1984 the Planning Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to
deny this request for a special permit (Commissioners Garcia, Leahy and Schwalm voted
no; Cistulli was absent). Based on the rules of the Planning Commission, a tie vote is
a denial of the motion. Thus the motion was defeated; since no alternative motion was
proposed, the project was denied.
Concerns and comments by the Planning Commission (Planning Commission minutes February 14,
1984) included: availability of on-site parking including the three spaces in the
public access easement; spaces on site which have already been specifical.ly designated
to businesses operating on this site by previous special permit actions, thus limiting
the available parking; �roblems which will occur when the site �on Rollins Road is
developed; impact of increasing paved area to the property line; compatibility of this
use with other M-1 district uses and the trend in the M-1 area toward office uses;
need for additional areawide study of traffic impacts in the M-1 (Rollins Road) area;
applicant has a two year lease on the site.
- Comments by applicant and others
The applicant submitted a letter and other information including site plans to document
the operation of his business and his specific request. These are included in the
attached Planning Commission staff report (February 14, 1984).
-3-
Mr. Robert Edwards, Jr. wrote a letter (February 7, 1984) in opposition to the
charter bus company request for a soecial permit. His letter addresses the increased
congestion in the area, particularly as the semi-trailers are left along the side
of David Road. He discusses blocked views for cars turning onto and off Rollins
Road at David and the fact that the building across the street is too close to the
street so that large trucks loading/unloading park across the sidewalk and extend
into the street.
EXHIBITS:
--Minutes of the February 14, 1984 Planning
- Robert F. Edwards, Jr. letter, February 7,
- Planning Commission Staff Report, February
- Rudi Muggli letter, February 15, 1984
Commission meeting
1984
14, 1984 w/attachments
MM/s
cc: City Clerk
City Attorney
Rudi Muggli, The Transportation Company
Douglas Woodworth (property owner)
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
February 14, 1984
�
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHARTER BUS SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 980 DAVID
ROAD, BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate a charter bus service in the M-1 District.
Reference staff report dated 2/3/84; January 23, 1984 study meeting minutes; photographs
of the site taken 1/30/84 (P.M.); Towber memo to Monroe (1/31/84) regarding driveway
access to 980 David Road; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/21/83;
applicant's project description and detail of on-site parking received 12/21/83;
staff review: City Engineer (1/3/84), Fire Marshal (1/3/84) and Chief Building
Inspector (12/30/83); Existing Site Conditions, 1530 Rollins Road, received 12/21/83;
aerial photograph of the site; and letter in opposition from Robert F. Edwards, Jr.,
1565 Adrian Road (February 7, 1984). CP discussed details of the request, staff review,
applicant's description of his proposed use, study meeting request regarding access
to the building, on-site parking and parking requirement. Three conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Rudi Muggli, applicant, corronented on the use
of David Road and Robert F. Edwards' concerns (letter 2/7/84); there is traffic
problem with trucks parked for long periods of time; the applicant's buses do not use
David Road but enter from Rollins Road; the 24 foot vans used by this company can
easily get around the building; have had no problem with parking since December when
business located here and no problem with other tenants; the deli is busy at lunch time
but there has always been adequate parking. Those speaking in favor: Douglas Woodworth,
property owner - this use has been in agreement with the site and no complaints have
been received from other tenants; the parking plan as submitted showed 24 spaces,
actually there are 27 which can be used. A representative of Winston Management
Company who manage this 6uilding - there has always been plenty of parking on the
site, with the addition of this company there still is no problem, there are 27 spaces
available. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: available on-site parking; the three spaces shown in the public
utility easement cannot be counted; spaces for the deli have been designated, spaces
for Winston Management are designated but not lined; the potential for problems when
the adjacent vacant parcel is developed; property owner advised there is no
difficulty in going around the buildinq at the present time and that would not change
with a building on the vacant parcel; paving the rest of the site could increase
available parking, property owner and building management felt that it was not necessary
at the present time since there has been an excess of parking; concern about this
business which is a change of use away from M-1 and which would generate more traffic
than M-1 calls for; this is not good planning, Commission direction the last few months
has been to redevelop the M-1 area into a higher and better use (office); a detailed
traffic analysis of the M-1 district would be helpful, find it difficult to deny
this application until �resented with facts to support a finding there is a traffic
problem in the area; it appears three or four more spaces could be generated on-site;
applicant advised he has a two year lease.
C. Taylor moved that
call, vote was 3-3,
absent. Application
this special permit be denied. Second C. Giomi; following roll
Cers Garcia, Leahy and Schwalm dissenting, C. Cistulli
was denied. Appeal procedures were advised.
� �
ROBERT F. EDWARDS, JR.
Vlce Piesident
�E��j�.1g�,
( � �� � �'I� �� '��
FRANK EDWARDS COMPANY � �
'1565 Adrian Road
Burlingame, California 94090
;::!?�vilV�lJ�Vl�.;�i iUIV K��;�� � t.��
���EIVE�?
CITY�NB�I,RL�4 ME
Ms. Margaret Monroe
City Plann�r
City of Burlingame
51� Primrose Raad
Burlingame, C1� 94Q1 �4
, -- � �:;�i�;�CJ-'t'i ��;�p\�
�� �T�FF s�:��-
�D7 February 1984
Re : 98D David Raad
Dear Ms. Mqnroe:
Unfortunately, I will be out af town an 14 F�ebruary
and unable to attend your sch�dul�d meeting. I do, how-
ever, wish to comment on the Transportation Campany's
request for a special p�rmit.
1� charter bus service is an incampatible activity
for this industrial Park as a whole and �especially for
David Road.
In the last several years, David Road has become
more ancl mor� conges�ed as truckers have used it as a
staging area. On any given day, you can find at least
one and usually several trailers that have baen dropp�ci.
This occurs on both sides of the ro�d and at times s�-
verely restricts the flow of traffic.
1�t the West enci of David where 984 is located, this
problem is particularly accute.
Let me enumerate:
1.) The Rollins Road - David Road intersection, as are
all intersects on Rollins Road, ciangeraus. �, large
volume of traffic maves at a rapid rate of speeci.
When vehicles are parkec3 on both sides if the
street (David) a vehicle tu rning off of Rollins
must stop and wait for the vehicles at the David
stap sign to prac�eci. As of 1:Dfl P.M. today, a
car transport (tr�ctor ancl trailer) has been parked
at the corner (North side) since Thursday.
2.) The building acr4ss from 98D David, 1524 Rollins
Road, is in violation of the deed of restrictian
of the Industrial Park. The restrictian requires
FRANK EOWAFIDS COMPANY
1565 Adrian Road
Burlingame, California 94010
ROBERT F. EDWARDS, JR.
Vlce President
— 2 —
that no loading door may be within 6D feet of any
street. In its cas� �he doors are 15 f�eet. This
causes trucks to park across the sidewalks and
protrucle into the street which further interferes
with traffic.
3.) If a charter bus s�rvice was to aperate on this
same corner ,congestion would become complete.
I would appreciat� if yau wauld share m y concerns
with th�e planning commissian and �express my request
far a c3enial of this permit.
You rs tru 1 y,
2� �
Rabert F. Edwards,Jr.
ViCe-President
P.S. I realize that the city is not required to
enfarce deed restrictions, but if you r�quireci
applicants to either disclose deed restrictions
or pay a fe� for a search ta d�termine if any
exist a lot af problems could be averted.
Just a Lhought.
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
P.C. 2/14/8
Item #7
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHARTER BUS SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT
AT 980 DAVID ROAD
The Transportation Company, represented by Hansruedi Muggli, is requesting a use permit
to operate a charter bus service in the M-1 District at 980 David Road (Code Sec. 25.
42.030). The applicant is renting a 620 SF office area from which he will manage the
charter company. He will park six buses on site when they are not in use. They will
be maintained at another location. He will employ 13 bus drivers and three employees
(one of whom is part time). Bus drivers are only on the site when they pick up buses
and between trips.
City staff have reviewed the request. The Fire Marshal (January 3, 1984 memo) and Chief
Building Inspector (December 30, 1983 memo) had no comments. The City Engineer (January 3,
1984 memo) notes he has no comments so long as the site meets off-street parking require-
ments. He points out that the access from Rollins Road to the 980 David Road site is
not permanent; its elimination was a condition of the past parcelization of this site.
(Note: As currently used, the only access to the area where the buses are parked is
from Rollins Road across the adjacent property. This driveway is paved.)
The applicant submitted a description of his proposed use (December 21, 1983). He
indicates he is renting 620 SF of office space which includes six regular (on-site)
parking spaces for six passenger vans (one for 14 and five for 20). He provides a
bus service for sightseeing and transferring flight crews between San Francisco Inter-
national Airport and various San Francisco hotels. Vans are radio dispatched and leave
the site between 5:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. returning between 1:30 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. Two
or three operate at night, leaving the site at 7:00 P.M. and returning between 10:00 P.M.
and 2:00 A.M. There are two people employed full time on the site and one part time.
Gas, diesel and oil will not be stored at this site. Maintenance and repairs are done
in South San Francisco.
At study the Commission requested that access to the building be clarified. As shown
on the Existing Site Conditions plans (date stamped December 21, 1983), there are two
driveway/accesses to 980 David Road. One is located on the north side of the builciing
(15 feet); the other is a shared easement on the south side of the building (10 feet on
the 980 David site, 10 feet on the Rollins Road site). This southern easement was
established when the site was divided several years ago. It is a condition of this
easement that it cannot be used even for parking unless both property owners agree to
the use. Currently there is a paved driveway from Rollins Road to the 980 David Road
site. Because of the way cars are being parked in the driveway and on the area at the
front of 980 David Road (see photos taken 1/30/84), the Rollins Road driveway is
currently being used as the exclusive access to the rear of 980 David Road where the
buses are parked. To our knowledge the property owner and tenant have no legal right
to use this driveway across the Rollins Road site, and currently its use will disappear
when the vacant lot on Rollins Road is developed.
The site plan submitted shows three required parking spaces in the easement area on the
south side of the 980 David site. Some of the Commissioners may recall when the previous
development scheme was prepared and reviewed for the Rollins Road parcel that they wished
-z-
to put required parking in this easement area. Therefore it is difficult at this time
to assume that 980 David can assume that required parking could be permanently located
in this easement; and also that access from Rollins Road will be permanent. Tenants
can, however, remain so long as they pay rent.
Finally the applicant's chart shows an on-site parking requirement of 27 spaces based
on current use. However he is proposing for his 620 SF office area to use nine on-site
spaces. Based on 1:300 this office area would be entitled to three spaces. Thus the
other six spaces will be taken from parking required by other uses on the site. In
addition there are not 27 spaces on site. There are, based on the submitted plan,
24 spaces on site. Three of these 24 spaces are in the easement, thus are not part
of the permanent on-site parking. There are about 11,900 SF in the entire building.
Assuming the building at the time of construction was about 20% office and rest was
in warehouse use, the off-street parking requirement would be 18 which fits within the
21 permanent spaces on site. Thus there was adequate off-street parking when the
building was built. However, the building now contains offices (36%), storage/warehouse
(45%), deli (9%) and print shop (9%). As the uses change the required on-site parking
has become inadequate as required by current code. The assignment of six additional
spaces to an office area does not alleviate this problem.
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. At the hearing the following
conditions should be considered:
1. that when the site at the corner of Rollins Road and David Road is
developed the access easement on the south side of David be fully
developed (20 feet} to allow access to the rear parking area and that
the parking not be allowed in the easement area so that the larger
vehicles can get through;
2. that the applicant operate his business as described in the staff report
of February 14, 1984 and hi.s project description (date stamped December 21,
1983); and
3. that this use permit be reviewed for compliance with conditions in
one year's time (February, 1985).
MaY� aGFe'�'Monf���
g
City Planner
MM/s
2/3/84
cc: The Transportation Company
Douglas Woodworth (property owner)
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
ITEMS FOR STUDY
13. SIGN EXCEPTION, CAN'T WAIT PHOTO, 1222 BROADWAY
Page 9
January 23, 1984
Request: how far is front edge of Sign A from the curb. Item set for hearing
February 14, 1984.
14. SIGN EXCEPTION, HERTZ RENT-A-CAR, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Requests: does Hertz have a use permit to operate on this site? and at Amfac?
what is total square footage of signage on this site? Item set for hearing February 14,
1984 .
15. SPECIAL PERMIT, AFTERSCHOOL RECREATIONAL CHILD CARE PROGRAM, 701 PALOMA AVENUE
(MC KINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL), BY PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA
16. SPECIAL PERMIT, AFTERSCHOOL RECREATIONAL CHILD CARE PROGRAM, 2385 TROUSDALE DRIVE
(FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL), BY PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA
Requests: would like more accurate sketches; definitive statement from the School
District or YMCA describing activities on the site: how many children, how the Y
activities are being accommodated, timing for use of the play yard, etc.; statement
from the PTA of each school concerning this afterschool program. Items set for hearing
February 14, 1984.
� 17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHARTER BUS SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 980 DtiVID
"�— ROAD, BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Request: clarify access to the building. Item set for hearing February 14, 1984.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
- CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its January 16, 1984 meeting.
- REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: SIGNAGE ON AWNINGS AND CANOPIES
Continued to the meeting of February 14, 1984. .
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:12 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary
/ =''� � - �' `l � �'a'� )
3/�',,n L�L1L!/L�� ,�-r'� .
�
�
;,�
� ~ i
I
. t 1y i
� �� �,�,r. � :�.� �
�
-�.,�,�.,�i�� : r . '
�.r, a. ., '
� — •
�
�l�'� � �!di v, �� �'�.� .
% - �s�' .�i'�� � � " � )
� IV.
�
January 31, 1984
MEMO T0: CITY PLANNER MONROE
FROM: PLANNER TOWBER
SUBJECT: DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO 980 DAVID ROAD
On 1/30/84 a site inspection showed two driveways leading to this building, one
on Rollins and one on David. Access to the bus parking spaces is now provided
via the Rollins Road driveway -- access from David Road to the same area was
blocked by cars parked on the east side of the building (see photos). The
parking spaces on this lot were not clearly marked. On the west side of the
lot there appeared to be fourteen parking spaces and three vans were parked up
against the building. On the David Road side twelve cars were parked but no
spaces were marked.
The driveway on Rollins Road will have to be eliminated as soon as any development
occurs on the vacant parcel on the corner of David and Rollins. The City Engineer
has mentioned that this is a requirement of the earlier lot subdivision.
l��
Helen Towber
Planner
s/
�
r
PROJECT APPLICATION
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT
Application received ( 12/21/83 )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
��E, CITY o� 980 DAV I D ROAD
BURLINGAME project address
���
� ` project name - if any
1. APPLICANT The Transportation Company 697-0962
name telephone no.
980 David Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Hansruedi Mugqli 697-0962
contact person, if different telephone no.
N
N
N
N
a
•� a�
N �
� •r
.� fn
L c
u� o
�
+� a�
o +�
�
L �
� a�
� o
�
�
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Specia.l Per�it (x ) Variance* () Ccndominium Permit () Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
s. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SPECIAL PERMIT to allow a charter bus service in
i-he M-1 District. The six bus fleet will operate out of a 620 SF
office. Buses are parked in an on-site parking area when not in
usP and are maintenanced off site. One part-time and two full-
fime Pm��ees run the office: 13 bus drivers are also employed
at various times during the week. Generally, 4 to 5 buses are on
the road d�ring the day and 3 to 4 buses are on the road in the
PvPnin�c_ Rue clrivPrs are only on site in between bus trips. (*)
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.42.030 ) (
L
•� o
-cs o v�
a: a� �— c
� �4-•�
•r •r �G
-o � � i
r-�ort3
•r � Q
� � 3t�
N O N
� ��
•r Y N
L� (C•r
+'°�s+�
co�c
•r C Q1
� �
N N � �
� L N L
{n � •r •r
� 3 > �
a� a-
L VI L N
� r L
O � (Cf
r � �1-�
4- +� -o c
N � N
�F � N
o a� +� a�
� •r �
�•r � Q
���
>��a�
� (O N .�
� Q. +�
N N
Ol (IS N
rn�� 3
� o
rn ���
�--1 N � N
E rts
r0•r UL
+-� • r— U
i r •r
o +� n .�
r� Q 3 cn
-� � �o a�
� +� cn v
� � � �
RS �--� .� N Q..
m «s +-� � cn
�
4. PROPERTY IDEPlTIFICATION parcel A, Parcel Map Vol. 4%/g�
( 025-272-140 ) ( ) ( ) ( >
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
� M-1 � � 27,392 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Douqlas Woodworth 675 La Casa Via
land owner's name address
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Reauired Date received city zip code
(�c�) (no) ( - ) Proof of ownership
(yes )(�8� (1/ 13/84 ) Owner's consent to appl i cation ( conf i rmed 1/ 13/84
by phone)
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Existinq 11,864 SF office-warehouse building with on-site parking
for 23 cars
Required
(yes) �►ft�
�.��f �n0�
(y�� (no)
(y2�) (no)
(other)
Date received
� 12�21�g3?
� - )
� 12`f 21�83�
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall;s and
curbs; all str�!ctures and improvernents;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of usc�`on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) if relevant).
letters of exp anation
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PP.�POSAL NO NEW CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSED
Proposed censtruction, Below orade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF)
gross floor area First floor ( ( 2 0 SF) Third floor ( _ SF)
Pro.ject Code
Pr000sal Requirement
Front setback
Side setback n0 Cil
Side yard
Rear yard
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
Lot coverage
Euildinn height 110 ge
Landscaoed area
On-site pkg.spaces 23 2�*
Y
'� _ " _ .
; . . � - �F- �� ��
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) (FOR PROPOSED OFFICE ONLY) '
Proposed�ac�xroa�c I�l 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS
after after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full time employees on site
Part time emoloyees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
�� ��
� 0 ��
1 1� 1 1�
1 � / 1�
�� ' I �
1 1
�� • �
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach separate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAf4D USES
(SEE AERIAL PHOTO) Office and warehouse uses on adjacent sites; this use conforms
to the General Plan.
Required Date received
(�� f np� ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(yes) � ( 12/21/83) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firris ( 4 ) n����nployees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( 7400 sF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( X) Other application type> fee $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 (X )
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 (X )
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees � ()
TOTAL FEES $ 15� . �� RECEI PT N0. OZ% 3 Recei ved by H._ Towber _
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best f my knowledge and belief.
Signature , �_ _ � �,1'w ,;; Date �'2 — ?� - �� _
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION F;,e "°.
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
19 ,
Categoricall_y exempt: Reference _
Existing Facilities, Code Sec. 15101
i,�G�i�l'� � �li�. Cw ; �� �
gnature of rocessing Official 'tle Daie Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te oosted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTING DaL-e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I oosted a true copy of the above Ne�ative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th•a Council Chambers.
Executed at Qurlingame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )Plo
19
EVELYr� H. NILL, CITY CLERK> CITY OF BURLINGAME
STAFF REVI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
City Engineer
Building Inspector
Fire Marshal
Park Department
City Attorney
date circulated
(12/29/83 )
� " )
� " )
� — )
� — )
reply received
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Concerns
s the bus fleet expected to
ncrease in the next 5 years?
ill this use comply with all
ire and Building Code require-
ents?
s this use compatible with
ther uses on this and on
djacent sites?
Mitigation Measures
Discuss with applicant; conditio
application if required.
Request comments from the Fire
Marshal and Chief Building
Inspector.
Review aoplication; make
determination.
Is there sufficient parking to IReview site; make determination.
handle all tenants' needs?
3. CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA revietd? NO Cateqorical 1 v exempt.
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comoleted
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
RFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR accepted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
�
)
)
)
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 12/21/83)
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 1/23/84)
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date (� �i�l— � j9
Date staff report mailed to applicant (� — �� ) Date Commission hearing (�.�j �}/�� )
Application approved ( ) Denied (- Appeal to Council (yes) (no)
Date Council hearing ('3 � S/ �[�. ) Aoolication aporoved ( Denied ( )
�V(� 0 r ► �"�? � ��
sig ed date
�
LETTER # 1
PR:)JYCT DESCRIPTION
Cha:cter� Bus Service. Uses 620 square feet of office space -as
dispatch office with radio base station. Also 6 regular parkin�
spaces for one l�+ passen�er and iive 20 passenger vans.
Services include regular sightseeing tours in the bay area plus
transfers of flight crews between San Francisco Int�rnational
Airport and various San Francisco Hotels.
Vans a�•e dispached via radios and will leave thn premisses in the
morning between 5a.m. and l0a.m., returning between 1.30p.m. and
Ep,m, Two to three vans are operating at night, 1?aving at 7P•m•
and returning between lOp.m. and 2a.m.
The owner and a manager plus a oart time secretary will be at the
oFfice durin�; normal office hours.
There will be no �asolir_e, oil or diesel fuel stored at the office.
��:aintenance a�d repairs � re done by �. r. Good r�ich i.r� So��th San ^ rancisco
il��tLiIC����
D E C � �' ��/�+�/
CI Pl NNIURIDEPTME
ON SITE PARKING
98 0 OAV ID RC�AD
Square �et
Office Space 4,333.43 divided by 300
Storage 5,392.72 divided by 1,000
Deli 1,048.58 divided by 200
Quick Print 1,089.66 divided by 800
`Ibtal 11, 864. 39
14.44
5.39
5.24
1.36
26.43
���;�u�r��
DEC � i 1gg3
CITY OF BURLINGAME
P�NNr"'' DEPT.
�
DATE:_ �'� ���'3
,
MEMO T0: �TY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ������1 fe` �t�T �� �G/crvs� e'�L GLcic-E--{�'y� �-�-i�,i
S�yt!�i c'_2. c�.-� /�C� ���,��i�� /'�`z���.
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for -��f�%
at their /�2� ��y meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by %�/����
--�---�-
Thank you.
Helen Towber .� � ' , �� i / � �
Planner %D , � luv�s-j�� j` /
� � �
�
att. �� -' �� ����� �
�
� � � �-��� ������ '
�o � , � �� , �,� � -�r < � � �a��,�.
,������.�-�. . ,� � ,� � �-P ��� �' �
� �
,
-� ' � ,�'��� �� ��.���.��a �'�
����� � � ����` ; ��;���
��,���� �� �� , .� .
� �� ����
��� ��,,� ,���� - ���
r � /� �� .�` "' �2i7 "� � � ����
� � ���� � � � �
��; � ,��� -
�� � �
(1< � �/`^' 1"tP��
DATE: �� Z`^1�� �
�
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
�'I'RE MARSHAL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
� ,�
SUBJECT: ���c:��I f�Z- tt�f .e.GlcTvy� �'� CLuc�v�{�'y� ��--c�,I
��yt�/ c'_e �Z-� /C�C� ���,��ili �`��.
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for -����%�
at their /�Z����{ meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by %�/�/��
-� r�
Thank you.
Helen Towber
Planner
S� '�
att.
� ��
�� �f�
�1-}IS
v��«�� � ns �� a� Q���� �� � ,
o����� � �� ��
Rp'� � � � �d�ll�t- �'e�/ ► �-e�lY�..�r� � � .
�1(� _� V��J
� �-�.
�
DATE : �'� �Z �� � �
—T
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
;�'i�iEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
.� �„�
�, ,��
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: �p�c:�r<c/ f�a-�r�r7� � �G�rzt� � Gl�ci-�i> l-.,�-c�J
S�'ylf� c__e �Z-� /�C� (�a�.�/i�i /`Zz���
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for -5'7���y
at their�LZ �� y meeting. We would appreciate having
your corrannents by %�/���y�
---�
Thank you.
�"'v : /�� �., iH, D�,��src%�.$�
�/ID/�'l :° E�us/�.�a, .�� d/c5' /oN
�
Helen Towber
Planner
/�2-30-�3
�EGE�V�D
DEG � A �i9��
�� �' p�o ,o�c��;►G �.� `�'w�i����
g� �. /f�G ,�J.cr/w'i.�.� Qiv.�.�5'�a., f��J il/4 G'e�•r/ssG.�/S �� yar�cY..�,
d tt . %'�7JlS' /St `S.1 �cd /lar /
`f.
,
✓^/�� .
..G:l�t'�iC-+'l
✓�
� , ,
• % ; /-¢O I>.e.4� �.;',..,,�= E-. %.y-'r �- f.=;-�,1r" /
� �
Y
_ _____ _ � __._ .____ .. _ s' �1
.�p 9�. .
+
,�. ,e . � ;�';� ��� 38 � � �
s�.,t��.�/� p pP , . _ ( ' f t
� G� ,-,. .S � - _ �' � , . _ ..'. ,1 `� . .� �-' I j
_ _ __ _
— ���%"Q �� � _�
9� 4? � �� �
�;� � �
�� _ '� �r �. 0 9
Qr /� � 1 .
� �� EG � . SE�! .
;
.
0
� N
.�
Nn'
,\
V �� �.e s,
1= q
� � ��
�
. ��� . _ Q
-�-- �� 72.Z'�
�� -
,
�-..�..._..�..�.��.'�. _�..__.. _�. ___ _.1. ..---_"_-. .._ -_ _.".'- �'-'' - _,. { � �
� � �-----�•_-y-.� _._ _ /v � � u _� �! r
' ` Y�� �
� t� - � � I
--.—_ ---. - --- - _- __ - _ --_- -- -.. t- � - - -- - � � �
� . �� � � �,.i � -�o ,� _.�.4� � � Q i
, ,,,
O � >.t- so;, � -,� .a�o 6 �,r. s��s I, , � {
� ' � � '
,� 4
. M r / �) '�i .�' l �! q' �
� �� - ��-�`� I `�� ,�
- - - - --- yi � ,
, ---,P,.�isE.a. + __. _ _, , s 3. J� ""�' � v ' �
i I
�-
�
�� o � �bG !
. ,ey
�� G
� � .Poc.�L �! • � �c,4 � � �✓fi.%4/.4:,�. �
4� - . ,� . ��-� �'' �_.�.L ';�q •• ;
I '.
� /-'r r� �'�.e /a �� G� /
'r� ,�f Cc:.r/C . T-•� ,
� . . Z�„� .
�it��'57.�� s
.Q./itl.�.�.cir _r,
�) v �
� , '� ,
� �
" j i
y � i
� rt
�w � �
ti� �• �T;
f �' i;�� ��' o
.W ,� � ,A� . �f �t :3�� p�0
r, i
__ _ �" �
. .
1-.. _ . _
M � /� jl• ;�'� � _. _ t p.�---� - ---- �� i_ y _ _ �' ,.o _�'-�_rn��.�i 'l'
M - - -� - � ��'�..-�.:�-y, t.: j,'��1 ..�' --�.'= ;' : t ' --t • : �, - -�- - A' �'�
- r• �
J /
�n . - � �'� � � Z2� %� � ♦ �"' -- "; R � � � T �.
Q ,l+, � ' " �✓. s�_ 0 2= z 7;,�;! �� .-,E'x �s T.v6 �, 1
``� (
N _ -, — - G' s�'s�/F.e�.sZs � �,- ,P �'.4.E�c.�� Li.c/�. •'
m � -a��9 ; , -` s-�✓,c�' >.� :s�,q,e. A � �� sr,.�/c zo �'
�� f35� 1 � ' + ��3�1 ►�,� �I•� �,��✓��.�y �s�� �
�,. % I � ( \ _ / � � ,i �,4�P� k s ,•� ��4'. � nj �l
3¢ . I � ;�� o•� o� `' F
q � �.: � '
? ,� � � � `� �
�• t ( ( � / � Q'
- -� ��
3 � � ���,.�� �''.4.L�C'EL ',� �.
� i � `� ��; ,
� ( � ' ( /- /S Bc//L 1�. `'ErB.4�i4'
- SG.S � .�'' i� Ll.c/E ,qs s'�Vax/,.t/ a•�/
' .f'.E�-a�eo SuB- �!-�.q,o
I ' , �� �� i � ' '
A,G • _ '- F� �� __ � � ' - ° '- "
� y� �_ - .Exi S Ti.N � 5 ' E,�s6.�E�vr �. •�s ! : , �- s5
b � � l
Jl�b r �6 �� � i"o.Q ./rrL is' ���E,� ✓/cf:s ,! � .3c, ,, 9 •.
q Q lnj �..>o �9�c�L�� �
L_.""'� ��
.
„ . --- NS7-C�: =27'u/.—�,�6..5�,
S. .S ' c'o.✓t . .At.i'
� G�' D.r/✓Es✓��I� �v.pB FACE � • �
C 1•� -�� �' �0 9
� ` / ,�,%.S'
■
�
�
�
�� �
�
;
��� :
,o, �% ; 1
i
I .
���.
�C..�,� � c' � 'r' -�:',�'�... J
�--- -_
� .
..S' j�iv/�C�G `� ^ �
,�I . C, = �,�l.�� � � y �.. K: �,�.�.s-i�� �- co,..ir_ EL � ✓�9 ��.�/
YC, _ '� �'o�-� c..y.= �a.c/G; �'c,.c?B E ' rr� ✓•-f7.p.�/.
ir ',:' — /_C�•i -. .,,� �.t1-"�S'�:Qjc�E� �iQGc�1
ft �E✓,4�io-</s - <'�/ok/,e/ ,��'E !,c/ir� �P6s�,�cr To .'4/ .4ss�.�r.sEo ,�LP1ir,�•/.Py Lz4r�=�-�
NOTES:
GROSS AREA OF YARCEL "A" 27, 392 SQUARE FEET,
TOTAL EXISTING PARKING STALLS WITHIN PARCEL "A" LS 23,
PARCEL "B" LS CURRENTLY UNIMPROVEI� � AT SUCH TIME
THAT PARCEL "B" BECOMES INIPROVED TliE CITY REQUIRES
THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS OtV ROLLINS F.OAU
BE ABANDONED, AND TI�EREAFTER ACCESS TO �30TH PARCELS
"A" AND "B" BE FROM DAVID ROAI) ONLY,
EXISTING
�st�:�d'��it�
�EC z � 1983
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANN����' DEPT•
. . .. . _ ..... . _ . .. . . _. _ ...._..._. .... .,,. .. _ ,.. . ,.... _ . . . . _.�.. ...... :._...- . .__...r._.�.�.._ _ --
SiTE
H_ G_ N�cK�Y c� �
CONDIT14N5 1534 ROLLINS R�+,
:�
�[`.A1 F� � it►�rN ��n c�c�r ' FFR_ 1� 14R��,
,'
��
�
t��
�1
�
E
�. �
�� I
� a ���' �'�'r +� �. •' , „� �" '
. .
� � � � ., � ,� , � a._
�,� �
, i i � � ; � � �",a�� � ` {�
. � ,k ��,y,'� � %� �y, � . - � Y'gi +� �i ��
,_ t� ; � �t�� � ' � . , , ";�" � �.��'� .'�✓ � � �• � ,`"y. .
e���" ,�+ ;.'� � `�, ' '' .
Y •' y i '
�� � � � �� � ��� �
. i..:�}'���vv'+r r� ' � .. �. " ",G... � . .
' � '�iv �f �4 �, A� ` x , 'd',`: �
. ,��,��„��s� t ' .�, .
. . �' ! J �Y�yy'� _4 '„ 4��..] A�'`,�,+ .`t.'. J .�.
` u� „"�-':r.��*t��. � _ �� / r �'�. .
+ ` ` � { kv S��al � :.._ d4 / �—,:
.� !` ' .pr� �M,N'n^ �� + / �.. � .:Ji Y '( �� [ ..�,t �'
' � ` \ � _k �.�� 9 t�" .�f }4 � r� . , . /'�,-.y�, / ,.?4 4 � � �� ,,, r� n
.. �+,� .� � ��� 1� � ��7��d - � �p�, '" �� �'�/
`� b�.. ,��ay, �4 s �� , '^'1i, �` r
?.. ' �q ' � r �_;`-*"f s :�" � ',� ' i, . �/ . . ..
3� . v , 't� ✓ S q �} ��'.�� .'� ..r' �`� ti'�: ,<:. � � ��/.
, � -�-� �:�. �'�y f� . �r� � �,�'�,y,_ F
� � � . �-, ri �' �� ��; �.h.; �s ,F
: ;
�' . .' � �`a ��' ���. ��i'i° � �__ � • �� " ',�:! � �
� '�I> � �, " � � � �' ����
�'' ^��� +r!� �;. ,� .
� ' /�� RN � y� A � ` �� � /'`
��� .'� r � ?' �,�* �, � . �.� ` }� 1 � �� y�, y r �
�? �` � ``'�'�� � . ., , .
i�, �'�:»�' . . . . . . '� ���� �.'�y r �}�`+ . .
� r �N \� �� �'���`�� ,�/ .. � .'� ' � . t�r � �'},�,� +a � :�'� t �� .r �, .r � . � . -,_� r-
" �� , , d,h 2l` ; �, �`�`!'►� y,. , L '�',4,_
� , .� r� �,� . s. � ; ,.�
„�_� � � � � � : � �'� ' ,
. � � � ,. .
�r 4 �, " ,rx�' � � � � 'f� •
1 %� ��� � � �, /
�� ��� , � ` �' . ��* � , ��i ,
R �
;s' wti; •� ��> . I t. ' ^` ,c�y n
��
S� � _• � "��!' • , �'1� � ��il`? O�t'� . ' ,�, ;.
� �� #Y � D ~ � ^� ��O � ;��
z,a^ �O "^'Y' ��rit .��' � O r �
r � �
. i` s;, `
� . r`� . � �, f � �� " �� ��i
{� .��� �,� i,� �j,� y„�, �, �� ���a �
. a, .`RR. S �� r y / � /� � •,'�
�, � ' �� ` �'�ci� + f;�`� ��
�'i '«� �.c� S'3o �& � �,``�' e,�" � +?
� �r
+�, � . .s �-�,�p ��. � • /
�` - � � �> .����
, ... .
,: ,
� � �� � �� �
' y�,�' . ... , '
� ,.. . , ` . ; �..4.
' �y , �Fy�' ...� ,.- i r ,�y .: �' •
eK� . 1 ~�^ �.3�� . . � '#' oYl ' ' �
y-. ' ;p'` �- '
�
=� r ,.M.s.` �� . a.' ,/ �
�"*�: �x z t.. �� u , � , � � /%
'M'Y � �1�, �' ^':� � l . � Y�f�,{{�� ^ / �
z
' h � 'A
� p �•'' , � o". 'A'' � . � y { . .,� t K j>;r' 4 p. ; . � - ..
� � `�.. , � i%';'- �i -+ � ^<
� � r �} �� � . e' � .
: � +�??. � �., r;
k . �..
� � d ��y � �1r ._ �.. ^� r � r�..
��' `��1'�`'�'� ��` �� ' ��. r�
} h� y.W�r�. .1 �� . �.. ♦ ' i� ... �� / f:\
� .,� ��' � ,':i. ��� ..
Y , � ��. � • . . i.A.. �'
f � �r.+; ��� !r, . � � . � �%. �a� 7 ''��"
pM1 � �.p ' . �� i .p
A r 2T
'k���. . � ��.
� , ^� � f i ���"�
� r, ,
.. ' ,- �� �� � � � � .
r ' 'i r r
w�� � `�'�`� �: �
r- ,�• 4 �// .�!'. ;�. <M
� P � �
� �� � �� � � +� � ,��
. m. / �. �`�.
. - �_%� � � ' ^ ��y'.b� � � . 4 ". ��
�� '��i �f. t
,' � �f� �i
fi� / � '/�'` '�..
� .k: . �` ^ � � , j " \ ~ .
� � � ',' . . ��^ �•.�\� � .
,. .
�v�oQa
S�- �lc�� �� ���
THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
CHARTER BUS SERVICE
The City of Burlingame
Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Rev. APN 025-272-140
���y�8���
F� B 1 �� 1984
CITY OF BURLINGAMS
PIANNIMG D�PT.
Feb. 15, 1g8�
To the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame,
��
I wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, for the
denial of my application to allow a charter bus service in the
M- 1 district at 980 David Road.
I would appriciate if you could set a date for a hearing in the
near future.
Sincerely,
�;l��J� �--�
� +�U
Rudi Muggli
2/16/84
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
Hearing should be 5cheduled for tiie March 5, 1984 meeting.
City Clerk
231 EAST MILLBRAE AVENUE � MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA, 94030 •(415) 697-0962
UNAPPROVED
IlURL1NCA�1B, CAI.I POI2NIA
Mrircli 5, 1�)£34
CALL 'I'0 OKDI:R
UCdAPPROVED
A duly noticed, re�ular meeting of the 13ur1ingame City Council was
held on the above date in thc City flall Council Chambcrs. The meeting
was called to ordcr at 8 p.m. by Mayor Irvi-ng S. Amstrup.
PLGDG� OF ALLPGIA�CG TO TIIF•. FLAG
Led by City Planner, Meg Monroe.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILhtEhIBERS PRESENT: AMST'RUP, BAR'I'ON, P1AN.GINI, MARTIN, PAGLIARO
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: NONG
MINUTES
Minutes of the Regular hteeting of February 21, 1984 were approved.
APPEAL BY TTC OF DENIAL SPECIAL PERMIT I'OR CHARTER BUS SERVICE AT
_ 980 DAVID ROAD _
City Planner reviewed her memorandum of February 27 in which she
recommended council hold public hearing and take action. Applicar�t is
requesting a special permit to operate a charter bus service in the P1-
1 zone. He is currently operating this business by renting office
space for himself and one half-time employee. He has six buses parked
on site when not in use and employs 13 drivers. Buses are radio
dispatched and leave site between 5 a.m. and 10 a.m. and return
between 1:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. Two or three buses operate at night,
leaving the site at 7 p.m. and returni.ng between 10 p.m, and 2 a.m.
Bus drivers park on site or in area while working.
Several years ago this site was divided into Cwo parcels, one fronting
on Rollins and one on David. The buses currently have access to the
David Road site over a paved driveway on the vacant Rollins lot. If
the lot is sold this driveway would be lost.
Planning Commission voted 3-3 to deny this requesC, a tie vote is
denial of a motion.
Mayor Amstrup opened Che public hearing.
Rudi Muggli, applicant, reviewed the operation of his bus'iness. His
buses do not increase traffic, do not interfere during high traffic
hours. He presented a petition in favor of his business signed by
adjacent businesses owners and tenants.
Douglas Woodworth, manager ot property, had carefully reviewed the
application for this business and felt it would be good for the area;
this is less intensive use than office use; the buses are small. He
urged approval and stated if parking use increases on the site the
area north of the building could be paved for additional parking.
Louis Harding, major tenant of the site, stated office use would
create more of a parking problem.
Mayor Amstrup closed the p�blic heari.ng.
Council discussed et length: clarified the easement locations and �
the facC that it was recorded with the maps; parking is not too
extensive on the site at the present Lime and the otianer �aould pa��e
additional area f`or parl<ing if necessary; roll-up doors al retir of
bui.].ding were used when si.Ce was a warehouse and should not be !
blocked, buC owner stated best use of site is not ��arehouse use. �
:
Counciiman Pagliaro moved to reverse �he Plannin� Commission �ic�ion 4
and ;;cant use permi� as condi.Cioned by staff', and �..�ith th�� adcti�i.on:i1 �
condit:ions ch�C Che aren ,�L re.ir ol 1nr be paved ❑nd Lhe ro11-up �loors �
not be used. Sc�conded hy CounciLman ?I�ngini, c�irried unanimousl� hc �
roll cal.l votc. �
�� � �e._
��.� �z�� �� ���xz�.���.�
SAN MATEO COUNTY �
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
February 22, 1984
Mr. Rudi Muggli
The Transportation Company
980 David Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Muggli:
At the City Council meeting of February 21, 1984 the Council scheduled
an appeal hearing on your application to allow a charter bus service in
the M-1 District at 980 David Road. The hearing will be held on Monday,
March 5, 1984 at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road.
We look forward to seeing you there. Please call me if you have any
questions regarding the appeal.
Sincerely,
�'�R���G�1 RQ,
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: City Clerk
Douglas Woodworth (property owner)
d