HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.06.10Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, June 10, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period .
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak "
card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust
the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a
commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
1548 Balboa Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a previously approved
first and second story to an existing single family dwelling (previous approval expired - no
changes proposed to project). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the
CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, architect; Edward Y. Li and Zhi Hui Liu, property owners )
(83 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
a.
1548 Balboa Way - Staff Report
1548 Balboa Way - Attachments
1548 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
12 Valdivia Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Audrey Tse, applicant and designer; Douglas Solomon & Lauri Pasch, property owners )
(54 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
b.
12 Valdivia Ct - Staff Report
12 Valdivia Ct - Attachments
12 Valdivia Ct - Plans
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
1316 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1316
Capuchino Avenue, LLC, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (item
continued from May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting)
a.
1316 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1316 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1316 Capuchino Ave - Plans
Attachments:
853 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (Van Voorhis Architecture Inc, Andrea Van Voorhis, applicant and architect;
William and Tara Cilmartin, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal
b.
853 Paloma Ave - Staff Report
853 Paloma Ave - Attachments
853 Paloma Ave - Plans
Attachments:
2617 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope, and Front Setback Variance for a second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)(1).
(Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Tricia and Darren
Tayama, property owners) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
c.
2617 Easton Dr - Staff Report
2617 Easton Dr - Attachments
2617 Easton Dr - Plans
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
123 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit, and
Side Setback Variance for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling that
attaches to existing detached garage. (Malin P. and Namita Kansal, applicants and
property owners; Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, designer) (66 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
a.
123 Loma Vista Dr - Staff Report
123 Loma Vista Dr - Attachments
123 Loma Vista Dr - Plans
Attachments:
1457 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Condominium Permit, Design Review
and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential
condominium building. (Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner; Troy Kashanipour,
architect) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
b.
1457 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1457 El Camino Real - Attachments
1457 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
509-511 California Drive, zoned C -2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Environmental Scoping for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height,
and Lot Merger for construction of a new 5-story, 24-unit live/work development. (Alex
Mortazavi, applicant; Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners, architect; 509 California Drive
LLC and Denham LLC, property owners) (276 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
c.
509-511 California Dr - Staff Report.pdf
509-511 California Dr - Attachments
509-511 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
- Commission Communications
- City Council regular meeting June 3, 2019
2120 Carmelita Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
a.
2120 Carmelita Ave - Memorandum and Attachments
2120 Carmelita Ave - Plans
Attachments:
300 Airport Boulevard – FYI report back regarding a previously approved Design Review
project.
b.
300 Airport Boulevard - Memorandum and Attachments
300 Airport Boulevard - Exhibits
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on June 10, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 20, 2019, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit
Address: 12 Valdivia Court Meeting Date: June 10, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story
addition to an existing single-family dwelling.
Property Owners: Douglas Solomon and Lauri Pasch APN: 025-182-200
Applicant and Designer: Audrey Tse, inSite Design Lot Area: 12,073 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures
are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000
SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not
environmentally sensitive.
Project Description: The existing single-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 2,379 SF (0.20
FAR) of floor area. The proposed project includes front and rear additions on the first floor and a new second
story that would increase the floor area to 4,324 SF (0.36 FAR), where 4,963 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum
allowed (including a 48 SF covered front porch exception). The proposed project is 639 SF below the maximum
allowed FAR.
The subject property is located in the Hillside Area and Code Section 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing structure shall be constructed
within the affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. In addition, it states that review by the
Planning Commission shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of
nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a
dwelling unit.
The existing house contains four bedrooms and the proposed project is increasing to six bedrooms (office and
den qualify as bedrooms). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for a six-bedroom
house. The proposed garage (20’ x 21’-2” clear interior dimensions) provides the required covered parking. One
nonconforming uncovered parking space (9’ x 17’-4”), which is not being altered, is provided in the driveway.
Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other zoning code requirements
have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010
(a)(2)); and
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020).
This space intentionally left blank.
Item No. 7b
Consent Calendar
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 12 Valdivia Court
2
12 Valdivia Court
Lot Size: 12,073 SF Plans date stamped: May 14, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front Setback (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
14’-9”
n/a
27’-4” (to addition)
25’-9”
15’-0” or block average
20’-0”
Side Setback (left):
(right):
2’-10” 1
4’-10 ½” 2
7’-0” (to addition)
no change
7'-0"
7’-0”
Rear Setback (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
90’-2”
n/a
104’-0”
98’-5”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,502 SF
20.7%
3,237 SF
26.8%
4,963 SF
41%
FAR: 2,379 SF
0.20 FAR
4,324 SF
0.36 FAR
4,963 SF 3
0.41 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 6 ---
Off-Street Parking:
1 covered
(17’ x 21’-2” clear
interior) 4
1 uncovered
(9’ x 17’-4”) 5
2 covered
(20’ x 21’-2” clear
interior)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 17’-4’)
2 covered
(20' x 20' clear interior)
1 uncovered
(9' x 18')
Building Height: 12’-8 ¾” 20’-8 ¾” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
1 The existing nonconforming left side setback is 2’-10” where 7’-0” is now required.
2 The existing nonconforming right side setback is 4’-10 ½” where 7’-0” is now required.
3 (0.32 x 12,073 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,963 SF (0.41 FAR)
4 The existing attached garage measures 17’-0” x 21’-2”, which qualifies as a non-conforming one-car garage.
5 The existing uncovered space is nonconforming as it measur es 9’-0” x 17’-4, where 9’ x 18’ is required for an
existing condition.
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on May 28, 2019,
the Commission noted that the massing is handled nicely and that it fits in with the neighborhood (see attached
May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). Since there were no changes recommended for the project, the
Commission directed that this item be placed on the Consent Calendar as proposed.
The Commission also noted that they didn’t see the need to install story poles, given that the site is flat and is
surrounded by existing trees at the rear of the property.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopte d by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 12 Valdivia Court
3
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring
hip roofs, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, stucco siding, horizontal lap siding on a portion
of the addition, and aluminum clad wood windows with wood trim) is compatible with the existing house and
character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are
placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the
project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by
the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by constr uction of the existing distant views of nearby
properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling
unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060).
Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: That the site is located on a flat lot and is
surrounded by existing trees at the rear of the lot. For these reasons the project does not obstruct distant views
from habitable areas with nearby dwelling units and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with
hillside area construction permit criteria.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should includ e specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May
14, 2019, sheets A1.0 through A4.3;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that
demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or chang ed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 12 Valdivia Court
4
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirem ents of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
9. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the appro ved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before t he final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
10. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Michelle Markiewicz
Assistant Planner
c. Douglas Solomon and Lauri Pasch , property owners
Audrey Tse, applicant and designer
Attachments:
May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 31, 2019
Area Map
SOLOMONRESIDENCEA4.012 VALDIVIA CT.BURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]EXISTING AND PROPOSEDFRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SOLOMONRESIDENCEA4.112 VALDIVIA CT.BURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]EXISTING AND PROPOSEDREAR EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SOLOMONRESIDENCEA4.212 VALDIVIA CT.BURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]EXISTING AND PROPOSEDLEFT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSECTION
SOLOMONRESIDENCEA4.312 VALDIVIA CT.BURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]EXISTING AND PROPOSEDRIGHT EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SOLOMONRESIDENCEA1.112 VALDIVIA CT.BURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]SITE/LANDSCAPE PLANGMEMWMSW
SOLOMONRESIDENCEA2.312 VALDIVIA CT.BURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]EXISTING ROOF PLAN
SOLOMONRESIDENCEA2.412 VALDIVIA CT.BURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
PROJECT LOCATION
123 Loma Vista Drive
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study City of Burlingame
Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance
Address: 123 Loma Vista Drive Meeting Date: June 10, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review, Special Permit, and Side Setback Variance for a first floor addition to
an existing single family dwelling that attaches to existing detached garage.
Applicants and Property Owners: Malin and Namita Kansal APN: 027-051-060
Designer: Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders Lot Area: 6,175 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with a one-story single family dwelling and detached
garage that contains 2,210 SF (0.36 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a
256 SF first floor addition at the rear of the house that attaches to the existing detached garage and creates
interior access from the garage to the house . With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,404 SF
(0.39 FAR) where 3,076 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The number of potential bedrooms is increasing from three to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be
covered, are required on site. The existing garage provides two covered parking spaces (19’-5” wide x 19’-6”
clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space is provided in the driveway.
The main dwelling and detached garage are proposed to be connected with the proposed first floor addition ,
which as a result extends the main dwelling to the nonconforming right side setback of 4’-1” (7’-0” minimum
setback required). Exemptions and/or regulations for accessory structures no longer apply. Therefore , a Right
Side Setback Variance is required in this case. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for an attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(6));
Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a)); and
Right Side Setback Variance for a first floor expansion (4’-1” existing and proposed where 7’-0” is
required) (C.S. 25.26.072(c)(1)).
This space intentionally left blank.
Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance 123 Loma Vista Drive
2
123 Loma Vista Drive
Lot Area: 6,175 SF Plans date stamped: May 23, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front: 20’-10” no change 15’-0” or block average
Side (left):
(right):
4’-10”
19’-4”
no change
4’-1” (to garage)
7'-0"
7’-0”
Rear: 30’-0” 30’-0” 15'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,419 SF
39.2% 2,402 SF
38.9%
2,470 SF
40 %
FAR: 2,210 SF
0.36 FAR
2,404 SF
0.39 FAR
3,076 SF 1
0.50 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street
Parking:
2 covered 2
(19’-5” x 19’-6” clear interior)
1 uncovered (9’ x 20’)
no change
1 covered
(9’ x 18’ for existing
conditions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building
Height: 16’-5” above grade 15’-6” (highest point of
addition) 30'-0"
1 (0.32 x 6,175 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,076 SF (0.50) FAR
2 Though a portion of the left side parking space does not have the minimum 24’ backup clearance, a vehicle
may exit from the left side in 3 maneuvers or less.
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the n eighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings 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 25.51.020 a -d):
Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance 123 Loma Vista Drive
3
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a -d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or imp rovements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. Malin and Namita Kansal, applicants and property owners
Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, designer
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Variance Application
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 31, 2019
Area Map
PROJECT LOCATION
1457 El Camino Real
Item No. 9b
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review Study for Proposed
9-Unit Residential Condominium Building
Address: 1457 El Camino Real Meeting Date: June 10, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for building height
for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential condominium building.
Applicant and Property Owner: Rabih Balout APN: 026-013-050
Architect: Troy Kashanipour Lot Area: 8,160 SF
General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential Zoning: R-3
Adjacent Development: Multifamily residential to north and south and single family residential to the rear
(west).
Current Use: 1 single-family dwelling and 1 duplex dwelling (3 units total)
Proposed Use: 9-unit residential condominium building
Allowable Use: Multifamily, duplex, and single family residential
February 11, 2019 Design Review Study Meeting: At the February 11, 2019 Planning Commission
environmental scoping and design review study meeting, the Commission noted that they liked the choice of
materials and the architectural style of the building but had several questions and suggestions regarding this
project (see attached February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the
Commission’s comments.
Prior to moving forward with the environmental analysis of the project, the applicant is requesting that the
Commission review and comment on the changes made to the building design and project in response to the
Commission’s comments at the initial design review study session on February 11, 2019. The architect
submitted a letter of explanation, dated May 28, 2019 and revised plans, date stamped May 29, 2019 to
address the Commission’s comments.
Summary of Commission’s Comments:
Roof Deck
o Incorporate/tie in roof access to make less visible.
o Program on all floors is maxed out that the open space requirement is forced on to the roof,
should be reduced in size.
Front Elevation
o Needs more detail.
o Lack of windows.
o Needs to have more inviting face to community.
o Lacks human scale.
o Consider having a larger/more prominent overhang for weather protection.
Front Setback Variance
o Needs to be pedestrian friendly.
o Hard to justify findings for a variance.
o Landscape should be brought to code requirements.
Item No. 9b
Design Review Study
New 150-Unit Residential Apartment Development 1095 Rollins Road
2
Size and Scale of Project
o Footprint too big for lot, feels tight.
o Reduce size of project to ease pressure on landscape.
o Large side setbacks – opportunity for different configuration to resolve landscape issues.
o Encourage to look at alternate parking methods (e.g. parking stackers).
Curb cuts
o Okay with it, much of El Camino are curb cuts.
o Not supportive of curb cuts – already lots of paved yards already would rather see 14 foot
driveway instead of two curb cuts.
Environmental Review: By eliminating the request for a Front Setback Landscape Variance, the proposed
project may be eligible to be Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects, which consists of projects characterized
as in-fill development meeting the conditions described below.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or
water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The City has selected FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) for the preparation of the CEQA document. The applicant
and FCS have a scheduled meeting on June 13, 2019 and after Initial Study, FCS will determine if the project
can be Categorically Exempt.
Project Summary: The subject property is an interior lot with frontage on El Camino Real. The existing lot
contains a one-story duplex dwelling at the front of the lot and a two-story single family dwelling at the rear of
the lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish all existing structures and construct a new four-story, 9-unit
residential condominium building.
Zoned R-3, the property has a General Plan land use designation of Medium-High Density residential with 21-
50 dwelling units per acre, which allows up to 9 units. The application is for 9 units which is a density of 48
dwelling units per acre. Because the trees along El Camino Real are part of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus
Tree Rows (P-41-002191), which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the work within
the Caltrans right-of-way will require additional review for consistency with Caltrans standards as well as
Caltrans permitting.
The proposed condominium building will have four stories with the building entrance, lobby area and vehicle
parking on the first floor and in an underground garage. Three units are proposed to be on the second floor
and the remaining six units have their main living area on both the third and fourth floors with entr ies into each
unit from the second floor, respectively.
The project includes 7 two-bedroom units and 2 one-bedroom units. The average unit size proposed is 1,047
SF, with the units ranging from 710 SF to 1,196 SF. Condominium projects are required to provide 100 SF of
common open space per unit and a minimum of 75 SF of private open space per unit. The proposed project
meets these requirements with 905 SF of common open space in the rear yard and a minimum of 75 SF of
Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
3
private open space per unit with either a private balcony or combination of a private balcony plus private
rooftop terrace for six of the units.
During preliminary review Planning staff identified that the following applications will be required for this project:
Design Review for construction of a new four-story, 9-unit residential condominium building (C.S.
25.28.020);
Condominium Permit required for construction of new residential condominium building (C.S.
26.30.020); and
Conditional Use Permit for building height exceeding 35’-0” (47’-4” proposed) (C.S. 25.28.060).
Design Review: Materials proposed for the exterior of the building include folded metal panel and cement
plaster siding, ceramic tile or stone at the base of the building, anodized aluminum windows, and perforated
metal railings at the balconies. The rooftop terraces would be enclosed with wood siding and perforated metal
railings.
The overall height of the building, as measured from average top of curb to the top of the rooftop terrace
enclosures, is proposed at 47'-8" where a Conditional Use Permit required if building height exceeds 35’-0”
(55’-0” is the maximum allowed).
Off-Street Parking: Code Section 25.70.032 requires parking based on the number of bedrooms in each unit.
One and one-half parking spaces are require for each one-bedroom unit and two spaces are required for each
two-bedroom unit: 80% of the total required number of spaces must be covered. Based on the proposed
project, a total of 17 spaces are required for the units.
In addition, Code Section 25.30.070 (a)(2) requires two on-site guest parking spaces for new condominium
project with 5-15 units. Two guest parking spaces are provided in the at-grade parking garage. In addition,
Code Section 25.30.070(a)(3) requires one on-site service and/or delivery vehicle space, which is provided in
the at-grade garage. There would be two curb cuts for the property; one would lead to a subterranean garage
containing parking for 12 off-street parking spaces and the other would lead to 8 at-grade spaces (beneath the
second floor residences). All proposed 20 parking spaces on the site are covered.
Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L1.0). The
applicant is proposing 50.4% (519 SF) landscaping within the required front setback where 50% (515 SF) is
the minimum required. The walkway to the front entrance of the building counts towards the total front setback
landscaping.
In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to
provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 2000 SF of lot coverage. Based
on the proposed project, a total of two landscape trees are required on site. The Landscape Plan notes that
there will be nine, 24-inch box landscape trees planted on the site.
Affordable (Below-Market Rate) Units: The City’s previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been
replaced by a Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Law. The Density Bonus Ordinance is
discretionary, and projects are not obligated to provide affordable units unless they seek to utilize development
standard incentives offered by the ordinance. The applicant has not chosen to apply any of the development
standard incentives offered by the Density Bonus Ordinance and therefore is not providing any affordable units
as part of the project.
Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
4
1457 El Camino Real
Lot Area: 8,160 SF Plans date stamped: May 29, 2019
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front:
Underground Garage:
23’-4¾” (1st flr)
20’-10¾” (2nd, 3rd , 4th flrs)
22’-6”
20’-7” (block average)
20’-7” (block average)
Left Side (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(3rd flr):
(4th flr):
12’-0"
8’-8½”
8’-8½”
8’-8½”
5'-0"
6'-0"
7'-0"
8’-0”
Right Side (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(3rd flr):
(4th flr):
8’-0”
8’-0”
8’-0”
8’-0”
5'-0"
6'-0"
7'-0"
8’-0”
Rear: 20’-0” (all floors) 20’-0”
Lot Coverage:
4,058 SF
49.7%
4,080 SF
50% (for interior lots)
Building Height: 47’-8”
55’-0" maximum/
CUP required to exceed 35’-0”
Off-Street Parking:
17 unit spaces
2 guest spaces
1 service vehicle space
Total = 20 spaces
7 (2-bdr units) x 2 = 14
2 (1-bdr units) x 1.5 = 3
guest spaces = 2
service vehicle = 1
Total = 20 spaces Driveway Width: 12'-0”
12’-0" required
Driveway Aisle: 27’-10” (underground garage)
18’-0" required
Front Setback Landscaping:
50.4%
519 SF
50%
515 SF
Staff Comments: Because a CEQA document is being prepared for this project, it is important that any
changes to the building envelope be made early enough in the process so that any changes are reflected in
the environmental review.
In the staff report for the Design Review Study meeting on February 11, 2019, it was incorrectly noted in the
project description that a second curb cut would be proposed. Staff would like to note that the property has two
existing curb cuts which are proposed to be retained.
Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
5
Design Review: Design review is required for new construction of multi-family residential developments in the
R-3 and R-4 Districts. The following considerations shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission (Code
Section 25.57.010(b) :
(1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood;
(2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles;
(3) Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style
used; and
(4) Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future.
Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The following condominium standards shall apply to all
land and structures proposed as a part of a condominium project and shall be evaluated and processed
pursuant to the procedural requirements set forth for Conditional Use Permits in title 25 of this code. No
condominium project or portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless
the planning commission, or city council upon appeal or review, has reviewed the following on the basis of their
effect on:
(a) Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community;
and on public health, safety and general welfare;
(b) The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other
community facilities and resources; and
(c) Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations.
Conditional Use Permit Request for Height: The R-3 District regulations state that no building shall exceed
a height of 55-feet. A conditional use permit is required for any building which exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in
height. The proposed height, measured to the highest roof elevation, will be 47’-3” (from average top of curb).
In order to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit the following findings must be made by the Planning
Commission:
(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.
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
6
c. Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner
Troy Kashanipour, architect
Attachments:
February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter of Response from Architect, dated May 28, 2019
Letter from Burlingame Historical Society, received February 11, 2019
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Application
Environmental Information Form, submitted by the applicant
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 31, 2019
Area Map
EXTERIOR RENDERING1TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDEXTERIORRENDERINGSA3.0CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19
COURTYARDNORTH ELEVATION (SIDE)21/8"=1'-0"TOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"EXTERIORELEVATIONSA3.1CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19EAST ELEVATION (FRONT AT CALIFORNIA DRIVE)11/8"=1'-0"GENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTESLEGEND
GAS METERS53"=1'-0"SILL DETAIL - (VERT. CORRUGATED METAL SHOWNSIM. AT ALL OTHERS)43"=1'-0"JAMB DETAIL - (VERT. CORRUGATED METAL SHOWNSIM. AT ALL OTHERS)33"=1'-0"HEAD DETAIL - (VERT. CORRUGATED METAL SHOWNSIM. AT ALL OTHERS)SOUTH ELEVATION (SIDE)21/8"=1'-0"TOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"EXTERIORELEVATIONSA3.2CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19WEST ELEVATION (REAR YARD)11/8"=1'-0"GENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTESLEGENDTYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL
20 RESIDENTIAL SPACES (AUTOMATIC PUZZLE STACKER)(VAN)(RESIDENTIAL)(COMMERCIAL)DRIVEWAYGALLERY900 GSFUTILITY RM.STANDARDSTANDARD26 (ADA)1PARKING GARAGE(EXTERIOR)GAS METERSELEV.STAIR #227 (ADA)5COMPACTCOMPACTLOBBYTRASHROOM(RESIDENTIAL)(RESIDENTIAL)(COMMERCIAL)STANDARD(COMMERCIAL)(RESIDENTIAL)UTILITY RM.DISPLAY AREASRECEPTIONSTAIR #1Gar.96 gal.Gar.96 gal.Com.96 gal.Com.96 gal.Rec.96 gal.Rec.96 gal.UTILITY RM.MAILBIKE STO.BATH(ADA)FIRST FLOOR PLAN11/8"=1'-0"PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHGENERAL NOTESDIMENSION NOTESPLANNING NOTESLEGENDTOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN:FIRSTFLOORA2.1CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19
ELEV.COURTYARDSTAIR #2STAIR #1UNIT 12TYPE CUNIT 11TYPE BUNIT 10TYPE BUNIT 9TYPE BUNIT 8TYPE B (SIM.)UNIT 7TYPE DUNIT 3TYPE AUNIT 2TYPE AUNIT 1TYPE A (SIM.)UNIT 4TYPE AUNIT 3TYPE AUNIT 5TYPE AUNIT 6TYPE ASECOND FLOOR PLAN11/8"=1'-0"PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHGENERAL NOTESDIMENSION NOTESPLANNING NOTESLEGENDTOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN:SECONDFLOORA2.2CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19
ELEV.STAIR #2STAIR #1UNIT 12TYPE CUNIT 11TYPE BUNIT 10TYPE BUNIT 9TYPE BUNIT 8TYPE B (SIM.)UNIT 7TYPE DUNIT 3TYPE AUNIT 2TYPE AUNIT 1TYPE A (SIM.)UNIT 4TYPE AUNIT 3TYPE AUNIT 5TYPE AUNIT 6TYPE ATHIRD FLOOR PLAN11/8"=1'-0"PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHGENERAL NOTESDIMENSION NOTESPLANNING NOTESLEGENDTOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN:THIRDFLOORA2.3CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19
ELEV.STAIR #2STAIR #1UNIT 24TYPE CUNIT 23TYPE BUNIT 22TYPE BUNIT 21TYPE BUNIT 20TYPE B (SIM.)UNIT 19TYPE DUNIT 15TYPE AUNIT 14TYPE AUNIT 13TYPE A (SIM.)UNIT 16TYPE AUNIT 17TYPE AUNIT 18TYPE AFOURTH FLOOR PLAN11/8"=1'-0"PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHGENERAL NOTESDIMENSION NOTESPLANNING NOTESLEGENDTOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN:FOURTHFLOORA2.4CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19
STAIR #1(ROOF)ELEV. P.H.STAIR #2(ROOF)UNIT 24TYPE CUNIT 23TYPE BUNIT 22TYPE BUNIT 21TYPE BUNIT 20TYPE B (SIM.)UNIT 19TYPE DUNIT 15TYPE AUNIT 14TYPE AUNIT 13TYPE A (SIM.)UNIT 16TYPE AUNIT 17TYPE AUNIT 18TYPE AFIFTH FLOOR PLAN11/8"=1'-0"PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHGENERAL NOTESDIMENSION NOTESPLANNING NOTESLEGENDTOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN:FIFTHFLOORA2.5CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19
CALIFORNIA
DRIVESTAIR #1(ROOF)ELEV. P.H.STAIR #2(ROOF)PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHGENERAL NOTESCONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19TOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSEDSITE PLAN &ROOF PLANA1.1SITE PLAN: NEW11/8"=1'-0"
Xref .\x-consultants\x-landscape-01.dwgSTANDARDSTANDARDCOMPACTCOMPACT(RESIDENTIAL)(RESIDENTIAL)(COMMERCIAL)STANDARD(COMMERCIAL)(RESIDENTIAL)UTILITY/MECHUTILITYLOBBYGALLERYDRIVEWAYGARAGETRASH#3#2#8#7#6#9#5#1#4EXISTING TREETO REMAIN2-EXISTINGTREES TO BEREMOVED3-EXISTINGTREES TO BEREMOVED2-EXISTINGTREES TO BEREMOVEDEXISTING TREETO REMAINLAG NATPRU CARHAR HW (VINESON FENCE)HAR HW (VINESON FENCE)TRI LAUDOD VISDOD VISFEI SELLOR RAZACE KURLIR MUSCAR TUMJUN PATCAR TUMLEU JESHEM RRDIE BICNAN HDTRI LAUACE RUB1232344555576766XXL-1123456SHRUB ANDGROUNDCOVER AREALEGENDKEY NOTES: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSCONCRETE DRIVEWAYCITY SIDEWALKPARK STRIP (AREA BETWEEN BACK OF CURB AND CITYSIDEWALK)PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVINGPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVING WITH BANDED PATTERNWOOD FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE--6 FEET HIGHWOOD GATE--6 FEET HIGHSCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'020' LANDSCAPEPLANGROUND LEVELNOTES:1. SEE ARBORIST REPORT BY CODY KLEINHEINZ, CERTIFIEDARBORIST WE-7720A.PROPOSED TREESDESCRIPTION:ISSUE:DATE:SCALE:PROJECT NUMBER:TLA#: 18041.000112/05/18PLANNING SUBMITTAL509-11 California DrBurlingame, CA94010SHEET TITLESHEET NO.c Copyright 2018 TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1" = 10'-0"Taniguchi Landscape Architecture
1013 South Claremont St., Ste 1
San Mateo, CA 94402
v 650.638.9985 | f 650.638.9986
CLA #2942 CALIFORNIA509-11DRIVE204/16/19PLANNING RESUBMITTAL7EXISTING TREES TO REMAINEXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED#XEXISTING TREES NUMBER
1ACE SKLOR RAZNAN HD22L-2SHRUB ANDGROUNDCOVER AREALEGEND LANDSCAPEPLANSECOND LEVELNOTES:1. FOR PLANT LIST, NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS SEE SHEET L-1.PROPOSED TREESDESCRIPTION:ISSUE:DATE:SCALE:PROJECT NUMBER:TLA#: 18041.000112/05/18PLANNING SUBMITTAL509-11 California DrBurlingame, CA94010SHEET TITLESHEET NO.c Copyright 2018 TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1" = 10'-0"Taniguchi Landscape Architecture
1013 South Claremont St., Ste 1
San Mateo, CA 94402
v 650.638.9985 | f 650.638.9986
CLA #2942 CALIFORNIA509-11DRIVE204/16/19PLANNING RESUBMITTALSCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'020'12KEY NOTES: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVING WITH BANDED PATTERNRAISED PLANTER
LOBBYBUILDING SECTION (WITH BUILDING ELEVATION AT COURTYARD)21/8"=1'-0"TOBY LEVY1/8" = 1'-0"BUILDINGSECTIONSA4.1CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19BUILDING SECTION (WITH BUILDING ELEVATION AT COURTYARD)11/8"=1'-0"GENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTESLEGEND
41/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT B - TYPICAL LOWER LEVEL (SECOND & FOURTH FLOORS)51/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT B - UPPER LEVEL (THIRD FLOOR)61/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT B - UPPER LEVEL (FIFTH FLOOR)11/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT A - TYPICAL LOWER LEVEL (SECOND & FOURTH FLOORS)21/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT A - UPPER LEVEL (THIRD FLOOR)31/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT A - UPPER LEVEL (FIFTH FLOOR)BATHROOM(WORK)BATHROOM(WORK)BATHROOM(LIVE)BATHROOM(LIVE)BATHROOM(LIVE)BATHROOM(LIVE)KITCHENKITCHENWORKSTATIONWORKSTATIONLIVINGLIVINGBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMCATWALKDECK(30 SF)CATWALKDECK(30 SF)OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWGENERAL NOTESDIMENSION NOTESTOBY LEVYAS NOTEDENLARGEDUNIT PLANS:A & BA5.1CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19
41/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT C - TYPICAL LOWER LEVEL (SECOND & FOURTH FLOORS)51/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT C - UPPER LEVEL (THIRD FLOOR)61/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT C - UPPER LEVEL (FIFTH FLOOR)11/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT D - TYPICAL LOWER LEVEL (SECOND & FOURTH FLOORS)21/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT D - UPPER LEVEL (THIRD FLOOR)31/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED PLAN: UNIT D - UPPER LEVEL (FIFTH FLOOR)BATHROOM(WORK)BATHROOM(WORK)BATHROOM(LIVE)BATHROOM(LIVE)BATHROOMKITCHENKITCHENWORKSTATIONWORKSTATIONLIVINGLIVINGBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMCATWALKDECK(30 SF)CATWALKDECK(30 SF)OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOW(LIVE)BATHROOM(LIVE)GENERAL NOTESDIMENSION NOTESTOBY LEVYAS NOTEDENLARGEDUNIT PLANS:B & CA5.2CONTACT:SCALE:P: (415) 777-0561F: (415) 777-5117DATESET ISSUEPLANNING APPLICATION2019-01-0324 WORK / LIVE UNITS
BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specifications are theproperty and copyright of Levy DesignPartners Inc. and shall not be used except bywritten agreement with Levy Design Partners509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEAPN: 029-132-110/120BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2018-09509-511 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPLANNING RESPONSE2019-04-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 5, 2019 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 10, 2019
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2120 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling at 2120
Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 13, 2017
(see attached March 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was
issued in December 2018 and construction is underway.
The project was approved with aluminum clad wood windows with horizontal simulated divided
lites. The applicant is requesting approval of the same type of window without the horizontal
divided lites. This would also apply to the sliding doors at the rear of the house. Please also
refer to the attached explanation letter, dated May 21, 2019 for an explanation of the proposed
changes.
Planning staff would note that the change to the front door design was previously approved at
staff level and is shown for reference.
The applicant submitted the originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped
May 24, 2019, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project.
Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other
changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing
with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the architect, dated May 21, 2019
March 13, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped May 24, 2019
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 13, 2017
b.2120 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).
Dulon Designs, applicant and designer; Maojia Bai and Chun Huang, property owners )
(49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones was not present at November 28,
2016 study meeting but watched the video.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
John Nguyen, Dulon Designs, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Sheet L1-01 right side back does not show irrigation along the narrow dirt strip. How will it be
landscaped? (Nguyen: Will plant ground cover.)
>Any thought about reducing the 9-foot plate heights to fit better with the lower houses in the
neighborhood? (Nguyen: Considered it but it would not work with the design style.)
>On Sheet A2-03 on the front elevation what is vertical line coming down on the side? (Nguyen: Mistake
on drawing.)
Public Comments:
There were no members of the public wishing to speak on the item.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Project is approvable. Less than the maximum height, the coverage maintains breathing room all
around the building, and the massing has been handsomely articulated and massed.
>The design review consultation was helpful. The revised design has responded to the issues raised in
the study meeting.
>Neighborhood can accept the style.
>Design has come a long way, and appreciates working with the neighbor.
>Design review consultatation is not a punishment, it is a way to move a project along. Glad the
process worked and the architect was open to the process.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2019
March 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Well organized and articulated. Quantum leap from the last time.
>Concern about plate height on the second floor at 9 feet. Although this will be able to fit in, it would fit
in better with an 8-foot plate height.
>It seems unfair if it is an issue across the board in every neighborhood, except here. Rare that it does
not come up as a discussion item. Would fit in better with a lower second floor plate height.
>Has approved 9/9 on some houses though it is rare. Depends on how it looks. Can't tell if it will look
out of place with the extra foot.
>No neighbors have appeared to object to the height.
>It is 2 feet below the maximum height.
Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Gaul, and Gaul2 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2019
FIRST FLOOR3' - 0"SECOND FLOOR13' - 0"TOP PLATE @ 2ND FLOOR22' - 0"T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE26' - 1"00 BASEMENT0' - 0"STANDING SEAM MTL ROOFBOARD-FORMEDCONCRETEPLANTER, TYP.(N) CONCRETE LANDING ANDSTAIRS1x6 WD SHIPLAPSIDING, TYPALUM CLAD DOUBLE DOORSTAINED 2X6 WD RAFTERTAILS, TYP ON SLOPEDSTANDING SEAM MTLROOFSAVG T.O. CURB-1' - 10 11/16"PAINTED 2x8 WDFASCIA BDTOP PLATE @ 1ST FLOOR12' - 0"STAINED 2x4 WDBRACKETS, TYP. ONFLAT ROOFS45°PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT118.55 AVG@ RIGHT PLHALF ROUND GLV STEELGUTTER, TYP.PAINTED 7-1/4" WIDE WD TRIMPAINTED 7 1/4"WIDE WD TRIMEGRESSCASEMENT36" x 54"ALUM CLAD WOODWINDOWS, TYP.45°STAINED 2x8 WD FASCIA BDAAAAABBB101BEGRESSCASEMENT36" x 54"6"12"1/2"12"6"12"1/2"12"SMOOTH STUCCOFINISH, TYP.6"12"1" STUCCO REVEALWALL MOUNTED LEDDOWNLIGHT W/PHOTOSENSOR9'-0"9'-0"116.75 AVGT.O. CURB28'-0"144.75±4' - 11"FIREPLACE TO BE EXTENDEDAND FINISHED WITHSMOOTHED STUCCO ANDMETAL CHIMNEY CAP100EFIRST FLOOR3' - 0"SECOND FLOOR13' - 0"TOP PLATE @ 2ND FLOOR22' - 0"T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE26' - 1"00 BASEMENT0' - 0"STANDING SEAM MTL ROOFBOARD-FORMEDCONCRETEPLANTER, TYP.(N) CONCRETE LANDING ANDSTAIRS1x6 WD SHIPLAPSIDING, TYPALUM CLAD DOUBLE DOORSTAINED 2X6 WD RAFTERTAILS, TYP ON SLOPEDSTANDING SEAM MTLROOFSAVG T.O. CURB-1' - 10 11/16"PAINTED 2x8 WDFASCIA BDTOP PLATE @ 1ST FLOOR12' - 0"STAINED 2x4 WDBRACKETS, TYP. ONFLAT ROOFS45°PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT118.55 AVG@ RIGHT PLHALF ROUND GLV STEELGUTTER, TYP.PAINTED 7-1/4" WIDE WD TRIMPAINTED 7 1/4"WIDE WD TRIMEGRESSCASEMENT36" x 54"ALUM CLAD WOODWINDOWS, TYP.45°STAINED 2x8 WD FASCIA BDAAAAABBB101BEGRESSCASEMENT36" x 54"6"12"1/2"12"6"12"1/2"12"SMOOTH STUCCOFINISH, TYP.6"12"1" STUCCO REVEALWALL MOUNTED LEDDOWNLIGHT W/PHOTOSENSOR9'-0"9'-0"116.75 AVGT.O. CURB28'-0"144.75±4' - 11"FIREPLACE TO BE EXTENDEDAND FINISHED WITHSMOOTHED STUCCO ANDMETAL CHIMNEY CAPPROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS______________________ DULON, INC.BY JOHN NGUYENAs indicated2016.020110/09/2017PDJNA2.1JOE RESIDENCE2120 CARMELITA AVENUEFRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW, 1ST PC 10/24/17 11/20/20172 CLIENT REVISION, FYI 5/20/2019SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1APPROVED FRONT ELEVATION
FIRST FLOOR3' - 0"SECOND FLOOR13' - 0"TOP PLATE @ 2ND FLOOR22' - 0"T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE26' - 1"HALF ROUND GLV STEELGUTTER, TYPALUM CLAD WINDOWS, TYP.PAINTED 7-1/4" WIDE WD TRIMAVG T.O. CURB-1' - 10 11/16"TOP PLATE @ 1ST FLOOR12' - 0"STAINED 2x8 WD FASCIA BDSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFBOARD-FORMED CONCRETEPLANTER, TYPSMOOTH STUCCO FINISH, TYPSTAINED 2x6 WD RAFTERRAILS, TYP ON SLOPEDSTANDNIG SEAM MTL ROOFS30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT1x6 WD SHIPLAP SIDINGCONCRETE STAIRSCCAAAAA207BBBBDDDDD1/2"12"6"12"1/2"12"1/2"12"6"12"WALL MOUNTEDLED DOWNLIGHT9'-0"9'-0"FIRST FLOOR3' - 0"SECOND FLOOR13' - 0"TOP PLATE @ 2ND FLOOR22' - 0"T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE26' - 1"HALF ROUND GLV STEELGUTTER, TYPALUM CLAD WINDOWS, TYP.PAINTED 7-1/4" WIDE WD TRIMAVG T.O. CURB-1' - 10 11/16"TOP PLATE @ 1ST FLOOR12' - 0"STAINED 2x8 WD FASCIA BDSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFBOARD-FORMED CONCRETEPLANTER, TYPSMOOTH STUCCO FINISH, TYPSTAINED 2x6 WD RAFTERRAILS, TYP ON SLOPEDSTANDNIG SEAM MTL ROOFS30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT1x6 WD SHIPLAP SIDINGCONCRETE STAIRSCCAAAAA207BBBBDDDDD1/2"12"6"12"1/2"12"1/2"12"6"12"WALL MOUNTEDLED DOWNLIGHT9'-0"9'-0"PROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS______________________ DULON, INC.BY JOHN NGUYENAs indicated2016.020110/09/2017PDJNA2.2JOE RESIDENCE2120 CARMELITA AVENUERIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW, 1ST PC 10/24/17 11/20/20172 CLIENT REVISION, FYI 5/20/2019SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1APPROVED RIGHT ELEVATION
FIRST FLOOR3' - 0"SECOND FLOOR13' - 0"TOP PLATE @ 2ND FLOOR22' - 0"T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE26' - 1"METAL SEAM ROOFSTAINED 2x4 WD BRACKETSAT BALCONY OVERHANGALUM CLAD SLIDINGDOORSTAINED 2x4 WDBRACKETS AT FLATROOF OVERHANG1x6 WD SHIPLAPSIDING AT BALCONYSTAINED 2X6 WD RAFTERTAILS, TYP ON SLOPEDSTANDING SEAM MTL ROOFSTOP PLATE @ 1ST FLOOR12' - 0"119.59 AVG @ LEFT PLPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT118.55 AVG @ RIGHT PL45°45°36"x60" EGRESSCASEMENT WINDOW30"x54"EGRESSCASEMENTWINDOWSTAINED 2x6 WDCAP AT BALCONYAACACFF105A6"12"6"12"1" STUCCOREVEALWALL MOUNT LEDLIGHT, TYPSTAINED 2X8 WOOD TRIMBOARD9'-0"9'-0"FIRST FLOOR3' - 0"SECOND FLOOR13' - 0"TOP PLATE @ 2ND FLOOR22' - 0"T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE26' - 1"METAL SEAM ROOFSTAINED 2x4 WD BRACKETSAT BALCONY OVERHANGALUM CLAD SLIDINGDOORSTAINED 2x4 WDBRACKETS AT FLATROOF OVERHANG1x6 WD SHIPLAPSIDING AT BALCONYSTAINED 2X6 WD RAFTERTAILS, TYP ON SLOPEDSTANDING SEAM MTL ROOFSTOP PLATE @ 1ST FLOOR12' - 0"119.59 AVG @ LEFT PLPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT118.55 AVG @ RIGHT PL45°45°36"x60" EGRESSCASEMENT WINDOW30"x54"EGRESSCASEMENTWINDOWSTAINED 2x6 WDCAP AT BALCONYAACACFF105A6"12"6"12"1" STUCCOREVEALWALL MOUNT LEDLIGHT, TYPSTAINED 2X8 WOOD TRIMBOARD9'-0"9'-0"PROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS______________________ DULON, INC.BY JOHN NGUYENAs indicated2016.020110/09/2017PDJNA2.3JOE RESIDENCE2120 CARMELITA AVENUEREAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW, 1ST PC 10/24/17 11/20/20172 CLIENT REVISION, FYI 5/20/2019SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1APPROVED REAR ELEVATION
FIRST FLOOR3' - 0"SECOND FLOOR13' - 0"TOP PLATE @ 2ND FLOOR22' - 0"T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE26' - 1"AVG T.O. CURB-1' - 10 11/16"TOP PLATE @ 1ST FLOOR12' - 0"36"x54"EGRESSCASEMENTWINDOW30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITACAE103CCCA6"12"6"12"1/2"12"1/2"12"ALUM CLAD, WOODGLIDING PATIO DOORA9'-0"9'-0"FIREPLACE TO BEEXTENDED AND FINISHEDWITH SMOOTHED STUCCOMETAL CHIMNEY CAPFIRST FLOOR3' - 0"SECOND FLOOR13' - 0"TOP PLATE @ 2ND FLOOR22' - 0"T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE26' - 1"AVG T.O. CURB-1' - 10 11/16"TOP PLATE @ 1ST FLOOR12' - 0"36"x54"EGRESSCASEMENTWINDOW30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITACAE103CCCA6"12"6"12"1/2"12"1/2"12"ALUM CLAD, WOODGLIDING PATIO DOORA9'-0"9'-0"FIREPLACE TO BEEXTENDED AND FINISHEDWITH SMOOTHED STUCCOMETAL CHIMNEY CAPPROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS______________________ DULON, INC.BY JOHN NGUYENAs indicated2016.020110/09/2017PDJNA2.4JOE RESIDENCE2120 CARMELITA AVENUELEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW, 1ST PC 10/24/17 11/20/20172 CLIENT REVISION, FYI 5/20/2019SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1APPROVED LEFT ELEVATION
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 6, 2019 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 10, 2019
FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: FYI – REPORT BACK REGARDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN
REVIEW PROJECT AT 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED APN.
Summary: The most recent amendment to the application for Design Review for the
Burlingame Point office development at 300 Airport Boulevard was approved by the Planning
Commission on August 13, 2018 (see attached August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes ). Construction of the building shells is currently underway. The applicant recently
submitted for a building permit for tenant improvements, however a permit for that phase of
work has not yet been issued.
At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the amendment to the project based
upon the following information being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item prior to
issuance of a building permit for the tenant improvements:
the project shall provide a minimum of 2,500 sf of space in buildings B1 or B2 (facing the
shoreline or pedestrian promenade) for public-serving amenities, which may include
food/beverage service and other retail services to serve recreational users of the Bay
Trail and members of the public. Such public amenities are encouraged to be provided
and open for business on days and times when substantial use along the shoreline is
anticipated, including weekends and holidays, and are required to provide restrooms
accessible to the public. If after two years of operation the tenant has evidence that the
demand for the public amenities is so limited as to justify discontinuing such services, it
may request a change of use. Any significant change of use of the public amenity space
or request to discontinue services shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission. In addition, following the first two years of operation of the 2,500 sf public-
serving amenity space(s), the project shall evaluate the commercial feasibility of
converting an additional 2,000 sf of reserve space within buildings B1 or B2 to public-
amenity uses, based on projected profitability (absent any subsidy), and provide a report to
the Community Development Director; if determined that providing an additional 2,000 sf of
public-serving amenity spaces is commercially feasible, then the project shall use its best
commercial efforts to convert such reserve space to public-serving amenity uses. The
location of the public-serving amenity space(s) and reserve space shall be confirmed
by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit for
tenant improvements.
Please refer to the attached letter submitted by the project technical program manager, dated
May 22, 2019, for an explanation in response to the Commission’s direction.
Illustrative exhibits, date stamped June 5, 2019, were submitted to show the locations of the
public retail and reserve locations, per the condition of approval.
Community Development Department Memorandum
June 10, 2019
Page 2
The 2,500 square foot public retail space would be located at the northeast corner of Building
B1 (subsequently referred to as 322 Airport Boulevard). This location would face the Bay Trail,
as well as a publicly-accessible parking lot. This would allow the space to be accessible by
visitors arriving from the Bay Trail via walking or biking, or from outside the project via
automobile.
Two options are provided for the future reserve space. Option A locates the reserve space
adjacent to the public retail space, which is consistent with the Conditions of Approval. Option B
would locate the reserve space in the amenities building located at 301 Airport Boulevard, which
would be a variation from the Conditions of Approval. As presented, either location would be
available for the reserve space in the future, and would be determined based on commercial
feasibility.
If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
c. Mandy Spain, Facebook, Technical Program Manager
Attachments:
Explanation Letter from Applicant, dated May 22, 2019
August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Exhibits submitted by Applicant, dated stamped June 5, 2019
May 22, 2019
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attn: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Manager
RE: Public Retail Space at Burlingame Point (300 Airport Boulevard)
Dear Kevin,
In 2018, Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), leased the project located at 300 Airport Boulevard and referred to
as Burlingame Point (the “Project”). The Project is subject to the conditions (the “Conditions”) identified
in the August 13, 2018, minutes of the Planning Commission and memorialized in your August 28, 2018,
letter to Timothy Tosta.
Paragraph 6 of the Conditions relates to retail and food service requirements for the Project. Those
requirements depend on whether the Project is occupied by multiple tenants or a single tenant. Because
Facebook leased the entirety of the Project, it must satisfy Paragraph 6’s single tenant requirements.
Facebook intends to meet those requirements by providing the following:
· Approximately 46,060 sf of food service options for Facebook’s employees and invited guests;
· Approximately 999 sf of laundry drop-off and pick-up services for offsite dry cleaning for
Facebook’s employees; and
· Approximately 17,952 sf of onsite events space for Facebook’s employees and invited guests.
The preceding uses total 65,011 sf and exceed the Conditions’ requirement that 26,400 sf of space be
used for food service and other convenience goods and services for Facebook’s employees and invited
guests.
Where the Project is occupied by a single Tenant, Paragraph 6 also requires that the Project provide a
minimum of 2,500 sf of space in buildings B1 or B2 (facing the shoreline or pedestrian promenade) for
public-serving amenities. To satisfy this requirement, Facebook intends to utilize 2,500 sf at 322 Airport
Boulevard as a combined food and beverage shop and Facebook retail outlet that provides a restroom
accessible to the public. We anticipate that Facebook will use the retail outlet to demonstrate and sell its
latest consumer electronics offerings such as Oculus headsets and Portals.
Facebook has also identified two potential locations within buildings B1 or B2 for public-amenity uses if it
becomes commercially feasible to convert an additional 2,000 sf of space at the Project for those uses.
The two potential locations are shown on the attached drawings.
We appreciate your ongoing support. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mandy Spain
Mandy Spain
Technical Program Manager
CC: Xiaohong Chen, Genzon Investment Group; Jim St. Marie, Kylli, Inc.
Attachment: Burlingame Public Retail Diagram
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 13, 2018
b.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment to Conditions of
Approval #6 (retail and food service provisions) and #21 (Transportation Demand
Management provisions) of a previously approved office /life science development
("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC,
property owner) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
300 Airport Boulevard - Staff Report
300 Airport Boulevard - Attachments
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones, Loftis, and Comaroto had
conversations with the legal representatives for the applicant.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Would the changes approved in 2017 to remove the roof decks from two of the buildings be retained?
(Gardiner: Yes, those have not been proposed to be changed with this application.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Tim Tosta, Arent Fox, represented the applicant. In his presentation he provided an update that that the
public-facing amenity is proposed to be increased and combined into 2,500 square feet in Building 1.
Chris Hom, Facebook, represented the prospective tenant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Had hoped for a restaurant that would be open to the public, beyond the needs of the tenant, and
would be an attraction for the Bayfront. Traffic generation was not the only consideration; had hoped to
enliven the Bayfront, and thought the restaurant would be an attraction.
>What went into the math to change from 1,600 square feet to 2,500 square feet? (Tosta: 6,000 square
feet in the orignal approval anticipated a commercial success of the retail and restaurants from the
tenants, with a two-year trial period. Facebook needs at least 60,000 square feet for its own needs and it
cannot be shared with the public; the more space that is created for the public, the less available for
Facebook for its own purposes. Facebook will be attracting trade to this part of the city; the experience in
Menlo Park has been a lot of changes to the surrounding area.)
>There needs to be some "pioneer species" to enliven the Bayfront.
>The rooftop terraces were removed to allow space for additional mechanical equipment for biotech
uses, but this is not a biotech. Could the rooftop terraces be restored? Will the other two rooftop terraces
remain? (Hom: Still needs the rooftop space for mechanical units .)(Tosta: The other two rooftop terraces
will be retained.)
>Example of Google Charleston East example has a green loop running through the project and a
public-facing restaurant shared between Google and the public. Could there be a public restaurant here
too? (Tosta: The space here is intended to function similarly, and serve both Facebook and the public .
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
The 2,500 square feet is comparable to the space in the Google example, and is a viable area for a
commercial space that can be maintained over time.)
>How was the location for the amenity space determined? (Tosta: Intent to get people into the
promenade. Wants to activate the promenade.) What would prevent the amenity space from facing the
water, rather than the promenade? (Hom: Balance with the rest of the use of the building, including the
location of the kitchen.)(Tosta: Did not want it to be remote. Wanted a front-door location.)
>Why couldn't a destination restaurant on the Bayfront be successful? (Tosta: Not enough traffic for a
white tablecloth restaurant.) Would like to offer people an additional reason to go over to the Bayfront.
>Kincaids is a busy restaurant, and it's on the Bayfront. It is busy at lunch and dinner. Wants more
attractions for going out to the Bayfront. Not sure the economic feasibility argument is correct. (Hom:
Facebook's kitchen is specific to Facebook. To have another restaurant it would need to have its own
kitchen, which requires more space .)(Tosta: Size is not as important as what is in the space. Something
more than a coffee destination.)
>Had wanted another restaurant - another reason for people to come to the Bayfront. Viability of the
restaurant requires tenants of the new building to support it. Should find a restaurant who wants to be in
the Bayfront location.
>Originally wanted more retail to enliven the area. Why would there not be other tenants like a bicycle
rental or tackle shop? (Tosta: It takes a lot of traffic to support a bike shop. There is 2,500 square feet
that could include some bay -specific products. Retailers are in a lot of trouble with flattening retail trade .
Could consider some pop -up uses on the weekends. Had proposed a farmer's market in Belle Haven in
Menlo Park, but it was not economically viable. Instead Facebook modulated it into a truck that drives
into the neighborhoods.)
>Issue with the word "may" for Bay Trail users. (Tosta: Did not want it to be specific to a particular
market such as people on the Bay Trail .)(Kane: Emphasis has been to maintain flexibility over time
without locking into a particular solution. Needs to have long -term enforceability, and assumes there will
be some experimentation to determine what works in this location. Use patterns may change over time,
particularly as other developments are built in the area.)
Public Comments:
Jennifer Pfaff: This project has been 15 years in process, and each time it has been an effort to get the
developer to provide something for the public. Seems like each time something is taken away; a thousand
cuts are being made to try to make a tenant happy. Likes the pop-up idea, something creative.
Scott Kirkman: Represents the Owners of the site across the street comprising 8.76 acres, and has
looked for 30 years to figure out what to build. It is hard to attract uses in this area. This could be a
benefit to the other surrounding properties.
Tim Tosta: Can set aside an additional 2,000 square feet as a "reserve" to allow expansion in the future .
The market does not exist now but this could accommodate something later.
Chris Hom: It is less about the square footage than it is about what is going to be built. Willing to put the
energy into working to find what that is.
Note from City Attorney Kane: All commissioners file a Form 700 which disclose financial interests. Some
commissioners may have Facebook stock as an individual holding. The identity of Facebook is not
crucial to the application; the question is whether the conditions language should be amended to
accommodate a single tenant. The action is being sought by the original applicant (Genzon); whether or
not a commissioner has holdings in Facebook would not be material to this application. If Facebook were
to become the applicant, staff would need to conduct a conflicts analysis.
Note from Community Development Director Gardiner: The 2,500 square feet is an envelope that can be
split between different tenants, or could be combined into one. The distribution can be changed over time.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Amendment to the Transportation Demand Management condition is supportable. Allows flexibility
over time with review by the Community Development Director.
>Can support the amendment that the 1,600 square feet of space becomes 2,500, and that the
applicant crafts an additional setaside of 2,000 square feet.
>Likes the synergy of the two spaces together. Would work better than two separate spaces in different
buildings.
>Can support 2,500 square feet plus the setaside for 2,000 square feet.
>Needs to determine the location of the public-facing space.
>If the public-facing space faces the central promenade, it ensures the promenade will remain open to
the public rather than being closed off in the future.
>If Facebook gets more involved with the community in the future, it could host uses such as pop -ups
on the central promenade.
>Could add a local angle to the space, perhaps a mural or something to commemorate the former
drive-in.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>The project shall provide an additional 2,000 sf of "reserve" space for expansion of
public-amenity uses. The location of the public-serving amenity space(s) and reserve space shall
be confirmed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019
FACEBOOK BURLINGAME - 06/10/2019 - CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING REVIEW
1.0 SITE PLAN
PUBLIC RETAIL
2,500 SF
OPTION A LOCATION:
PUBLIC RETAIL FUTURE
EXPANSION LOCATION
2,000 SF
OPTION B LOCATION:
PUBLIC RETAIL FUTURE
EXPANSION LOCATION
2,000 SF
333 AIRPORT BLVD.322 AIRPORT
BLVD.
311 AIRPORT BLVD.312 AIRPORT BLVD.
307 AIRPORT BLVD.
301 AIRPORT BLVD.
FACEBOOK BURLINGAME - 06/10/2019 - CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING REVIEW
2.0 PUBLIC RETAIL - 322 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
RETAIL PARKING
BAY TRAIL PARKING
BAY TRAIL PARKING
RETAIL PARKING
OPTION A LOCATION:
FUTURE PUBLIC RETAIL
EXPANSION SPACE - 2,000
SF.
PUBLIC RETAIL
- 2,500 SF.
FACEBOOK BURLINGAME - 06/10/2019 - CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING REVIEW
3.0 FUTURE PUBLIC RETAIL - 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
301 AIRPORT BLVD.
OPTION B LOCATION:
FUTURE PUBLIC RETAIL
EXPANSION SPACE - 2,000 SF.
AIRPORT BLVD.