HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.02.11Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 11, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa.
Draft January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb.
Draft January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
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
1328 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of
on-site parking. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Hari and Depali Abhyankar,
property owners) (165 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
a.
1328 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1328 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1328 Capuchino Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of on -site
parking. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (129
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
b.
1125 Oxford Rd - Staff Report
1125 Oxford Rd - Attachments
1125 Oxford Rd - Plans
Attachments:
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.
400 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for a Variance, Conditional Use Permits and
Special Permit for a new detached garage and a new detached guest and pool house .
This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ryan Morris, Morris
Architecture, applicant and architect; Richard and Christina Jones, property owners) (83
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit.
a.
400 Chapin Ln - Staff Report
400 Chapin Ln - Attachments
400 Chapin Ln - Plans
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
Consideration of an Amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning
Code, to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. This item has been continued to a
future Planning Commission Meeting (date not determined).
a.
Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential
Development
b.
Staff Report
Residential Impact Fee Ordinance - Exhibit A
Seifel Consulting Report
Proposed Resolution - Residential Impact Fees
Proposed Resolution - Prevailing Wages
Public Notice
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a project that was
previously denied without prejudice for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special
Permit for an attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Eric Nyhus, applicant and architect; GLAD Trust, property owner) (103
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
c.
1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report
1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments
1268 Cortez Ave - Plans
Attachments:
800 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit to
attach a new garage 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild, applicant
and designer; Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
d.
800 Winchester Dr - Staff Report
800 Winchester Dr - Attachments
800 Winchester Dr - Plans
Attachments:
1613 Coronado Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer;
Gregory Button, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
e.
1613 Coronado Way - Staff Report
1613 Coronado Way - Attachments
1613 Coronado Way - Plans
Attachments:
1350 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage
Variance 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. (Gary Diebel,
Diebel and Company, applicant and architect; Rich Schoustra and Holly Rogers, property
owners) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
f.
1350 Columbus Ave - Staff Report
1350 Columbus Ave - Attachments
1350 Columbus Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
251 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for
changes to the exterior facade of a commercial storefront. This project is Categorically
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of
the CEQA Guidelines.(Marco Fung, applicant and architect; Ken White, property owner )
(85 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
g.
251 California Dr - Staff Report
251 California Dr - Attachments
251 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
329 Occidental Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story
single family dwelling with a detached garage. (Joe and Julia McVeigh, property owners;
TRG Architects-Carlos Rojas, applicant and architect) (99 noticed) Staff contact:
Catherine Keylon
a.
329 Occidental Ave - Staff Report
329 Occidental Ave - Attachments
329 Occidental Ave - Plans
Attachments:
1457 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design
Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Variance
for Front Setback Landscaping for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential condominium building .
(Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner; Troy Kashanipour, architect) (99 noticed)
Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
b.
1457 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1457 El Camino Real - Attachments
1457 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
- Commission Communications
- City Council regular meeting February 4, 2019
1245 Cabrillo Avenue - FYI for changes requested by the Planning Commission to a
previously approved Design Review project.
a.
1245 Cabrillo Ave - Memorandum & Attachments
1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans
Attachments:
12. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on February 11, 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 February 22, 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 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 14, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and
Senior Planner Erika Lewit.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Tse arrived at 7:02 p.m.
Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and TsePresent5 -
Kelly, and GaulAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve
the minutes with amendments submitted to staff earlier. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, and Terrones4 -
Absent:Kelly, Gaul, and Tse3 -
a.Draft November 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft November 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.pdfAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
>Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential
Development has been continued to the January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting.
>Item 8e - 1268 Cortez Avenue has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing
notices will be sent once the application has been scheduled on a future agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential
Development
Staff Report
Exhibit A - Residential Impact Fees Chapter 25.82
Seifel Consulting Report
Proposed Resolution - Residential Impact Fees
Proposed Resolution - Prevailing Wages
Public Notice
Attachments:
>Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential
Development has been continued to the January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting.
b.1101 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Parking Variance to legalize an
uncovered parking space within the front setback that does not lead to a garage or
carport. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Martin Miller, applicant, property owner, and designer) (92 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1101 Rosedale Ave - Staff Report
1101 Rosedale Ave - Attachments
1101 Rosedale Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Martin Miller, property owner, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions for the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Think changes are for the better. Asked applicant to reconsider their Variance application and they've
done so.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Legalizing the parking that is already existing.
>There are extraordinary circumstances that the applicant pointed out, including that the lot has three
street frontages.
>Parking will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and is consistent with the parking pattern in the
neighborhood.
>This is a unique lot, can make findings for the Variance.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Gaul2 -
c.800 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit to
attach a new garage 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild, applicant
and designer; Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
800 Winchester Dr - Staff Report
800 Winchester Dr - Attachments
800 Winchester Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Mike Amini, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Looks like there is a big roof cricket that will be required, hidden in the middle of the roof, is that
right? (Amini: Yes, there will be a cricket to bring the water to the downspout.)
>There appears to be water flowing into the backside of the gable at the face of the garage, how does
the water get out? (Amini: Yes, there is a valley at the gable.)
>Don't see the pitches for the proposed roof. On Rear Elevation, there appears to be a pitched section
at the top. May be an error on the plans. (Amini: This is an error on the plans.)
>Suggest visiting some of the other houses in the neighborhood to see how the garage roofs are
handled. (Amini: Have looked at other houses in neighborhood.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Being asked to consider a Special Permit for attached garage. There is a preponderance of attached
garages, so there is support for a Special Permit.
>It appears that the addition has rear ended the house and is not gracefully attached.
>There is a lack of a unified roof. The major wall size, the side wall of the rear of the addition, is the
widest portion of the house. Should look at starting with a hip structure there, with the front of the house
coming off of that; it would be more unified and simpler roof form.
>As proposed now, will have a cricket up against another cricket and water won't be able to drain out .
Confident that it will get resolved in the field, but should be resolved on plans now so it doesn't need to
come back for our review later.
>This is a good candidate for a design review consultant.
>Addition is not very well integrated into the existing house, has a lot to do with the roof.
>What's making it hard to integrate is the attempt maintain as much of the existing roof as possible.
>Would be helpful to use consistent hatching for roofing on building elevations.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to refer the applicant to
a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Gaul2 -
d.2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment to change
the roofing material of a previously approved Design Review project for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (TRG Architects +Interior Design, Samaneh
Nili, applicant and designer; Sunil and Katherine Koshie, property owners) (77 noticed)
Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal
2683 Summit Dr - Staff Report
2683 Summit Dr - Attachments
2683 Summit Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange, project architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions for the applicant.
Public Comments:
Resident at 2667 Summit Drive (name not provided): New second story blocks our view of the airport. Not
here to argue the approved project, but want to make sure there are no additional changes being proposed
to the project that would affect views. (Hurin: Clarified that with this application, there are no changes to
the height, massing or width of the house, just the roofing material.)
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Can't support the request to change the roofing material. Don't believe standing seam metal roofs are
appropriate for Burlingame. This is not a seaside, farming or rural community.
>Don't think the argument that you can't see the roof is a good one, we review a lot of things that aren't
visible.
>Urge staff and Commission to discuss this issue in the future.
>Concerned that we're seeing metal roofs in more projects.
>Disagree that it won't be visible from the street, could see the roof when visited the site.
>Can support it, think it is an appropriate look for this architecture and it's something we've approved
before. Think it fits in the neighborhood.
Acting Chair Comaroto reopened the public hearing.
>Why are you proposing to change the roofing material? (Grange: Proposed metal roof has one -inch
seams, it's very subtle. Think the metal roof is so much nicer than the asphalt shingles made from a
petroleum product. It lasts longer, is recyclable, and makes it easy to install solar panels. It's crisp and
clean look.)
>Not about what we like and don't like, but determining whether it fits the guidelines and pattern of the
community. Don't think they belong in Burlingame. (Grange: Using one-inch seam, so it's not clunky
looking. Don't see how it doesn't fit in. See this as similar to when roofing changed from wood shake to
asphalt shingle.)
Sunil Koshie, subject property owner: When began working with the architect years ago, did contemplate
using a metal roof. At that time, budget was a concern, so decided not to proceed with a metal roof to
save costs. However, as we continued to work on the project with the architect, he convinced us that this
would be one area to spend extra upfront and look into other areas where we could save. Would like to
install solar panels in the future, metal roof provides benefits for installation and looks cleaner.
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application.
Comment on the motion:
>Concern is whether or not the project starts to look too commercial. When we've approved
metal roofs or have reviewed any other materials, it's based on whether or not the application is
done in an appropriately residential fashion. Think the application is consistent with the
residential application.
>City Council has debated, on behalf of community and for us, where it's appropriate to have
more contemporary designs.
>Architecture previously approved fits this neighborhood. Metal roof for this particular project
fits the architecture and therefore is supportable.
>Like metal roofs, have had plenty of discussions about metal roofs in different
neighborhoods. Have seen metal roofs scattered throughout several neighborhoods.
>Concerned that once we start approving them, when do we say one project be approved
with metal roof and another one can't.
>Feel that Burlingame Hills is an area that can support modern architecture.
>When assessing appropriateness of metal roofs to the house, style of house had a lot to do
with it. This style can support a metal roof.
>Preponderance of composition shingle and clay tile roofs in neighborhood made me
question whether or not it is appropriate, even though the design warrants it.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Because house is located uphill rather than looking down on an entire roof, helps solidify
decision that this is the right roofing material.
>There are cases where a metal roof may not be approved where it's been allowed
elsewhere. It's not a matter of preference, but whether or not it fits a given context of a project.
That is the criteria we use throughout the design guidelines.
>Worried that there will be metal roofs everywhere, it would significantly change character of
the City.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse4 -
Nay:Loftis1 -
Absent:Kelly, and Gaul2 -
e.1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a project that was
previously Denied Without Prejudice for a new, two -story single family dwelling and
Special Permit for an attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the
CEQA Guidelines. (Eric Nyhus, applicant and architect; GLAD Trust, property owner )
(103 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report
1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments
1268 Cortez Ave - Plans
Attachments:
>Item 8e - 1268 Cortez Avenue has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing
notices will be sent once the application has been scheduled on a future agenda.
f.1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for
changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric and Jennifer Lai, applicants and property owners; Chu
Design Associates Inc., designer) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1245 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report
1245 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments
1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
James Chu, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>There were no questions for the applicant.
Public Comments:
Frank and Robin Knifsend, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue: Thanked designer and owners for changes made to the
project, they are improvements to the plan. This house, with a tall foundation and sloping lot, has a lot of
mass from our perspective. Noted a number of items that we hope would be considered as additional
changes before design is approved. Have brought down the plate height by 10 to 11 inches, but
concerned about almost three foot extension at rear of house. Doesn't seem like a lot, but it's the last
open area without a structure along property line. Also concerned with gable dormer along left side of
house, seems a lot bigger, there isn't much of a roof below the dormer to help minimize the wall of gable .
In addition, window is much bigger, which is the reason for the large well. Would like to see window size
reduced from 5'-6" to 4'-0" tall, allowing for more roof in front of wall to reduce its mass. Some windows on
first floor are still five feet tall, seems to scale well on plans, but one doesn't realize how big this house is .
At point of gable, finished floor of house is five feet off ground and house is almost 30 feet tall. Still feel
there could be a few more changes that would improve the design, without significantly changing the
overall design. Would hope that before final approval of the project, the surveyor would also shoot the
plate heights in addition to the roof peak, because we still don't have trust in the design, nor in the
communication between the designer and contractor. Would have liked more articulation along left side of
house.
Chu: Based on feedback provided on the original design, shifted second floor dormer to not align with the
neighbor's window. Working with landscape architect to revise landscape plan. There is a chance that the
existing birch tree, located at rear of house, may need to be removed; it's not a very attractive tree and is
tilting to one side. Will replace with a better tree. Also thought about providing additional privacy
screening along left side of house, particularly in front of the kitchen and bedroom #1 windows. Trying to
work very hard to satisfy neighbors' concerns.
Melissa Macko, neighbor: Understand that creek is not a part of the Planning Commission's purview .
However, as a neighbor that is located down creek from this site, concerned that there is no plan to
address creek stabilization along this property. Creek flooded two years ago. There is nothing but dirt
behind this lot. If we have another storm like we did two years ago, it will be a disaster. Would encourage
someone to look at the situation and stabilization of the creek, needs to be someone more like an
engineer to address stabilization of creek. Wanted this to be noted because it is a concern of the
neighbors.
Sally Brown, neighbor: Live in house across creek from project site. Very concerned about the creek and
agree with comments from previous speaker. Planting will not be sufficient to stabilize creek. Our house
and house to right is only area with a natural creek bank that is not culverted. Creek has been eroding
naturally for last couple of years. Feel that bank along subject property will end up in creek if stabilized
only by vegetation. Is a really big concern for us.
Chu: Concur with concerns expressed by neighbors. Landscape architect is working with Building Division
to protect creek. Solution recommended by the Building Division is to plant specific groundcover to
stabilize creek, also have erosion control in place.
>What is sill height in gable along left hand side in Bedroom #3? Is there a reason why sill height is
pushed down so low in this bedroom? (Chu: Approximately 14-16 inches because window needs to meet
egress requirements.)
>What is the minimum size required for an egress window? (Chu: Clear opening has to be a certain
size.)
>Have never seen a bedroom window with a 6'-8" header that has a sill that low. (Chu: Reason for size
is because window is double-hung. Could meet egress requirements with smaller casement window.)
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>May have a problem with window as proposed, will not be able to open window all the way if sill height
is 18 inches, is a safety issue. (Chu: Understand that this requirement only applies to windows facing the
street.)
>Would you consider changing the window to a casement window and still keep the same grid profile?
(Chu: Yes, can consider it.)
>Required sill height for an egress window is higher than 18 inches, so the sill height could come up.
>Window looks like it fits the house, but it is a very large window. Should consider making this window
smaller.
Philip Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue: Concerned about the way the contractor has treated protection of the
creek bank. There has been significant erosion in the last month to the point where there is no soil under
the existing fence. Contractor has done bizarre things on site, took live power line across creek, wrapped
it around our oak tree and tied it to our metal fence. Would like to see inspectors visit the site more
regularly.
Steve Macko, 1257 Cabrillo Avenue: Have built adjacent to and over the creek on their house, aware of
requirements regarding building in and around the creek and the care you have to take in doing so, have
not seen that care on this project. Creek comes down the hill and make a 90-degree turn at the rear of
this property. With the force of water flowing through there during a big storm, no amount of groundcover
will deter further deterioration of that creek wall. It will require a built structure to the property. Surprised
that as owners, they are not more concerned about the safety of the detached garage being built at the
rear of the property as the creek bank gives way over time. When the soil erodes under the foundation,
the garage will end up in the creek and cause problems for a lot of homeowners up the creek. More
investigation needs to be done regarding impact to creek; measures have not been taken to ensure that
this is going to be a safe build.
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Can staff provide a status regarding what work staff is doing with the applicant about protecting the
creek? (Hurin: Will forward comments and concerns to the Department of Public Works, Engineering
Division, who is working with the applicant regarding creek stabilization. Additional work may be required
after the Engineering Division visits the site and determines what appropriate action is required .
Appreciate comments and concerns expressed by neighbors.)
>Very sympathetic to the neighbors, it's a big change compared to what was there before.
>Applicant has not executed this project well, but has done a lot of work to bring a project that fits into
the neighborhood and meets the design guidelines. The revised project is less impactful to the neighbors
than the originally approved project.
>Project has come a long way. There were a number of special considerations asked for initially, but
since then have eliminated those by lowering the height and removing encroachments into the side
setback.
>Project design complies with the design guidelines.
>Project is working with the existing foundation, that is quite tall but typical of the house of this era .
Have mitigated that by lowering the plate height and overall height of building.
>Have done the massing and articulation we see in projects typically approved for design review. Can
support project.
>Changes made along the left side are significant, especially pulling house back to comply with four
foot setback requirement.
>Changes made to windows on upper floor to reduce apparent size of wall are significant, now see more
sloped roof and less wall.
>Concerned about size of window in Bedroom #3, should revisit sill height and window size.
>Is a well designed project.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
application with the following condition:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning
Commission review of the window located in the second floor dormer along the left side of the
house, with direction to raise the sill height and reduce the size of the window; could consider a
casement window at this location.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Gaul2 -
g.1020 Toyon Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single
family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the
CEQA Guidelines. (Genesis King Hwa LLC, applicant and property owner; Christian
Ruffat, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1020 Toyon Dr - Staff Report
1020 Toyon Dr - Attachments
1020 Toyon Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Christian Ruffat, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Design review consultant suggested changing the header above porch columns to wood; is a good way
to set off the porch as opposed to continuing the stucco from either side of the header. Curious to know
what you thought about that suggestion. (Ruffat: Originally, that was the goal. In detailing the porch,
wanted to almost mimic and additional column on the right hand side, so the wood would then run through .
But then encountered issues with setbacks and the public utility easement along the rear of the property,
so decided not to go that route. Would be open to highlighting the porch with an additional wood header
piece.)
>Wood header provides good transitional point between the different elements of the house.
>Have you picked a specification for the metal roofing? (Ruffat: Yes, it's 29-gauge material with a
one-inch seam.)
>Appreciate changes made in working with the design review consultant, including lowering the
immediate roof and bringing down the overall building height. However, am concerned that it exposed more
of the second floor wall and made the second floor look taller. Did you consider lowering the plate height
any further? (Ruffat: Proposing an 8'-6" plate height on the second floor; didn't think it was a deal -breaker.
Considered making the windows a bit taller.)
>Is there a reason for the 8 foot tall door in the detached garage? (Ruffat: Want to accommodate SUVs
with roof racks. Garage is crunched into the back corner and is a tight fit, so wanted to maximize it as
best as possible given that the garage can't be pushed back any further.)
>Are there any wall surfaces on the second floor that are co -planer with the wall surfaces on the first
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
floor? It looks like they all step back, is that true? Trying to find a way to marry the lower floor with the
upper floor. There is something odd about having a ground floor that is all stucco and an upper floor that is
almost all clapboard, especially once the walls are stepped back on all sides. Exacerbates the sense that
it's almost wedding cake like. (Ruffat: In my neighborhood in San Mateo for example, there are homes
that are 50 plus years old that contain stucco on the first floor and siding on the second floor. In keeping
with that vernacular, that was our intention here.)
>Is there a step up from the porch into the house or is the intention that the patio be generally at the
same level as the finished floor of the house? (Ruffat: There is a step up from the porch to the finished
floor of the house.)
>Is the roof over the bay window in the living room a metal roof? (Ruffat: Yes, that is correct.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Like the way the massing has come along. Gable and added bay at front provides nice scale to front
facade. Also like scale of porch.
>Second floor being stepped back supports a change in material from stucco to wood siding on
second floor.
>Bringing down the plate heights has helped to settle the massing.
>Project is supportable with additional detailing at front porch as suggested by the design review
consultant.
>Like the direction it's going, but still feel that it is too vertical. This is a neighborhood that's still in
transition, with many single -story small houses in the neighborhood. Design guidelines speak a lot about
keeping second stories within the roof form. This project feels like it doesn't do that. Taller plate heights
make a difference here.
>Garage with an 8 foot door and 9 foot tall plate doesn't fit the pattern of the neighborhood.
>Can't support the project as it is currently proposed.
>Will soon see more massing behind this street with the Summerhill project that is currently under
construction.
>Concerned with different siding materials proposed on the first and second floors, gives the feel of a
layer on top of a layer.
>Would like to see first and second floors tied together better.
>Can't support project because of concern with the metal roofs being proposed in Burlingame, don't
think it is an appropriate roofing material for Burlingame's character.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the
application so that the applicant can address the concerns and suggestions made by the
Planning Commission.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, and Tse4 -
Nay:Terrones1 -
Absent:Kelly, and Gaul2 -
h.1628 Lassen Way, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Variance for Lot
Coverage for first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. The
project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Master SWU
Associates, Steve Wu, applicant and designer; Jeff Leung, property owner) (139 noticed)
Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal
1628 Lassen Way - Staff Report
1628 Lassen Way - Attachments
1628 Lassen Way - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
>The current house conforms to lot coverage requirements, correct? (Hurin: Yes, the existing lot
coverage is 37.6%.)
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Steve Wu, project architect, and Jeff Park, property owner, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>On front elevation where the roofline above the entry door transitions to the second story above the
garage and where the garage roof is, there seems to be something that's not coming through in the
drawing or in the rendering. In the perspective views, it looks like the roofline over the porch is above and
proud of the upstairs bedroom above the garage; but on the front elevation is shows it tucked behind .
Because it's at the entrance of the home, it's important to know how it's intended to be designed. (Wu: It's
tucked underneath because we decided not to raise the walls of the garage.)
>So if it's tucked underneath, then the front elevation is not drafted correctly. Curious how the roof
transitions in that area, it's a little awkward where all of those planes meet. Roof porch may need to be
taller; appears that detailing issues still need to be worked out. (Wu: The rendering is correct, detailing
still needs to be worked out.)
>"Stacked Stone" is called out, this the model for the proposed stone veneer, correct? (Wu: Yes,
correct.)
>Is there something that would keep the fascia of the garage from aligning with the fascias on the rest
of the house or vice versa? Is the lower fascia on the garage deliberate? (Wu: Yes, it is deliberate
because there is a step up at the front porch and the garage floor is lower. The roof above the garage will
be placed on top of the existing walls.)
>Appreciate some of the changes made to the project.
>Did you consider lowering the plate height at the addition down from 10 feet? Could still keep volume
of interior room and lower the exterior walls a bit. Feels out of proportion with the rest of the house. (Wu:
Decided to rebuild the side facing wall so that a Variance wouldn't be required. Rebuilding the wall to 10
feet tall because it is in proportion with the size of the room.)
>Front porch is a nice addition. However, am concerned about making the findings for the Lot Coverage
Variance. If we weren't able to make the findings for the Variance, how would you handle that? (Wu: We
would need to significantly redesign the front of the house.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Project has come a long way, appreciate work that has been done to the project.
>Can't make the findings for the Lot Coverage Variance, there is nothing unique about the lot or
configuration of the existing house that would allow me to make the findings.
>Still concerned with 10 foot plate height at the addition at rear of house, doesn't feel in proportion with
the rest of the house or with the neighboring houses. It would be easy to reduce the plate height to 9 feet
and keep a cathedral ceiling inside, could even add more interest on the interior. Lowering plate height
would make it fit in to the neighborhood better.
>Like the front porch, encouraged front porch to resolve some of the material issues that were coming
together and to resolve the fact that the front door just seemed to be squeezed in on the front facade, but
at no point did we suggest applying for a Variance for a porch. Granted that lot coverage is over by
approximately 124 square feet and the porch is about 125 square feet, but at the same time they're adding
the front bedroom and bathroom. Additional square footage is not just due to the front porch. Don't see
any extraordinary or exceptional conditions in order to grant the Variance.
>Proportions of house have come a long way. Like that the roof forms have been changed to hip roofs,
has helped to settle down the second floor.
>Seems like a big mass that ran into the back of the house. You can do 8 foot plates and coffered
ceilings, especially when there is no second floor above that area.
>There seems to be plenty of space on the lot to accommodate the lot coverage requirements without
having to request a Variance.
>Still not clear as to what is happening at the front porch roof where it connects to the garage and
upper floor.
>Can't support 10 foot plate height at addition, consider reducing plate height and adding volume in
ceiling within the space.
>Project still needs more work.
>Hip roofs consistently around the house works much better. Do like that changes suggested by the
design review consultant have been implemented.
>Something more needs to be done at front porch area.
>Variance application is incorrect in that it states that the existing lot coverage is maxed out at 40%.
The existing lot coverage is actually 37.6%, issue needs to be revisited and corrected on the application.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to continue the
item with the direction that the applicant consider the issues that have been raised. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Gaul2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.475 1/2 Rollins Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage (Brad
Gunkel, Gunkel Architecture, Architect; Amy Chung and Francis Kim, property owners )
(99 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Staff Report
475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Attachments
475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
>Since the City Arborist denied removal of the existing redwood tree, is that discussion over or can the
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission comment on removal of the tree? It appears that it still may be open for discussion .
(Lewit: City Arborist can consider comments from the Commission. During review of the project and
direction provided by the Commission regarding the design of the house, it may be determined that the
tree can be retained.)
>Noted that the survey indicates different front, side and rear property lines so the setback lines are
inconsistent with the staff report. (Lewit: Survey was completed several years prior to the project being
designed and submitted for review. Staff determined required setbacks after project was submitted.)
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Brad Gunkel, project architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Found renderings to be unuseful because the trees are shown at a certain growth in the future and you
can't see the house. (Gunkel: Italian cypress can be purchased at a height shown on the renderings. The
Japanese black prides are shown what they may look like in ten years.)
>Would be very easy to look at that area of town and say any architecture would fit in. Not sure that's
entirely true.
>What is thinking behind the tall tower at the end near the garage? This element is aggressive in some
ways. (Gunkel: Initially, the tower element contained more glass, we scaled it down in coordination with
staff and the property owners. It is an entry atrium space, owners wanted a space for a grand piano .
Sloped roof in two-story volume also adds articulation rather than having just a flat roof.)
>The arborist report notes recommends a tree protection zone 27 feet out from the main trunk. Site
plan shows a tree protection zone of 16 feet from the trunk. (Gunkel: Had subsequent discussions with
the City Arborist where he felt there was potential for a smaller protection zone for that tree.)
>Was City Arborist able to quantify that projection zone? (Gunkel: He was even questioning whether we
could keep this design and provide a root barrier and preserve the tree as it is.)
>At 16 feet, the family room foundation would be within the dripline. (Gunkel: Owners and neighbors
would prefer the tree be removed, so thought it would be a good idea to bring it before the Commission for
further consideration.)
>Have what feels like a private road leading to property with symmetrically lined apartment buildings on
either side. Did you consider a lower profile elevation at the approach to the house from the driveway?
(Gunkel: As you approach the house, you'll first see the fence and the garage, not the house. Owners like
the idea of having a two-story atrium at the entry.)
>Pianos should not be placed in direct sun, will get damaged. Placement of piano in atrium will receive
direct sun. Was there a consideration to place the atrium on the northern side of the house? (Gunkel:
Don't think there will be much direct sun since trees will shade much of the space.)
>Describe the landscape area to right of entry, are they low lying shrubs? (Gunkel: Yes, there will be
low lying shrubs and a row of italian cypress along the property line).
>Still unclear from arborist regarding what is required to maintain the existing tree and how it would
affect the project. Can you explain? (Gunkel: We are unclear as well. Initially, we thought he was okay with
removal of the tree, so continued with a design based on the tree being removed. On second review of
project, which included a site visit, received comments from the City Arborist questioning whether the tree
can be preserved.) (Lewit: Although this is a protected size tree, the City Arborist noted that it is not a
significant tree. City Arborist would like to see tree saved, but would also like to hear Commission's
opinion regarding redesigning the project to save the tree or allowing the tree to be removed.)
Public Comments:
Ray Jackson, 471 Rollins Road: Single-story duplexes on either side of the driveway, not two -story
apartment buildings. Concerned with second floor windows, extending from the floor to the ceiling, and
looking into property. Ask that they consider reducing the size of the windows. Everything around us is
single-story. Also concerned about size of vegetative screening at planting, will be small.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Shauna Rose, 428 Dwight Road: Don't think the proposed style, with floor to ceiling glass, fits in with the
neighborhood and character of Burlingame. Concerned with two -story glass wall. Cypress trees will take
years to grow to the height shown on the renderings. Concerned with removal of Redwood tree.
David Young, 424 Dwight Road: House will impact ten residents in houses built in the 1940's. Concerned
with the easement to access property, don't see how a fire truck will access house in an emergency .
Doesn't fit in with the neighborhood.
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>There is support for the requested setback variance given the unique and extraordinary property in its
triangular shape.
>Appreciate that the applicant worked with staff to determine the required setbacks.
>Being asked to consider the second floor setback for the front side, which would be required to be 20
feet, as opposed to 15 feet for the ground floor.
>In terms of land use logic, can see how someone making an argument that this property should only
have one front and two sides, and therefore could potentially impact two sides of the triangle. This is a
good compromise to settle on for the front, side and rear. Have an acceptable logic for what the setback
should be for this triangular shaped lot. But then it triggers in terms of the design, the need for the second
floor setback variance based on the style, structure and massing. See logic and support for the variance.
>Have trouble with this particular contemporary style, but not with a contemporary style at this location .
Architect has referenced other properties in the neighborhood, including some in the flats and properties
on Trenton Way and Paloma Avenue. Note that the properties on Trenton Way have been received with
mixed reviews within the community and neighborhood. However, supported those projects because the
massing and character were very residential in style.
>Concern with this project is not necessarily that it's contemporary, but that the massing feels more
commercial, has to do with the flat facade. Contemporary style could work here, but needs to be in
keeping with the massing, style and character of the residential neighborhood where this is trying to fit in .
This shape could work with other rooflines and roof forms that could be applied to this massing.
>Programmatically, the layout and floor plan works well, but character and articulation of contemporary
style needs to be revisited.
>The existing tree is massive, will get bigger and is the only tree remaining that adds character to the
lot. Would encourage applicant to find a way prepare a protection plan to retain the existing tree because it
adds character to center enclave of lot. Also adds vegetation now, we don't have to wait for years for a
tree to grow. Realize redwood tree is on a property line and that they are messy, but they are safe trees.
>Encourage architect to revisit style, try to make it more residential in keeping with the character,
massing and qualities of the existing neighborhood.
>Textures and materials used on contemporary house built at 1580 Barroilhet Avenue were very warm
and delicate. Encourage you to drive by and take a look at it.
>Feels like second story is in your face, not sure if it fits in with the area. Not opposed to a modern
house here, but the design needs to be more sensitive to the neighbors around the perimeter of the
property.
>Should bring massing down and encourage to make design more nature -like with use of wood
materials.
>House would fit in well if redwood tree is kept, would like to see tree retained as it would add screening
for the neighbors.
>Feels very commercial and aggressive. Don't have a problem with a contemporary style, but this lot is
very unusual in the lot patterns of Burlingame. Touches nine or ten other lots, so it's completely
surrounded by other buildings. This building will stand out in the middle, has additional burden and
responsibility that other more typical sites don't.
>What you do here will have a huge impact on the neighborhood. Needs to tone itself down.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Needs to have more relation to the lower profile properties in neighborhood. Proposed tall plate heights
and aggressive contemporary style doesn't help to create a home that is warm and inviting.
>See an option on site plan to rotate massing of house 45 degrees and tuck it into bottom side of
triangle, would free house from tree which we're trying to protect, and could move yard to that side of the
property.
>Redwood tree could stand with a lot of pruning that would help with maintenance over time.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar.
Commission Discussion:
>There aren't many grounds to limit house to one story. There are no ordinances that outright
protect privacy, but there is enough area in and around this property where this can be a
satisfying project for the applicant and could be a delightful surprise as you come down
driveway to the property. Applicant has right to develop lot.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Gaul2 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioners reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Planning Manager Hurin reported that the City Council adopted the General Plan and certified the EIR on
January 7th, as well as approving the interim zoning standards for the North Rollins Road and North
Burlingame Mixed Use Districts.
a.133 Crescent Avenue - FYI for changes requested by the Planning Commission to a
previously approved Design Review project.
133 Crescent Ave - Memorandum and AttachmentsAttachments:
Accepted.
b.705 Vernon Way - FYI for changes to a previously approved application for Design
Review for a first and second story addition.
705 Vernon Way - Memorandum and AttachmentsAttachments:
Accepted.
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 January 14, 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 January 24, 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.
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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 16City of Burlingame Printed on 2/7/2019
City of Burlingame
Special Permit
Address: 1328 Capuchino Avenue Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
Request: Application for Special Permit for a reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site (from a
detached two-car garage to a detached one-car garage) for a first floor addition and remodel.
Applicant and Architect: James Neubert Architects APN: 026-285-210
Property Owners: Hari and Depali Abhyankar Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with a single family dwelling and detached two-car
garage that contains 2,327 SF (0.39 FAR) of floor area . The applicant is proposing a 218 SF first floor addition at
the rear of the house and to reduce the size of the existing two-car detached garage to a one-car detached
garage. Demolishing a portion of the existing detached garage allows for the addition to comply with the
maximum allowed lot coverage (2,399 SF proposed where 2,400 SF is the maximum allowed). This project
would increase the total floor area to 2,335 SF (0.39 FAR), where 3,225 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The project is 890 SF below the maximum allowable floor area.
With this application, the number of bedroo ms will be increasing from three to four. Two parking spaces, one of
which must be covered, are required for a four -bedroom house. For existing conditions, a garage with at least
18’ x 18’ clear interior dimensions provides two covered spaces and a garage with 9’ x 18’ clear interior
dimensions provides one covered space. Currently, there are three spaces provided on site (two covered spaces
in detached garage and one uncovered in the driveway). To comply with lot coverage regulations, the applicant
is proposing to reduce the size of the existing detached two-car garage (18’-9” wide x 19’-5” deep clear interior
dimensions) to a one-car garage (10’ wide x 18’ deep clear interior dimensions) since only one covered space is
required for the project (10’ x 18’ clear interior dimensions required). The other required space is provided in the
driveway.
Reducing the amount of on -site parking from three spaces (2 covered, 1 uncovered) to two spaces (1 covered, 1
uncovered) requires approval of a Special Permit. The proposed detached garage is 204 SF in size, has a plate
height of 8’-9”, and an overall height of 11’-1” above grade, which is in compliance with accessory structure
requirements
The applicant is requesting the following application:
Special Permit for a reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site (from an attached two -car
garage to an attached one -car garage) (C.S. 25.26.035 (b)).
1328 Capuchino Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: January 25, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front: 20’-0” no change 15’-0” or block average
Side (left):
(right):
11’-5”
6’-9”
11’-5” (to addition)
no change
4’-0”
4’-0”
Rear: 18’-0” 35’-9” (to addition) 15’-0”
Lot Coverage: 2,394 SF 2,399 SF 2,400 SF
Item No. 6a
Study Item
Special Permit 1328 Capuchino Avenue
-2-
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
39.9% 40% 40%
FAR: 2,327 SF
0.39 FAR
2,335 SF
0.39 FAR
3,224 SF1
0.54 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street Parking:
2 covered
(18’-9”” x 19’-5”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
1 covered
(10'-0” x 18'-0”)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20') ²
1 covered
(10'-0” x 18'-0”)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Special Permit required
for reduction in # of
existing parking spaces
Height: 15’-5” 15’-11” rear addition 30'-0"
¹ (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 204 SF = 3,224 SF (0.54 FAR)
² Special Permit for a reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on -site (CS 25.26.035(b)).
Staff Comments: None
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces
existing on the site, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Co de
Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(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.
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. James Neubert Architects , applicant and architect
Hari and Depali Abhyankar, property owners
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 1, 2019
Area Map
PROPERTY LINE91.20'N 27d05'47" EPROPERTY LINE 160.25'N 65d30'24" W
PROPERTY LINE 46.75'S 59dd48'04" EPROPERTY LINE 34.58'PROPERTY LINE 73.06'S 56d43'13" EPROPERTY LINE85.74'S 27d51'01" WPROPERTY LINE16.67'S 28d04'28" WEXISTING RESIDENCE400 CHAPIN LANE(E) 36" PALMTREE(E) 6" PLUMTREE(E) 24" OAKTREE(E) 15" TREE(E) 12" TREE(E) 196 SFPOOLEQUIP.SHED(E) CONC.PATIO(E) COVEREDPORCH192 SF(E) STAIRS >30" HT.69 SF(E) COVERED PORCH192 SF(E) STAIRS >30" HT.19 SF(E) DECK <18" HT.465 SF(E) CONC.PATIO(E) POOL(E) CONC.PATIO(E) 10" TREE(E) 6" TREE(E) 8" TREE(E) 5" TREE(2) (E) 60"REDWOODTREES(E) 60"REDWDTREE(E) 4" TREE(E) 6"TREE(E) UTILITYPOLE(E) UTILITYPOLE(E) CONC.DRIVEWAY(E) BRICKPLANTERS(E) BRICKPLANTERS(E) CONC. CURB& GUTTER(E) CONC.SIDEWALKCHAPIN AVE.CHAPIN LANE15'-6"3'-9"1'-8 1/2"7'-0"SIDE YARDSETBACK7'-8"7'-6"SIDE YARDSETBACK14'-8 1/2"29'-10"15'-0"FRONT YARDSETBACK 40% REAR YARDDETACHEDGARAGE15'-0"REAR YARDSETBACK(E) 9'X20' UNCOVEREDPARKING SPACE19'-3"(E) WD. FENCE, TYP.(E) 8' TALL WD/MESHFENCE TO REMAIN,SEE ELEVS.1'-6"1'-4"5"(E) GARAGE(E) POOLHOUSE(E) POND(E) STREETTREE, TYP.PROPERTY LINE91.20'N 27d05'47" EPROPERTY LINE 160.25'N 65d30'24" W
PROPERTY LINE 46.
7
5
'
S 59dd48'04" E
PROPERTY LINE
34.58'
PROPERTY
L
I
N
E
73.06'
S 56d43'13"
E
PROPERTY LINE85.74'S 27d51'01" WPROPERTY LINE16.67'S 28d04'28" WEXISTING RESIDENCE400 CHAPIN LANE(E) 36" PALMTREE(E) 6" PLUMTREE(E) 24" OAKTREE(E) 15" TREE(E) 12" TREE(E) 196 SFPOOLEQUIP.SHED(E) CONC.PATIO(E) COVEREDPORCH192 SF(E) STAIRS >30" HT.69 SF(E) COVERED PORCH192 SF(E) STAIRS >30" HT.19 SF(E) DECK <18" HT.465 SF(E) CONC.PATIO(E) POOL(E) CONC.PATIO(E) PONDTO BEREMOVED(E) LANDSCAPING -NO TREES TO BEREMOVED, TYP.(E) 10" TREE(E) 6" TREE(E) 8" TREE(E) 5"TREE(2) (E) 60"REDWOODTREES(E) 60"REDWDTREE(E) UTILITYPOLE(E) UTILITYPOLE(E) CONC.DRIVEWAY(E) BRICKPLANTERS(E) BRICKPLANTERS(E) CONC. CURB& GUTTER(E) CONC.SIDEWALKCHAPIN AVE.CHAPIN LANE
REPLACE (E) WOODFENCE & GATE TOMATCH (E)RELOCATE(E) CURB CUTFOR (N)DRIVEWAY,PER CITYSTANDARDS2'-9"
3'-5"
19'-1 1/2" DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
CENTERED O
N
D
O
O
R
FIRE-TREATED WOODSHINGLE ROOFING,TYP.15'-6"3'-9"1'-8 1/2"7'-0"SIDE YARDSETBACK7'-8"7'-6"SIDE YARDSETBACK14'-8 1/2"29'-10"
15'-0"
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
40% REAR YARDDETACHEDGARAGE15'-0"
REAR YARD
SETBACK(E) 9'X20' UNCOVEREDPARKING SPACE TO REMAIN12'-11 1/2"19'-3"LINE OF (E) GARAGETO BE REMOVED, TYP.(E) WD. FENCE, TYP.(E) 8' TALL WD/MESHFENCE TO REMAIN,SEE ELEVS.(N) GARAGE(N) GUESTHOUSEDSDSDSDSDIRECTION OFSTORM WATERRUNOFF, TYP.(E) SEWER LATERAL &CLEANOUT(E) WATER LINE(N) CONC.LANDING &WALKWAY(E) MANUALWOOD GATETO REMAIN(E) STREETTREE, TYP.5:12 SLOPE,TYP.DS5:12 SLOPE,
TYP.5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPE
(N) 24" BOXCHERRY TREE1'-3 1/2"1'-0 1/2"1'-7 1/2"1'-2"18'-3"3'-4"(N) DOUBLEBACKFLOWPREVENTIONDEVICE(E) DOMESTIC WATERSUPPLY LINE(E) WATER SUPPLYCONNECTED TO (E)CITY MAIN(N) FIRE SPRINKLERSUPPLY LINE(E) 1" WATERMETER(N) EYEBROW ROOFVENT, TYP. OF (3)PROVIDE 24" SPLASH BLACK AT ALLDOWNSPOUTS, AND DIRECT FINISHGRADE TOWARDS REAR YARD AWAYFROM BLDG. AND PROP. LINE, TYP.ADJUST GRADES IN REAR YARD ASNEEDED TO DIRECT STORM WATERRUNOFF TOWARDS LOW POINTS INPROPERTYJONES RESIDENCE
400 CHAPIN LANE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 650.995.1360 | www.morris-arch.com,1$ 1604$.&)57$/+66#.All drawings and written materials contained hereinconstitute the original and unpublished work of theArchitect and the same may not be duplicated, used ordisclosed without the written consent of the Architect12 COZZOLINO CT | MILLBRAE, CA 940304'84'84'8A0.2SITE PLANS1/8"=1'-0"EXISTING SITE PLAN & ROOF PLAN2A0.21/8"=1'-0"PROPOSED SITE PLAN & ROOF PLAN1A0.2
(E) 8' TALL WD. FENCE W/ WIREMESH TO REMAIN, APPROVEDUNDER VARIANCE ON 2/18/64(N) PEBBLED STUCCO FINISH TOMATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE, TYP.(N) PTD. WD. GARAGE DOOR(N) PTD. WD. TRIM, DENTILS,FASCIA, & GUTTER TO MATCH (E)MAIN HOUSE 2ND FLOOR TRIMBAND, TYP.(N) FIRE-TREATED WD.SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP.TYPA8.11TYPA8.12TYPA8.11TYPA8.12400(N) BUILDING ADDRESSSIGNAGE W/HARDWIREDILLUMINATIONTYPA8.15FINISH SLAB+99.06'PROPERTY LINE ROOF RIDGE+110.98'PLATE HEIGHT+108.48'FINISH SLAB+99.06'ROOF RIDGE+110.98'11'-11"
16'-0 1/4" MAX HT.
LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE TO ROOF RIDGE
PROPERTY LINE
(E) PTD. WD. SIDING & TRIM ATGARAGE, TYP.(E) PTD. WD. GARAGE DOOR(E) 8' TALL WD. FENCE W/ WIREMESH TO REMAIN, APPROVEDUNDER VARIANCE ON 2/18/64PLATE HEIGHT+108.48'JONES RESIDENCE
400 CHAPIN LANE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 650.995.1360 | www.morris-arch.com1604 All drawings and written materials contained hereinconstitute the original and unpublished work of theArchitect and the same may not be duplicated, used ordisclosed without the written consent of the Architect12 COZZOLINO CT | MILLBRAE, CA 94030A3.1EXTERIORELEVATIONS1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION (GARAGE)3A3.11/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION1A3.11/4"=1'-0"EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION2A3.11/4"=1'-0"EXISTING EAST ELEVATION4A3.1
EGRESSNET CLR. OPENING2'-10 34" X 2'-1"SIMA8.14TYPA8.11TYPA8.12TYPA8.15PROPERTY LINE(E) 5'+ TALL WD. FENCE TO REMAIN,OPTIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING,TO BE COORDINATED W/ NEIGHBORSIM, 1 HRA8.11A8.13FINISH FLOOR+98.99'PLATE HEIGHT+107.18'PROPERTY LINE
8'-2 1/4"ROOF RIDGE+114.14'6'-11 1/2"
16'-0 1/4" MAX HT.
LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE TO ROOF RIDGE(E) 5'+ TALL WD. FENCEFINISH FLOOR+98.99'PROPERTY LINE PLATE HEIGHT+107.18'ROOF RIDGE+114.14'(E) ALUM. WDWS, TYP.(E) STUCCO SIDING W/REDWOOD TRIM ATCOTTAGE, TYP.(E) WD SHINGLE ROOFINGREDWOOD FASCIA & RAFTERTAILS, TYP.JONES RESIDENCE
400 CHAPIN LANE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 650.995.1360 | www.morris-arch.com1604 All drawings and written materials contained hereinconstitute the original and unpublished work of theArchitect and the same may not be duplicated, used ordisclosed without the written consent of the Architect12 COZZOLINO CT | MILLBRAE, CA 94030A3.2EXTERIORELEVATIONS1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION3A3.21/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (GUEST HOUSE)1A3.21/4"=1'-0"EXISTING WEST ELEVATION2A3.21/4"=1'-0"EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION4A3.2
ROOF RIDGE+110.90'PROPERTY LINE
BEDROOMHALLWAYLIVING AREAA8.19FINISH SLAB+98.75'ROOF RIDGE+111.47'GARAGE(N) PTD. WD. CLAD WDWS,DOORS, & TRIM TO MATCH (E)MAIN HOUSE, TYP.(N) PEBBLED STUCCO FINISH TOMATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE, TYP.TYPA8.14JONES RESIDENCE
400 CHAPIN LANE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 650.995.1360 | www.morris-arch.com1604 All drawings and written materials contained hereinconstitute the original and unpublished work of theArchitect and the same may not be duplicated, used ordisclosed without the written consent of the Architect12 COZZOLINO CT | MILLBRAE, CA 94030A3.3EXTERIOR ELEVSBLDG. SECTIONS1/4"=1'-0"BUILDING SECTION AA (GARAGE)1A3.31/4"=1'-0"BUILDING SECTION BB (GUEST HOUSE)3A3.31/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (GARAGE)2A3.31/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION (GUEST HOUSE)4A3.3
GARAGE23'-8 1/4"4'-2 3/4"
(4'-0" MIN CLR)
24'-4"2 10'X20' CLR.PARKING SPACES11'-10"13'-9 1/4"PORCHKITCHENETTEBEDROOM3A3.31A3.326'-9 1/4"2'-3 3/4"19'-7 1/2"18'-5 3/4"23'-8 1/4"38'-1 1/4"29'-1"1'-1"RAISED CLG. SOFFITFR.23'-0" CLR.(20'-0" MIN.)23'-0" CLR.
(20'-0" MIN.)NO STOVENO OVENLINE OF PROPOSEDROOF EAVE ABOVE9"EAVETYP9"EAVETYP4'-0"
2'-0"
CLR
1214151714'-10 1/4"3'-6"
2'-0"
CLR
203204205101103154211162'-6"MINCLR3'-0"CLR2'-0"8'-8"8'-2"(N) ATTICACCESSLADDERC WDW &ROOMLC WDW &ROOMLC WDW &
ROOML LIVING AREA102EQ EQ
2011'-0"C WDW &INT. WALLL6" STEPC DOOR &
EXT. WALL
L 2'-6"MIN CLR17'-3"10'-0" MIN. FROM PROP. LINE6"10'-0" MIN. FROM PROP. LINEFACE OF FRAMING,TYP. U.N.O.1 HR. RATED WALL ATPROP. LINE, SEE DTL(N) ATTICACCESSLADDERA8.1112'-6"
TYP2'-6"TYP1'-6"2'-6"BENCH
A8.17JONES RESIDENCE
400 CHAPIN LANE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 650.995.1360 | www.morris-arch.com1604 All drawings and written materials contained hereinconstitute the original and unpublished work of theArchitect and the same may not be duplicated, used ordisclosed without the written consent of the Architect12 COZZOLINO CT | MILLBRAE, CA 94030A2.1PROPOSEDFLOOR PLANS(N) 2x4 WALL WALL LEGEND: (E) WALL TO BE REMOVED(E) WALL (E)/(N) 1 HR. RATED WALL (E)/(N) 2X6 WALL1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN1A2.1EXTERIOR WALL OPENING PROTECTION (CRC TABLE R302.1(1))FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCEDEGREE OF PROTECTIONALLOWABLE AREA< 3 FEETN/ANOT ALLOWED> 3 FEET TO < 5 FEET0 HOURS25% MAX OF WALL AREA> 5 FEET0 HOURSUNLIMITEDNOTE: SEE CRC R302 FOR MORE INFO.FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS DISTANCE FROM BUILDING FACE TO CLOSEST INTERIOR LOT LINE, ORCENTERLINE OF STREETFOUNDATION & CONCRETE NOTES:1.UNDER FLOOR ACCESS. PROVIDE MIN. OF 18"X24" THRU FLOOR OR16"X24" THRU WALL ACCESS TO UNDER FLOOR AREAS. CRC R408.42.UNDER FLOOR ACCESS. FOR AN APPLIANCE IN AN UNDER FLOOR AREA,PROVIDE MIN. 22" X 30" ACCESS OR MIN. REQUIRED BY APPLIANCE. CMC904.103.CRAWL SPACE. PROVIDE 18" TALL MIN. ACCESS PATHWAY THROUGHUNDER FLOOR AREA, INCLUDING UNDER DUCTS. CMC 603.1. FLOORJOISTS OR FLOORS WITHOUT JOISTS WITH LESS THAN 18" CLR. TOEXPOSED GROUND SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED. GIRDERS WITH LESSTHAN 12" CLR. SHALL BE P.T. CBC 2304.11.2.1.4.PRESSURE TREATED. EXTERIOR WOOD FRAMING & SHEATHINGRESTING ON FOUNDATIONS AND LESS THAN 8" FROM EARTH OR 2"FROM PAVING SHALL BE P.T. CBC 2304.11.2.2. (SIDING MAY BE 6" FROMEARTH. CBC 2304.11.2.6)5.VERIFICATION. G.C. TO VERIFY ALL CONCRETE ROUGH OPENING SIZES,ELEVATIONS, ETC. PRIOR TO FOUNDATION POUR. G.C. TO COORDINATEALL LOCATIONS OF HOLDOWNS, CURBS, STEPS, PLUMBING &MECHANICAL SLEEVES, ETC.6.VERIFICATION. PRIOR TO POURING ANY CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATIONS,IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A LICENSED SURVEYOR CONFIRM THAT THEREQUIRED SETBACKS AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLANS HAVE BEENMAINTAINED.FLOOR PLANS NOTES:1.CAL GREEN. SEE SHEET GB.1 FOR CAL GREEN MANDATORYREQUIREMENTS2.UNDERSTAIR SPACES. ENCLOSED ACCESSIBLE SPACE UNDER STAIRSSHALL HAVE WALLS, UNDERSTAIR SURFACE, AND ANY SOFFITSPROTECTED ON THE ENCLOSED SIDE WITH 1/2" GYP. BD. CRC 302.73.DRAFTSTOPS. SHALL BE INSTALLED IN FLOOR/ CEILING ASSEMBLIESWHERE THERE IS A USABLE SPACE ABOVE AND BELOW THECONCEALED SPACE OF A FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY. DRAFT STOPSSHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT THE AREA OF THE CONCEALED SPACEDOES NOT EXCEED 1,000 SQUARE FEET AND IS DIVIDED INTOAPPROXIMATELY EQUAL AREAS. CRC R302.124.SHOWERS. SHOWER AND TUB/SHOWER WALLS SHALL HAVE ANONABSORBENT SURFACE MIN. 72" ABOVE THE FLOOR, INSTALLEDOVER FIBER-CEMENT BACKER BD. WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BACKINGBOARD MAY NOT BE USED. CRC R307.2, R702.45.INTERIOR WATERPROOFING. AT ALL LOCATIONS SUBJECT TOEXPOSURE TO WATER, G.C. TO PROVIDE WATERPROOF MEMBRANEOVER HORIZONTAL AREAS AND UP WALLS 6" MIN ABOVE FINISH.6.CONCEALED WORK. MAINTAIN RECORD DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS,AND PHOTOS OF CONCEALED WORK.7.FRAMING. ALL NEW EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X4 WD. STUDS AT 16" O.C.,TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL NEW INTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X4WD. STUDS AT 16" O.C., TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.8.ROUGH OPENINGS. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ROUGH OPENINGS SHOWNON PLAN OR SCHEDULES WITH REQUIREMENTS OF UNITS TO BEINSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING OPENINGS.9.ATTIC ACCESS. PROVIDE MIN 22" X 30" ACCESS OPENING TO ATTICSGREATER THAN 30 SF AND WITH 30" MIN HEADROOM. THRU WALLACCESS OPENING SHALL BE MIN 22" WIDE X 30" TALL.INSULATION NOTES:1. SEE TITLE 24 ENERGY REPORT FOR REQUIRED INSULATION VALUES.2. INSULATION SHALL CONFORM TO FLAME-SPREAD RATING AND SMOKEDENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF CRC R302.103. AFTER INSTALLING INSULATION, THE INSTALLER SHALL POST ANINSULATION CERTIFICATE, SIGNED BY THE INSTALLER AND THEBUILDER, IN A CONSPICUOUS LOCATION IN THE BUILDING, STATINGTHAT THE INSTALLATION CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OFTITLE 24, PART 2, CH. 2-53 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ACTION ITEM (Public Hearing): Public Hearing to Consider
Adoption of Residential Impact Fees
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2019
AGENDA ITEM NO: 8b
BACKGROUND
Affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower -income residents.
The fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects, and used for land purchase,
construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing.
Jurisdictions may tailor the fees so they meet local needs. The fees can be adjusted for a wide variety of
reasons, so long as they are not arbitrary or capricious, and so long as the fees for all projects remain
below the legal maximum.
As part of the San Mateo County “21 Elements” multi-jurisdictional effort, a Residential Impact Fee
Nexus Study was prepared for the City of Burlingame, together with a Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus
Study. These studies describe and quantify how the development of homes, offices, and commercial
space creates a need for housing, particularly for very low-, low- and moderate-income residents. The
maximum impact fees that can be legally charged were calculated by estimating the number of new
worker households associated with new development. A final analysis was then completed that
considered factors like local conditions and the fees of neighboring jurisdictions to determine a potential
range of impact fees. These studies enable the City Council to consider the adoption of commercial
linkage and/or residential impact fees that would be used to provide affordable housing.
On June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees for new
commercial development in Burlingame. The adopted fees are $7.00 per square foot for new retail
development, $12.00 per square foot for new hotel development, $18.00 per square foot for office
projects of 50,000 square feet or less, and $25.00 per square foot for office greater than 50,000 square
feet. For developers who utilize prevailing wages or area standard wages, the fees are $5.00 per square
foot for new retail development, $10.00 per square foot for new hotel development, $15.00 per square
foot for office of 50,000 square feet or less, and $20.00 per square foot for office greater than 50,000
square feet. Over time, these fees will provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting
workforce housing in Burlingame.
On February 12, 2018 the City Council considered the establishment of residential impact fees that
would apply to new residential development in Burlingame. The City Council directed staff to further
study potential fee levels and structures, consider an on-site “in-lieu” option for providing affordable units
within development projects, and obtain input from housing developers and other stakeholders.
Following direction from the City Council, staff engaged Seifel Consulting Inc. to prepare an analysis on
options for residential impact fees. A key focus of the Seifel Consulting work program was to develop
recommendations related to the potential adoption of new fees on residential development and the best
strategies to incentivize the on-site provision of affordable housing within new development as part of the
February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
Residential Impact Fees
2
City’s housing program. Seifel Consulting subsequently prepared a memorandum reflecting findings of
the analysis and input from the City Council (attached).
On November 14, 2018 the City Council held a special meeting to review the Seifel Consulting report and
provide direction on establishing residential impact fees.
DISCUSSION
Housing Need: For years, housing development in Burlingame and San Mateo County has not kept up
with the thousands of new jobs added, and the problem has gotten wor se in recent years. Between 2010
and 2016, San Mateo County added 79,000 new jobs, but only 4,941 new homes of all types. The
resulting jobs-housing gap ratio was 1 to 16. In other words, only one new housing unit was built for
every 16 new jobs created. This jobs-housing gap drives up the cost of housing for homebuyers and
renters alike, produces congestion and long commutes for workers, and forces friends and family
members to move away because they can no longer afford to live in Burlingame or San Mateo County.
A significant number of new jobs pay wages that are not sufficient to cover local housing costs. This
includes jobs generated by new development. The region’s driving economic sectors are increasingly
split between high-wage jobs in industries such as professional and technical services, and low-wage
jobs in hospitality, childcare, retail, and others. Those in the low-wage workforce increasingly commute
into the area from long distances, which results in increased traffic in the region and ultimat ely limits the
pool of employees for local businesses. For a worker earing minimum wage, the cost of gas and bridge
tolls together with the long commute times make it difficult (if not infeasible) to justify employment in a
low wage local job. Local service businesses have reported difficulty hiring and retaining employees,
even when offering wages well above minimum wage.
The City of Burlingame has been proactive in addressing the supply aspect of the housing situation
through the encouragement and approval of significant numbers of new housing units. The Burlingame
Downtown Specific Plan, together with the most recent Housing Element update, have emphasized the
construction of new housing units to address the increased demand for housing units near employment
in Burlingame and San Mateo County. Per the City’s most recent Residential Projects Overview
document (attached), 513 units have been approved, and an additional 487 units are currently under
review by the Planning Commission, for a total of 1000 units. Of these, 192 would be priced below
market rate for households in the Moderate, Median, Low, or Very Low income categories.1
Furthermore, the General Plan Update has had a strong emphasis on promoting housing production,
with increased residential densities and the addition of new housing areas in the northern portion of the
City.
1 By government definition, “Moderate-Income” means a household with an income that is 120% of the “Area
Median Income” (AMI), “Low-income” means a household with an income that is 80% of AMI , “Very-Low Income”
means a household with an income that is 50% of AMI, and “Extremely-Low Income” means a household with an
income at 30% of AMI.
February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
Residential Impact Fees
3
Legal and Policy Context: Impact fees are charges imposed by jurisdictions that can be used to
support and build new development. Since the 1970s, California cities have used impact fees to reduce
costs paid by the public for items like roads, parks, schools, water and sewer. The money generated by
housing impact fees is placed into a fund to help pay for new affordable housing. Fees can be set per
square foot, per unit or by some other measure, and can only be applied to new development projects.
Before being adopted, jurisdictions must show that there is a connection, or nexus, between the impacts
of development and the fees charged.
A nexus study assesses the connection between new development and the need for new affordable
housing. This is accomplished by calculating the number, type and salaries of jobs that will result from a
new development. The study then establishes the maximum impact fee that can legally be charg ed to a
developer for each type of development being studied. Residential developments include townhomes,
condominiums and apartments.
The logic behind impact fee nexus studies is that residents of new housing spend money on goods and
services like landscaping, childcare and restaurants. Many of the workers providing these services and
working at these new businesses earn lower wages, and cannot afford to buy or rent a home at market-
rate. Nexus studies calculate the maximum fees that would be necessary t o bridge the difference
between what these new worker households can afford to pay, and the cost of developing housing units
to accommodate them.
While a nexus study will inform a jurisdiction about the maximum amount it can legally charge as an
impact fee, the maximum fee level may not be appropriate given local housing market conditions,
existing fee levels in the region or the jurisdiction’s current fee structure. A feasibility study considers
these conditions and recommends a more appropriate range of fees that do not unduly burden or lessen
the profitability of new development. The study prepared by Seifel Consulting evaluates the feasibility of
residential impact fees on both rental and for-sale development, utilizing recently obtained market data.
Proposed Fee Structure: At the November 14th City Council meeting, the Council provided direction for
a tiered fee structure, with tiers based on residential density, and whether a project is rental or for sale.
As demonstrated in the Seifel Consulting study, rental projects have a significantly lower developer
margin/return compared to for sale projects, so therefore the feasibility of a rental project is more
sensitive to variables in cost such as impact fees. Likewise, the feasibility of a lower density project is
more sensitive to fees than a higher density project because the fixed costs are distributed over fewer
units.
Table 1 summarizes the fee structure proposed by the City Council at its November 14th meeting:
February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
Residential Impact Fees
4
TABLE 1:
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE
Impact Fee – Per Square Foot
Base With Prevailing /
Area Wage
Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above
Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 / sq ft $14.00 / sq ft
51-70 du/ac $20.00 / sq ft $17.00 / sq ft
71 du/ac and above $30.00 / sq ft $25.00 / sq ft
For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above
$35.00 / sq ft $30.00 / sq ft
Notes:
1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt.
2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt.
3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of
construction would be subject to the fee differential as a condition of conversion.
In-Lieu Option: Developers would have an “in-lieu” option where the developer could choose to provide
an affordable unit or units on site in lieu of submitting the impact fee. Whether a developer would choose
an on-site option would depend on a number of factors such as the amount of the impact fe e, the size of
the development, the comparable cost of underwriting the affordable units for the designated time period
and affordability level, and whether the ownership of the development is expected to be retained or sold
at completion of construction. For example, a developer building apartments that they intend to own and
manage for an extended time frame may have a different perspective and make a different choice than a
developer building condominiums to be sold with completion of construction.
At the November 14th City Council meeting, the Council provided direction for in-lieu options for both
rental and for sale projects:
Rental Multifamily – 10% of the units affordable to Moderate Income households (80% - 120%
AMI) for a period of 55 years
For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 10% of the units affordable to Above-Moderate Income
households (120% - 150% AMI, with the price set at the 135% AMI level) for a period of 55 years
Potential Revenues: Estimating potential fees anticipated to be collected depends on a number of
variables, including the residential densities, sizes of units (since the fees are typically based on square
feet, not number of units), and the sliding scale of the fees themselves. The proposed ordinance would
also provide discounts for projects paying prevailing construction wages, similar to the model the City
adopted for commercial linkage fees. Furthermore, if an in-lieu option is offered, the impact fees collected
would be lower depending on how many units are built with projects.
Upon adoption, residential impact fees will apply to new residential projects that have not had
applications deemed complete as of the effective date of the ordinance implementing the fee. In the near
term (within the next five years), staff estimates that there could be potentially 400 to 600 new units that
have been discussed in conjunction with the update of the General Plan, based on property owner input,
February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
Residential Impact Fees
5
and factoring the residential densities proposed in the Draft General Plan. Over the course of the
General Plan, up to 2,951 units are projected through the year 2040.
Table 2 below provides rough estimates of the range of potential fees that could be collected, working
with the assumption that applications for 400 to 600 new units may be contemplated in the near term
(approximately 5 years). For purposes of the estimate, the assumption is an average unit size of 850
square feet. The estimate provides a range of potential fees based on:
Lowest fee - $14.00/sq ft for a rental project 50 units/acre or less with prevailing/area wage
Medium/Average fee - $23.50/sq ft based on an average of all fee levels
High fee - $30.00/sq ft based on prevalence of higher density rental projects and/or for
sale/condominium projects
TABLE 2:
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL NEAR-TERM HOUSING IMPACT FEES
Units
Floor Area
(assuming 850
sf/unit)
Housing Impact
Fees – Low
($14.00/sf)
Housing Impact
Fees –
Medium/Average
($23.50/sf)
Housing Impact
Fees – High
($30.00/sf)
400 340,000 $4,760,000 $7,990,000 $10,200,000
600 510,000 $7,140,000 $11,985,000 $15,300,000
Table 3 below includes three scenarios that adjust for the in-lieu option, whereby some or most projects
would choose to provide an affordable unit or units on site in lieu of submitting the impact fee. These
scenarios are hypothetical, as it is not possible to forecast what proportion of new projects would choose
the in-lieu option; the scenarios are presented for informational purposes.
TABLE 3:
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL NEAR-TERM HOUSING IMPACT FEES
Units
Housing Impact
Fees – Low
($14.00/sf)
Housing Impact
Fees –
Medium/Average
($23.50/sf)
Housing Impact
Fees – High
($30.00/sf)
400 Units
25% projects utilize in-lieu option $3,570,000 $5,992,500 $7,650,000
50% projects utilize in-lieu option $2,380,000 $3,995,000 $5,100,000
75% projects utilize in-lieu option $1,190,000 $1,997,500 $2,550,000
600 Units
25% projects utilize in-lieu option $5,355,000 $8,988,750 $11,475,000
50% projects utilize in-lieu option $3,570,000 $5,992,500 $7,650,000
75% projects utilize in-lieu option $1,785,000 $2,996,250 $3,825,000
February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
Residential Impact Fees
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should review the draft ordinance and resolution, conduct a public hearing,
and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission should take action on a
recommendation to the City Council.
Prepared by:
Kevin Gardiner
Community Development Director
Exhibits:
Exhibit A – Proposed Residential Impact Fee Chapter 25.82
“Financial Analysis of Proposed Affordable Housing Program, City of Burlingame” – Seifel
Consulting
Proposed Resolutions
Notice of Public Hearing – Published January 31, 2019
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 25.82 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES
25.82.010 Purpose.
25.82.020 Def initions.
25.82.030 Residential impact fees.
25.82.040 Fee payment.
25.82.050 State Density Bonus.
25.82.060 Exemptions.
25.82.070 Alternatives.
25.82.080 Affordable housing plan and agreement.
25.82.090 Standards for development.
25.82.100 Affordable housing fund.
25.82.110 Administrative relief /appeal.
25.82.120 Enforcement.
25.82.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to:
(a) Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad
range of households with varying income levels within the city as mandated by State law,
including California Government Code Section 65580 and related provisions .
(b) Offset the demand for affordable housing that is created by new development
and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany new residential development by
protecting the economic diversity of the City’s housing stock; reducing traffic, transit and related
air quality impacts; promoting jobs/housing balance; and reducing the demands placed on
transportation infrastructure in the region.
(c) Promote the City’s policy to provide an adequate number of affordable housing
units to the city’s housing stock in proportion to the existing or projected need in the community,
as identified by the Housing Element.
(d) Support the Housing Element goal of providing housing opportunities for those
who work in Burlingame.
(e) Support the Housing Element goal of achieving increased affordability of
housing.
(f) Support the Housing Element policy of developing of a variety of housing types
that are affordable to very low and extremely low income households.
2
(g) Support the Housing Element goal of preserving residential character by
encouraging maintenance, improvement and rehabilitation of the City’s neighborhoods and
housing stock.
25.82.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the f ollowing terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) "Administrator" means the Community Development Director of the City or other
person designated by the City Manager.
(b) “Affordable housing fund” means a separate fund or account designated by the
City to maintain and account for all monies received pursuant to this Chapter.
(c) “Affordable ownership cost” means the sales price of a for-sale affordable unit
resulting in projected average monthly housing payments, during the first calendar year of a
household's occupancy, including interest, principal, mortgage insurance, property taxes,
homeowners insurance, homeowners' association dues, if any, and a reasonable allowance for
utilities, property maintenance, and repairs, not exceeding the sales prices specified by Section
50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations Title 25,
Sections 6910-6924, as they may be amended from time to time.
(d) “Affordable rent” means the total monthly housing expenses for an affordable
rental unit not exceeding the rents specified by Section 50053 of the California Health and
Safety Code and California Code of Regulations Title 25, Sections 6910-6924, as they may be
amended from time to time. As used in this Chapter, "affordable rent" shall include the total of
monthly payments by the tenant for all of the following: (1) use and occupancy of the rental unit
and land and all facilities associated with the rental unit, including but not limited to parking,
bicycle storage, storage lockers, and use of all common areas; (2) any additional separately
charged fees or service charges assessed by the owner, other than security deposits; (3) an
allowance for utilities paid by the tenant as established by the San Mateo County Housing
Authority, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas, and other heating,
cooking. and refrigeration fuel, but not telephone service or cable N; and (4) any other intere st,
taxes, fees or charges for use of the land or affordable unit or associated facilities and assessed
by a public or private entity other than the owner, and paid by the tenant.
(e) “Affordable unit” means a dwelling unit which a builder proposes as an
alternative to payment of the residential impact fee, as defined in this Chapter and which is
required to be rented at a rate affordable to very low, low or moderate income households, or
sold at an affordable ownership cost to very low, low or moderate income households.
(f) "Builder" (may also be referred to as developer) means any person, firm,
partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or combination of entities
which seeks City approvals for all or part of a residential development project.
3
(g) "Building permit" includes f ull structural building permits as well as partial
permits such as f oundation-only permits.
(h) “Decision-making body” means the City staff person or body authorized to
approve or deny an application for a planning or building permit for a residential development
project.
(i) "First approval" means the first discretionary approval to occur with respect to a
residential development project, or, for residential development projects not requiring a
discretionary approval, the issuance of a building permit.
(j) "For-sale unit" means a residential dwelling unit that may be sold individually in
conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. For-sale units also include units that are converted
from rental units to for-sale units.
(k) “Low income households" means households with incomes no greater than the
maximum income for low income households, as published annually by the County of San
Mateo for each household size, based on United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) income limits for San Mateo County, unless stated otherwise in this chapter.
(l) “Market rate unit" means a new dwelling unit in a residential development
project that is not an affordable unit.
(m) "Median income" means the median income applicable to San Mateo County,
as published annually by the County of San Mateo for each household size, based on median
income data for San Mateo County published by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), unless stated otherwise in this chapter.
(n) "Moderate income households" means households with incomes no greater
than the maximum income for moderate income households, as published annually by the
County of San Mateo for each household size, based on United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) income limits for San Mateo County, unless stated otherwise in this
chapter.
(o) "Planning permit" means any discretionary approval of a development project,
including but not limited to a comprehensive or specif ic plan adoption or amendment, rezoning,
tentative map, parcel map, conditional use permit, variances, or architectural review.
(p) "Rental unit" means a dwelling unit that is intended to be offered for rent or
lease and that cannot be sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act.
(q) "Residential development project" means an application for a planning permit or
building permit at one location to create one or more additional dwelling units, convert
nonresidential uses to dwelling units, subdivide a parcel to create one or more separately
transferable parcels intended for residential development, or implement a condominium
4
conversion, including development constructed at one time as well as in phases. “One location”
includes all adjacent parcels of land under common ownership or control, the property lines of
which are contiguous at any point, or the property lines of which are separated only by a public
or private street, road, or other public or private right-of-way, or separated only by the lands
owned or controlled by the builder.
(r) “Residential floor area” means all horizontal areas of the several floors of such
buildings measured from the exterior faces or exterior walls or from the center line of party walls
separating two (2) buildings, minus the horizontal areas of such buildings used exclusively for
covered porches, patios, or other outdoor space, amenities and common space, parking,
elevators, stairwells or stairs between floors, hallways, and between-unit circulation.
(s) "Very low income households" means households with incomes no greater than
the maximum income for very low income households, as published annually by the County of
San Mateo for each household size, based on United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) income limits for San Mateo County, unless stated otherwise in this chapter.
25.82.030 Residential Impact Fees.
(a) Initial fees shall be imposed on new residential development projects as
follows:
Impact Fee – Per Square Foot
Base With Prevailing /
Area Wage
Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above
Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 / sq ft $14.00 / sq ft
51-70 du/ac $20.00 / sq ft $17.00 / sq ft
71 du/ac and above $30.00 / sq ft $25.00 / sq ft
For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above
$35.00 / sq ft $30.00 / sq ft
(b) Fees shall be based on the calculation of the residential floor area as defined
in this chapter, and shall include a credit for existing uses. The Council may amend these fees
through the public hearing process for the City’s Master Fee Schedule. Residential impact
f ees shall not exceed the cost of mitigating the impact of the residential development projects
on the need f or aff ordable housing in the city.
(c) Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of
construction would be subject to the fee differential between rental and for sale units as a
condition of conversion.
25.82.040 Fee payment.
Any residential impact fee shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of the first building permit for
the residential development project subject to the f ee or at a time otherwise specified by Council
5
resolution. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the
building permit is issued.
25.82.050 State Density Bonus.
For residential development projects that are granted a density bonus pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65915, et seq. (the “State Density Bonus Law”), the residential
impact fee shall apply to all market-rate units, including any additional market-rate units
provided under the State Density Bonus Law. The required residential impact fee shall be
reduced to the extent that any affordable units mitigate the market rate units’ impact on the need
for affordable housing in the City. The Community Development Director may issue guidelines
from time to time regarding the calculation of any fee reduction.
25.82.060 Exemptions.
(a) The following residential development projects are exempt from the provisions
of this chapter:
(1) Rental Multifamily projects with a total of ten (10) units or fewer.
(2) For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with a total of six (6) units or fewer.
(3) Projects that have established a vested right not to be subject to this chapter.
(4) Applications under review by the Planning Commission or Community
Development Department that had been deemed complete at the time of adoption of the
residential impact fees provided for in this Chapter.
(b) The City Council may elect to waive payment of the residential impact fee if it
finds that: (1) the residential development project is dedicated to a public use owned and
operated by other public agencies or a nonprofit public benefit corporation; and (2) the benefits
to the community provided by such public use exceed those that would be provided by the
payment of the residential impact fee. If the City Council elects to waive residential impact fees
pursuant to this provision, the public use of the site shall be guaranteed by a recorded
document in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
(c) The City Council by resolution may adopt additional exemptions from time to
time.
25.82.70 Alternatives.
(a) Alternatives available to projects requiring an impact f ee. As an alternative to
compliance with the impact fee requirements included in this Article, developers of residential
development projects may propose to mitigate the affordable housing impacts of such
development through the construction of affordable units on site or through an alternative
mitigation program proposed by the developer and the Community Development Director, such
as the provision of off-site affordable units, donation of land for the construction of affordable
6
units, or purchase of existing units for conversion to affordable units. Any such conversion must
include a guarantee of affordability for a period of 55 years.
(1) If a Rental Multifamily project provides ten percent (10%) of the units on site to
be affordable to moderate income households (in this instance 80% - 120% AMI) for a period of
55 years, the impacts of residential development on the need for affordable housing shall be
deemed mitigated.
(2) If a For Sale Multifamily (Townhome/Condominium) project provides ten percent
(10%) of the units on site to be affordable to above-moderate income households (in this
instance 120% - 150% AMI, with the price set at the 135% AMI level) for a period of 55 years,
the impacts of residential development on the need for affordable housing shall be deemed
mitigated.
(3) Any affordable rental or for-sale units proposed as an alternative to the payment
of the residential impact fee shall be subject to the requirements described in Chapter
25.82.070.
(b) Approval of off-site affordable units. If a developer proposes off-site affordable
units or any other alternative in the affordable housing plan required under Chapter 25.82.080
(Affordable housing plan and agreement), the review authority may approve such a proposal if it
finds the proposal meets all of the following conditions:
(1) Financing or a viable financing plan, which may include public funding sources,
is in place for the proposed affordable housing units; and
(2) The proposed location is suitable for the proposed affordable housing, is
consistent with the Housing Element, general plan, and zoning, and will not cause residential
segregation; and
(3) The proposed units will be maintained as affordable for a period of 55 years.
(c) Other alternatives. The City may consider an alternative mitigation program
proposed by the developer and the Community Development Director, such as the provision of
off-site affordable units, donation of land for the construction of affordable units, purchase of
existing units for conversion to affordable units or alternatives to Section 25.82.090 (Standards
for development).
(d) Agreement with City for f inancing. If the City enters into a financing agreement
with the applicant, the parties may agree to alter the requirements of Section 25.82.090
(Standards for development).
(e) Significant number of affordable units. If an applicant exceeds the maximum
percentage of affordable units set forth in the State Density Bonus law for low or very low
income rental or moderate income ownership units, the City will consider an applicant’s request
to alter the requirements of Section 25.82.090 (Standards for development) in conjunction with
7
its review of the planning application for the project and may reject or accept the request in its
sole discretion.
25.82.80 Affordable housing plan and agreement.
(a) If the builder seeks an alternative to the payment of the residential impact fee
pursuant to Section 25.82.70 (Alternatives), the application for the first approval of a residential
development project for which the alternative is sought shall include an "affordable housing
plan" that describes how the alternative will comply with the provisions of this Chapter. No
affordable housing plan is required if the builder proposes only to pay the residential impact fee.
(1) Residential development projects requesting an alternative to payment of the
residential impact fee require that an affordable housing plan be submitted in conformance with
this Chapter prior to the application being deemed complete.
(2) The affordable housing plan shall be processed concurrently with all other
permits required for the residential development project. Before approving the affordable
housing plan, the decision- making body shall find that the affordable housing plan conforms to
this Chapter. A condition shall be attached to the first approval of any residential development
project to require recordation of an affordable housing agreement, as described in this
subsection, prior to the approval of any final or parcel map or building permit for the residential
development project.
(3) The approved affordable housing plan may be amended prior to issuance of any
building permit for the residential development project. A request for a minor modification of an
approved affordable housing plan may be granted by the Community Development Director if
the modification is substantially in compliance with the original affordable housing plan and
conditions of approval. Other modifications to the affordable housing plan shall be processed in
the same manner as the original plan.
(4) If required to ensure compliance with the approved affordable housing plan,
affordable housing agreements acceptable to the Community Development Director or d esignee
shall be recorded against the residential development project prior to or concurrently with and
as a condition of approval of any final or parcel map, or issuance of any building permit,
whichever occurs first. The affordable housing agreement shall specify the number, type,
location, size, and phasing of all affordable units, provisions for income certification and
screening of potential purchasers or renters of units, and resale control mechanisms, including
the financing of ongoing administrative and monitoring costs, consistent with the approved
affordable housing plan, as determined by the Community Development Director r designee.
(b) After approval of the application, applicant shall enter into a regulatory
agreement with the City. The terms of this agreement shall be approved as to form by the City
Attorney’s Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the reviewing City official. This
agreement shall be on a form provided by the City, and shall include the following terms:
(1) The affordability of very low, lower, and moderate income housing shall be
assured in a manner consistent with this chapter.
8
(2) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code Section
65915(c)(2).
(3) The location, dwelling unit sizes, rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the
affordable units.
(4) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City.
(5) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this
section, and as applicable sections of State Density Bonus law.
25.82.090 Standards for development.
(a) All affordable units provided pursuant to Chapter 25.82.070 shall meet the
following standards:
(1) The required affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with
market-rate units unless both the final decision-making authority of the City and developer agree
within the affordable housing agreement to an alternative schedule for development.
(2) The exterior design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be
consistent with the exterior design and construction of the total project development, and be
consistent with any affordable residential development standards that may be prepared by the
City.
(3) The affordable units shall have the same amenities as the market rate units,
including the same access to and enjoyment of common open space, parking, storage, and
other facilities in the residential development, provided at an affordable rent as defined in
Chapter 25.82.020 or at affordable ownership cost as defined in Chapter 25.82.020.
Developers are strictly prohibited from discriminating against tenants or owners of affordable
units in granting access to and full enjoyment of any community amenities available to other
tenants or owners outside of their individual units.
(4) A regulatory agreement, as described in Section 25.82.080 (Affordable housing
plan and agreement), shall be made a condition of the discretionary permits for all
developments pursuant to this chapter. The regulatory agreement shall be recorded as a
restriction on the development.
25.82.100 Affordable housing fund.
(a) Special Revenue Fund. A fund for the deposit of fees established under this
chapter shall be established and may also receive monies for housing from other sources.
(b) Purpose and Limitations. Monies deposited in the fund shall be used to
increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income households. Such purpose includes the purchase of affordability
9
covenants or similar initiatives whose purpose is to preserve existing affordable housing that
may otherwise be lost due to market conditions. Monies may also be used to cover reasonable
administrative or related expenses associated with the administration of this chapter.
(c) Administration. The fund shall be administered by the Administrator, who may
develop procedures to implement the purposes of the fund consistent with the requirements of
this chapter and subject to any adopted budget of the City and generally applicable accounting
and procurement processes.
(d) Expenditures. Fund monies shall be used in accordance with the City’s
Housing Element, or subsequent plans adopted by the City Council to maintain or increase the
quantity, quality, and variety of affordable housing units or assist other governmental entities,
private organizations or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include, but are not limited to,
land acquisition, debt service, parcel assemblage, gap financing, housing rehabilitation, grants,
unit acquisition, new construction, and other pursuits associated with providing affordable
housing. The fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing.
25.82.110 Administrative Relief/Appeal.
(a) The builder of a project subject to this chapter may request that the
requirements of this chapter be waived or modified by the City Council, based upon the absence
of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impacts of the development and either the
amount of the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed.
(b) The application shall be made in writing and filed with the Community
Development Director not later than:
(1) Twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission on
the development project application under this title, or
(2) If no hearing before the Planning Commission is required by this title, at the time
of the filing of the application for a development permit.
(3) The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver,
reduction, or adjustment.
(c) The City Council shall consider the application at a public hearing held within
sixty (60) days after the filing of the fee adjustment application. If a reduction, adjustment or
waiver is granted, any change in use within the development project shall invalidate the waiver,
adjustment or reduction of the fee. The decision of the City Council is final.
25.82.120 Enforcement.
(a) Payment of the residential linkage fee is the obligation of the builder of a
residential development project. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or
10
proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions to
revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval.
(b) The City Attorney shall be authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter
and all below market rate housing agreements, regulatory agreements, and all other covenants
or restrictions placed on affordable units, by civil action and any other proceeding or method
permitted by law.
(c) Failure of any official or agency to fulfill the requirements of this chapter shall not
excuse any builder or owner from the requirements of this chapter. No permit, license, map, or
other approval or entitlement for a commercial development project shall be issued, including
without limitation a final inspection or certificate of occupancy, until all applicable requirements
of this chapter have been satisfied.
(d) The remedies provided for in this chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive
and shall not preclude the City from any other remedy or relief to which it otherwise would be
entitled under law or equity.
Financial Analysis of Proposed Affordable Housing Program
City of Burlingame
For many years, new housing development in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the growing demand
for housing. This is particularly true of San Mateo County, where strong economic growth has intensified
housing demand, leading to rapid increases in home prices and rents. As a result, many local residents and
workers are not able to afford housing in the County and the City of Burlingame.
The local jurisdictions within San Mateo County commissioned a coordinated set of residential nexus
studies to help mitigate the impacts that new residential development has on the provision of affordable
housing. Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates prepared the City of Burlingame
Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study in 2015 (Nexus Study) as part of this countywide effort.
The Nexus Study evaluated development revenues (rents and sales prices), development costs and
potential housing impact fees for the three most typical types of development in the City of Burlingame—
single family attached, condominiums and apartments. The Nexus Study also performed a financial
feasibility analysis of these three housing prototypes in order to develop recommendations regarding the
feasible range of fees per square foot of residential development that the City could consider adopting.
In general, the recommended fee levels in the Nexus Study for Burlingame range from $25 to $50 per
square foot, while the maximum justified fee amounts according to the Nexus Study for Burlingame range
from $50 to $85 per square foot, as shown below in Figure I-1 from the Nexus Study.
The City of Burlingame asked Seifel Consulting Inc. (Seifel) to prepare an updated financial analysis to
help the City evaluate the potential adoption of new impact fees on residential development and the best
strategies to incentivize the onsite provision of affordable housing within new development as part of the
City’s affordable housing program.
This report summarizes the findings from Seifel’s financial analysis, which was initially presented to the
City Council in July 2018. This report is organized into the following sections, which are accompanied by
tables and charts as further described below:
A. Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................... 2
B. Infill Development Challenges and Opportunities ........................................................................... 3
C. Current Development Conditions in the City of Burlingame ........................................................... 7
D. Financial Analysis of Housing Fee Alternatives ........................................................................... 12
E. Financial Analysis of Onsite Affordable Housing Provision ........................................................ 17
F. Financial Feasibility of Onsite Affordable Housing Provision ..................................................... 24
G. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 27
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 2
A. Summary of Findings
This report presents the key financial considerations associated with achieving new residential
development in the City of Burlingame and an updated development feasibility analysis to help the City
evaluate how to incentivize the onsite provision of affordable housing within new development as part of
its affordable housing program, which is proposed to include the adoption of housing fees on new
residential development. The report concludes with potential policies that the City may want to consider
implementing in order to encourage the provision of onsite affordable housing.
As rents and prices have continued to increase, the difference between the cost of housing and what many
households can afford to pay for housing has increased, leading to a widening “affordability gap” for new
housing. In order for new development to be financially feasible when including onsite affordable
housing units, the cost of providing new affordable housing must be able to be factored into the total costs
of developing housing while still leaving sufficient developer margin or return to allow development to
go forward.
Developing infill housing development in Bay Area cities like Burlingame is typically challenging and
risky to undertake given the uncertainties of the development process, and is costly due to the broad range
of development cost factors discussed in this report. For example, land prices and construction costs
(including parking) have risen rapidly in recent years, significantly affecting development feasibility for
new housing, particularly for multifamily apartments where apartment rents have not been increasing as
fast as construction costs.
Depending on the total development costs associated with new apartments, rental units may not yield
sufficient returns to attract capital (creating a development feasibility gap). Higher density alternatives,
however, are more feasible when land values are significantly less on a per unit basis, providing greater
opportunities for developers to pay for public requirements such as affordable housing. Onsite affordable
housing requirements that are focused on moderate income households (earning between 80% and 120%
of Areawide Median Income) are more financially feasible and best correlate to citywide housing fee
levels ranging from $15 to $25 per square foot on residential development. (This range of fee levels was
tested in this financial analysis based on guidance from City staff, and takes into account housing fee
levels in surrounding cities.)
Housing prices in the Bay Area have been increasing rapidly, and most buyers need significant cash or
“trade-up” value in homes to afford new units, making it much more difficult for first-time homebuyers to
purchase a new home. Constructing for-sale housing units is typically more financially feasible in
Burlingame as compared to constructing apartments given the high prices for new homes. However, the
affordability gap for new homes is significant, particularly for large single family attached units
(townhomes). The financial analysis indicates that housing fees at $25/SF can be supported by new
ownership development, and onsite affordable housing requirements focused on households between
110% and 135% AMI are financially feasible, assuming reasonable land and construction costs.
This analysis finds that the City of Burlingame may want to consider providing an onsite housing
development alternative to the payment of housing fees that is primarily focused on addressing the
housing needs of households earning between 80% and 135% Areawide Median Income and that requires
the provision of 10 percent of total units as affordable housing units. For apartments, the provision of
onsite housing is best accomplished with projects that provide a higher range of densities and have
parking requirements similar to what is allowed in State Density Bonus Law for mixed income
developments. For single family attached units, allowing affordable housing units to be a smaller size
than what is typically built in single family attached developments significantly enhances the ability of
developers to provide onsite housing units at affordable sales prices while maintaining development
feasibility.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 3
B. Infill Development Challenges and Opportunities
As described by the Urban Land Institute, the infill development process is complex and challenging but
provides significant opportunities to create vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods.1 As demand for urban
living continues to increase, developers are increasingly undertaking new housing development that
replaces or intensifies existing uses, often as part of mixed-use developments with housing above ground-
floor retail or other commercial uses.
In order to develop new infill housing, developers must prepare a proposed residential development
program, undertake a series of technical analyses, refine the development program based on input from a
broad variety of stakeholders, and secure government approvals prior to starting construction. This pre-
development period is typically the most risky phase of development, and developers typically need to
raise private investor capital (equity) to fund pre-development costs.
Given the high risks associated with new development not occurring or not occurring as planned,
developers must be able to generate sufficient returns or profit to attract private equity commensurate
with these risks. Private equity must also be raised during the construction and the sales or lease-up
period, as private lenders typically require a 35% to 40% equity contribution for infill housing projects.
Throughout the predevelopment process, and most importantly prior to initiating construction, a
developer must be able to demonstrate to its private capital sources (private investors and lenders) that
there is sufficient developer margin (return) to take into account potential risks and to repay capital at
specified levels of return. In most capital structures, the priority of capital repayment is as follows:
1) construction and permanent lenders, 2) private investors who typically receive a preferred return and a
share of profits that are generated by the development and 3) the developer.2
Figure B-1 below illustrates the development feasibility framework for new development, which shows
the typical costs of development, the supportable project costs based on a target return, and the projected
developer margin (or return) after taking into account all development costs.
Figure B-1
Development Feasibility Framework Per Residential Unit
1 https://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/making-infill-work-floridas-urban-cores/
2 The developer is often allowed to receive a reimbursement for developer project management and overhead costs to manage the
development process out of the construction loan proceeds.
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
Developer Margin
Government Fees
Other Soft Costs
Construction Financing
Parking Construction
Hard Construction Cost
Demolition and Site
Improvements
Land
Developer Margin
Project
Costs
Supportable
Project Costs
Project Value
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 4
Figure B-2 illustrates the typical development costs associated with infill development, which include the
direct costs of new development (demolition costs, site improvement, parking, and building hard
construction) and the indirect costs of new development (also known as soft costs, which include
government fees, architecture and engineering, construction financing, and other soft costs).
Figure B-2
Typical Development Costs for Infill Development
Building construction costs are the most significant cost component to developing housing. Residential
building costs increase based on the type of construction, with wood-frame development (referred to as
“Type V” construction) being the least expensive, and concrete/steel, fire-resistive development (referred
to as “Type I” construction) being the most expensive on a per square foot basis. Most of the new
residential development in Burlingame is Type V wood-frame construction built over a concrete podium
slab with parking below, or underground parking.
Parking costs are a major contributor to residential construction costs as the costs of constructing a
parking space within a building can range from $40,000 to $70,000 per space depending on the location
of the parking and the site conditions, as shown in Figure B-3. (For example, the cost of building
underground parking is higher in locations that require significant environmental remediation and/or have
high water tables.) Requiring substantial amounts of ground floor retail space and associated parking also
significantly increases costs.
Figure B-3
Typical Parking Construction Cost Per Space
Land
Demolition and
Site
Improvements
Hard
Construction
Cost Parking
Construction
Construction
Financing
Other Soft Costs
Government
Fees
Developer
Margin
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
Surface With
Carport
Above Grade
Podium Structure
Partially Below
Grade Structure
Below Grade
Structure, 1 Level
Below Grade
Structure, 2+
Levels
Mechanical Lift
Parking (Podium)
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 5
Residential construction costs have increased significantly since 2015 due to rapid increases in material
costs (including lumber, concrete and steel) and robust demand for construction labor and subcontractors.
Some construction experts report that construction costs on the Peninsula have annually increased
between 10% and 15% over the past two to three years.
Land costs are also a major contributor to development costs, and they vary widely for infill development.
Land costs are determined by the marketplace based on the price at which property owners are willing to
sell their property and what developers can afford to pay for land after taking into account all non-land
related development costs including a sufficient allowance for developer margin or return. This “residual”
value of land for future residential uses (often referred to as “residual land value”) must exceed the
property’s value given its current use. Figure B-4 below illustrates how developers typically calculate
residual land value to determine how much they can afford to pay for property acquisition.
Figure B-4
Residual Land Value Per Residential Unit
Since most infill sites in Burlingame that might be developed as housing have existing buildings
generating rental income, the developer must typically pay an amount that is significantly higher than the
existing property value based on this rental income to incentivize the owner to sell. Some property owners
require developers to purchase property outright, while others are willing to allow developers to pay for
the opportunity to develop property in the future by entering into an option to purchase property.
Typically, land purchase options provide for a certain period of time during which a developer can
undertake pre-development activities, and option payments typically increase over time, particularly if
performance milestones are not met. At some point, most property owners require developers to purchase
property outright or let the option expire if the pre-development process extends for a long time.
In summary, developing residential infill development is costly in cities like Burlingame and others on
the Peninsula due to the following cost factors:
• Expensive property acquisition costs, particularly in areas of high demand such as Burlingame.
• Significant environmental mitigation and remediation costs.
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
Developer Margin
Government Fees
Other Soft Costs
Construction Financing
Parking Construction
Hard Construction Cost
Demolition and Site
Improvements
Land
Developer Margin
Project
Costs
(except
land)
Residual Land Value
Project Value
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 6
• Public infrastructure and facility upgrades to accommodate new development.
• Complex governmental approval process that can take a long time to complete and can result in
significant modifications to the development program and architectural design from what is
originally proposed.
• Public fees for municipal costs related to land use planning, application processing, permits and
public infrastructure/facilities (development impact fees).
• Higher cost of capital and investor return thresholds as projects take longer and often have unique
project components that are more difficult to underwrite.
• Expensive construction costs due to the inclusion of structured parking (particularly underground
parking) and the vertical integration of multiple uses with different design and construction
requirements.
These development costs have rapidly increased in the Bay Area since 2015, making it much more
difficult for residential infill development to be financially feasible than what was analyzed and reported
in the Nexus Study.
Based on discussions with real estate professionals, infill development in the Bay Area is likely going to
continue to be challenging to undertake for the following reasons:
• Despite the fact that the United States has experienced a very long economic expansion since the
last recession, the Federal Reserve continues to think that the United States is still in a period of
moderate economic expansion.3
• Interest rates have been at historic lows but are anticipated to continue to increase over time as
evidenced by the recent interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve.
• Capitalization rates, which are used to measure property values, tend to increase over time as
interest rates increase. As cap rates increase, underwriters typically lower their expectation of
future property values.4
• Construction costs are anticipated to continue to increase given the high demand for construction,
particularly given the rebuilding activity after the recent fires in California.
• Housing supply in the Bay Area is not keeping pace with demand. For example, in high
employment growth, Bayside areas like San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, only one housing
unit was built for every 15 jobs created between 2011 to 2015, according to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.5
• Due to high housing demand, the housing affordability gap has widened for many households in
the Bay Area.
• Apartment rent growth has flattened on the Peninsula, in part due to the housing affordability
crisis, as many households cannot afford to pay higher market rate apartment rents.
• While moderate economic expansion is projected in the near term, an economic recession will
likely emerge sometime in the next few years based on historical experience, which will
significantly affect future housing development conditions.
3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20180406a.htm
4 A capitalization rate is equal to the ratio of a property’s net operating income to its purchase price or value. Low cap rates mean
that properties are perceived by the market place to have a high value in relationship to their income producing potential.
5 https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/san_francisco_cma_board_presentation.pdf
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 7
C. Current Development Conditions in the City of Burlingame
As described earlier, the Nexus Study evaluated development conditions in the City of Burlingame for the
purpose of developing housing fee recommendations. The first step in the financial analysis was to review
the Nexus Study in order to understand the core development assumptions and methodologies used in the
Nexus Study for the three most typical types of development in the City of Burlingame—apartments,
condominiums and single family attached units (townhomes).
City staff provided a variety of information and input regarding recent residential development in
Burlingame for each of these residential types, including residential densities and development programs.
Seifel also collaborated with The Concord Group to assemble residential market data for Burlingame and
surrounding cities for the three housing types. Seifel interviewed developers undertaking projects in
Burlingame and nearby cities in order to gather recent data regarding local development conditions,
residential unit sizes, residential revenues, development costs and land prices.
In consultation with City staff, Seifel has evaluated the same three housing types and parcel sizes as
previously analyzed in the Nexus Study, but the development characteristics for each prototype have been
modified to reflect recent development experience in the City of Burlingame as follows:
• Multifamily apartments on a 3-acre site– three apartment scenarios have been analyzed at
densities of 50, 70 and 120 dwelling units per acre (dua)
• Condominiums on a .5-acre site– one condominium (condo) scenario at 50 dua
• Single family attached (SFA) homes on a 1.7-acre site– one SFA scenario at 18 dua
Table C-1 below summarizes the key characteristics of each residential prototype.
Table C-1
Summary of Development Characteristics for Residential Prototypes
Building Characteristics
Apartments
(50 dua)
Apartments
(70 dua)
Apartments
(120 dua)Condominiums
Single Family
Attached
(For Sale)
Building Type Wood-Frame Wood-Frame Wood-Frame Wood-Frame Wood-Frame
Total Residential Units 150 210 360 25 31
Residential Net Square Feet (NSF)127,500 174,300 288,000 25,000 46,500
Average Unit Size (NSF)850 830 800 1,000 1,500
Parking Type Podium Podium Podium Underground Tuck-Under
Efficiency Factor a 70%70%70%80%85%
Residential Gross Square Footage (GSF)182,143 249,000 411,429 31,250 54,706
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) b 1.4 1.9 3.1 1.4 0.7
Land Area (SF)130,680 130,680 130,680 21,780 74,052
Land Area (Acres)3.00 3.00 3.00 0.50 1.70
Units per Acre 50 70 120 50 18
Notes:
(a) Ratio of residential net square footage to residential gross square footage
(b) Floor area ratio (FAR) measures density by dividing residential gross building area by total site area
Source: The Concord Group, Seifel Consulting Inc.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 8
1. Development Revenues
Revenues from new residential development are generated from the following sources:
• Rental revenues, which are generated by the monthly rental of apartments, and the associated
market value of an apartment unit, based on this rental income.6
• Sale of residential units, either from the sale of single family attached homes or condominiums.
The Concord Group (TCG) assembled residential market data for the three housing product types for the
City of Burlingame and surrounding cities in the northern part of San Mateo County as of May 2018.
TCG gathered residential market data on apartments and for-sale communities in these areas to inform
their analysis. Table C-2 below summarizes the anticipated revenues to be generated by the residential
prototypes based on the residential market analysis prepared by TCG, which has been adjusted to reflect
the typical unit mix being developed in Burlingame. (The supporting market data and analysis prepared
by TCG is included in Appendix 1.)
Table C-2
Summary of Residential Revenues for Residential Prototypes
6 The value of an apartment unit is based on standard appraisal valuation technique using capitalized net operating income (net
operating income divided by an assumed cap rate for apartments).
Prototype
Residential
Net Square
Feet (NSF)
Unit Sales
Price/
Monthy
Rent
Apartments (50 dua)
Type V Wood Frame Average 850 $3,734
50 units per acre Total 127,500
Podium
Apartments (70 dua)
Type V Wood Frame Average 830 $3,651
70 units per acre Total 174,300
Podium
Apartments (120 dua)
Type V Wood Frame Average 800 $3,569
120 units per acre Total 288,000
Podium
Condominiums Average 1,000 $939,000
Type V Wood Frame Total 25,000
50 units per acre
Underground
Single Family Attached (For Sale)
Type V Wood Frame Average 1,500 $1,632,000
18 units per acre Total 46,500
Tuck-Under
Source: The Concord Group, Seifel Consulting Inc.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 9
a. Apartment Rents and Values
Monthly market rents for new apartments in Burlingame are anticipated to range between $2,300 for
studios to about $4,600 for three-bedroom units. Based on a typical mix of units, average market rents for
an apartment building with a typical 800-850 square feet average unit size are estimated to range from
approximately $3,600 to $3,700 per month.
The potential value of an apartment unit is estimated by capitalizing the annual net operating income
using a 4.25% capitalization rate (cap rate) for residential apartments and deducting sales-related
expenses in order to project net apartment revenues for the financial analysis. Net operating income (NOI)
is equal to project revenues less a 5 percent vacancy allowance less operating expenses (including
property taxes). As described earlier, current cap rates are at historically low levels, and this low, 4.25%
cap rate reflects the robust market conditions for housing on the Peninsula. Sales expenses are assumed at
3% of value and include sales/brokerage fees, title/recording fees and other sales related expenses.
b. Condominium and Single Family Attached Sales Prices
Sales prices for condominiums and single family attached units vary based on location, unit size, building
amenities, and whether or not units have a view premium, among other factors. Sales prices for each
housing prototype are based on anticipated sales value per net square foot (NSF) for a typical new
development of comparable height, target market and unit size in developments located in or near
Burlingame.
As the average size of units, design features and amenities typically differ between condominium and
single family attached developments, the projected market pricing takes this into account. Condominium
market sales prices typically range from $900 to $1,000/NSF, and the average price for condominium
units has been assumed to be about $939,000. Single family attached units are typically higher priced,
ranging from $1,000 to $1,100/NSF, and the average price for these units is projected to be about
$1.63 million. (These sales prices are assumed to include the cost of parking.)
2. Development Costs
Development cost assumptions were developed based on a review of the prior Nexus Study assumptions
and interviews with real estate professionals who are actively developing residential projects in the
Peninsula. Development costs vary from project to project but generally consist of three major cost
categories: land, direct costs to improve and construct buildings (also known as hard costs) and indirect
costs that are required to prepare for development (also known as soft costs).
a. Land Costs
As described earlier, most residential infill sites in Burlingame have existing buildings that generate rental
income. Given this, developers must typically purchase property at prices that are significantly higher
than the existing property value based on this rental income to incentivize the owner to sell while
maintaining development feasibility.
Property values in the City of Burlingame (and the Peninsula) vary widely depending on the existing use
of the property and the future use of the property. Based on a review of market data compiled by TCG
and interviews with developers, land values are assumed to range from $200 to $260 per square foot of
land, or about $8.7 million to $11.3 million per acre. However, land costs may be much higher than this
level, particularly when a developer is purchasing a commercial property that achieves high retail and
office rents such as in downtown Burlingame.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 10
For residential development, developers evaluate how much they can afford to pay for land based on the
supportable residual land value per unit under alternative development programs assuming the ultimate
value of the development is sufficient to support development costs and achieve sufficient developer
margin or return thresholds to attract private capital. Developments that can achieve higher numbers of
dwelling units per acre (du/ac) can spread the cost of land over a greater number of housing units, which
typically improves development feasibility.
b. Direct Costs (Hard Costs)
Direct costs include all of the hard construction costs that are associated with new development.
• Demolition and site improvement costs include all of the costs that are required to ready the site
for development, including the demolition of existing structures, completion of the environmental
remediation work and the provision of public and private pathways and landscaped areas of the
project.
• Building hard construction costs include the construction costs related to residential, parking and
any ground floor retail uses.
Residential hard construction costs are based on wood-frame construction over podium or below-grade
parking. All of the hard construction costs include costs related to general conditions plus general
contractor (GC) overhead, profit, insurance and other GC costs. No additional hard cost contingency
factor was assumed in this analysis.
c. Indirect Costs (Soft Costs)
Indirect costs include all of the soft costs that are associated with new development. These include
government fees for planning, permitting and development impact fees, construction financing and other
soft costs, such as professional services (architectural design, engineering, environmental studies, market
analysis, legal, marketing, etcetera).
City staff provided estimates of the potential government fees that would need to be paid for each
prototype to cover fees charged by the City, local School Districts and other public agencies. Developers
use construction loans to finance a large share of the development costs during construction.
The construction financing assumptions take into account today’s low-interest rate environment for
construction loans and relatively conservative equity requirements. Other soft costs are based on
representative percentages of hard construction costs based on a review of pro formas, interviews with
real estate professionals and the prior Nexus Study.
Table C-3 below summarizes the projected development costs associated with each residential prototype
based on these assumptions.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 11
Table C-3
Summary of Development Cost Assumptions for Residential Prototypes
3. Developer Return Metrics
Developers, lenders and investors evaluate and measure returns in several ways. Based on input from real
estate developers, equity investors and lenders, development returns are based on two key measures
typically used by the real estate community: Developer Margin (or Return) and Yield on Cost.
a. Developer Margin or Return
Developer margin or return is equal to the difference between net potential revenues and total
development costs (before consideration of developer return or profit). As described earlier, a developer
will not proceed to build a project unless the project generates sufficient developer margin or return to
warrant the risk and to attract the private capital investment needed to undertake the project.
Developers and investors use different target return on cost (ROC) thresholds depending on the level of
complexity of the project, construction types, construction schedule, sales/rental absorption timeline,
potential equity sources including the use of tax credits. Projects with longer timelines have higher risk
and as a result require a higher return on cost.
The lowest return threshold for mixed income apartments is based on the allowable developer fee (or
return) according to the relevant tax credit regulations used by the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee to implement Federal and State tax credit laws. These regulations allow a maximum developer
fee for new construction 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects that is equal to 15% of the
project’s unadjusted eligible basis, which is approximately 14% of total development costs. (The
unadjusted eligible basis excludes land acquisition costs and a portion of other project costs.)
Market rate return (ROC) to attract private capital investment for market rate developments typically
range from 15% to 25% on total development cost depending on the complexity, size and time frame for
development, as well as whether the development is an apartment development, a for-sale condominium
or a single family attached development.
Development Costs
Apartments
(50 dua)
Apartments
(70 dua)
Apartments
(120 dua)Condominiums
Single Family
Attached
(For Sale)
Direct Costs a
Buliding and Site Improvement Costs per Unit $382,000 $357,000 $347,000 $438,000 $675,000
Indirect Costs b
Permits & Fees (Excl. Housing) c per Unit $18,500 $18,500 $18,500 $26,700 $27,800
Other Soft Costs % of Direct Costs 16%15%15%20%20%
Financing Costs
Loan to Cost Ratio (LTC)% of Dev't Costs 65%65%65%65%65%
Loan Interest Rate 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
Construction/ Absorption Period in months 27 29 35 22 20
Outstanding Balance (Utilization Rate)% of Dev't Costs 60%60%60%60%60%
Loan Fees % of Loan Amount 1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5%
Note: Development costs are based on review of similar project pro formas in the Bay Area and interviews with developers, construction experts, other
real estate professionals, and City staff.
(a) Direct costs include site work, building construction, and parking costs of $60,000 per space for underground parking and $45,000 per space for
podium parking.
(b) Other soft costs include architectural and engineering fees (typically ranging from 5% for larger projects to 7% of direct costs for smaller projects),
taxes, insurance, legal & accounting, developer project management and overhead, sales and marketing and other consultant services.
The higher allowance of indirect costs for ownership housing is attributable to higher cost of sales, marketing and insurance costs. These costs depend
on the size, complexity and time frame of the project, and these percentage estimates assume a streamlined design and approval process.
(c) Permits & fees were calculated by the City based on recent experience with similar projects and exclude proposed housing fees.
Source: Development pro forma data on comparable projects, interviews with real estate professionals, City of Burlingame, Seifel Consulting, Inc.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 12
b. Yield on Cost (also known as Return on Cost for Apartments)
The most important feasibility return metric for apartment developments is called Return on Cost or Yield
on Cost (YOC). YOC is measured based on Net Operating Income (NOI) divided by development costs.
(NOI is equal to project revenues less vacancy allowance less operating expenses.) Another important
feasibility metric is the calculation of supportable project costs, which is calculated by dividing NOI by
the YOC. If supportable project costs exceed total development costs (before consideration of developer
return/profit), then the project is financially feasible.
While institutional investors and pension funds have typically underwritten projects to a YOC of between
5.5% to 6% in the Bay Area, recent trends indicate that some capital sources have accepted lower rates of
return between 5% to 5.25% for residential development in high demand areas along the Peninsula. Based
on these recent trends, the target YOC for apartments is assumed at 5.25% for this analysis, which means
that apartment developments that achieve a 5.25% YOC are assumed to be financially feasible, while
those below this threshold may not be able to attract the necessary capital to move forward, particularly if
the YOC is well below a 5.0% YOC. YOC thresholds are expected to increase in the future as interest
rates, cap rates and the cost of capital increases.
D. Financial Analysis of Housing Fee Alternatives
As described earlier, the City of Burlingame and all of the local jurisdictions within San Mateo County
commissioned a coordinated set of residential nexus studies to help mitigate the impacts of new
residential development on the provision of affordable housing. The City of Burlingame’s Nexus Study
recommended a range of housing fee levels from $25 to $50 per square foot, while the maximum justified
fee amounts according to the Nexus Study ranged from $50 to $85 per square foot.
Other cities in San Mateo County have already adopted housing fees that are significantly lower than the
maximum justified nexus amounts. Based on a recent survey of other jurisdictions in San Mateo County
summarized by City staff, adopted housing fees ranged from $15 to $34 per square foot, with median fee
levels at $21 per square foot, as shown below in Table D-1.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 13
Table D-1
Summary of Housing Fee Levels of Other San Mateo County Jurisdictions
While housing fees could potentially be charged at higher levels in the City of Burlingame than other
cities, this financial analysis evaluated alternative housing fee levels at $15, $20 and $25 per square foot
(SF), reflective of the typical fee level ranges of other jurisdictions in San Mateo County.7
7 This analysis assumes that housing fees would be calculated on a residential net square foot basis, which is typical fee
framework, though some cities do calculate fees on a gross square foot basis.
Townhomes Condominiums Apartments
Per SF Per SF Per SF
Atherton
Belmont $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 2017
Jurisdiction Date Fee
Adopted
None
Colma $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 2016
Daly City $18.00 $22.00 $25.00 2014
East Palo Alto 1 $23.00 $23.00 $33.71 2014
Foster City None2
Menlo Park None2
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City 4 $25.00 $20.00 $20.00 2015
San Bruno $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 2016
San Carlos 5 $20.59 $20.59 $21.00 2010
San Mateo City
San Mateo County6 $12.50 $12.50 $10.00 2016
South San Francisco
None2
None3
None2
None2
LOWEST $12.50 $12.50 $10.00
AVERAGE $19.89 $19.76 $21.21
MEDIAN $20.30 $20.30 $20.50
HIGHEST $25.00 $25.00 $33.71
2 No Housing Impact Fee adopted, but Inclusionary Housing requires Below Market Rate units in new
developments. Some municipalities allow on-site Below Market Rate units to be satisfied with in-lieu fees.
3 Has inclusionary fee triggered by subdivisions.
5 Sliding scale: fees vary based on number of units, up to $42.20/sf for largest projects. Also assesses fee
on single family additions.
6 $5.00/sf for first 2,500 sf, $12.50 per each square foot over 2,500 sf. Only applies to projects with 4 or
fewer units; projects with 5 units or more are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance rather than fees.
1 Townhome and condo fee increases to $44.00/sf for projects with structured parking. Apartment fee
increases to $44.72/sf for projects outside Ravenswood Business District.
4 Fee applies to projects with between 5 and 19 units. Projects with 20 units or greater are required to
provide Inclusionary units rather than fees. Projects with 4 or fewer units are not subject to fees or
inclusionary requirements.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 14
1. Financial Analysis of Apartments at Varying Housing Fee Levels
The first step in the financial analysis was to analyze the potential financial impact from the adoption of
housing fees ranging from $15 to $25/SF on apartments, as apartments have the potential to produce the
greatest number of new housing units in Burlingame. Figure D-1 shows the effect on development
feasibility of three potential housing levels on three apartment prototypes representing the range of
densities currently being developed or proposed in Burlingame.
The housing fee is shown as a red bar in Figure D-1, and the light blue bar represents all of the other
development costs (except the housing fee). The green bar shows the calculated developer margin or
return, which represents the difference between the project value and total development costs.
The feasibility gap is displayed as a checkerboard, which indicates that the development value is not high
enough to provide sufficient developer margin/return. Only the apartment development at 120/dua
remains financially feasible with these proposed fee levels (does not have a significant feasibility gap).
Figure D-1
Apartment Development Feasibility at Alternative Housing Fee Levels
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua
Feasibility
Gap
Developer
Margin/
Return
Housing Fee
Other
Development
Costs
Housing Fee
@ $25/SF
Housing Fee
@ $20SF
Housing Fee
@ $15/SF
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 15
The financial analysis also analyzes each housing fee scenario using the most common return metric for
apartments of YOC (assumed at 5.25%). As shown in Figure D-2, the financial analysis indicates that
apartments developed at 120 dua—with lower average land costs per unit—are financially feasible at
housing fees of $15/SF and $20/SF while slightly below the feasibility threshold at $25/SF. However,
apartment developments at densities of 50 dua and 70 dua not financially feasible under any of the
proposed fee levels based on the development cost assumptions assumed for this analysis, which include
relatively high land costs per unit.
Figure D-2
Financial Feasibility of Apartments at Alternative Housing Fee Levels
2. Financial Analysis of Condominium and Single Family Attached at Varying
Housing Fee Levels
A similar financial analysis was done for the two for-sale housing prototypes: condominium and single
family attached.
Figure D-3 shows the effect on development feasibility of three potential housing fee levels on a
condominium unit, while Figure D-4 shows the effect on development feasibility on a single family
attached unit. As these graphs illustrate, new condominium and single family attached housing is feasible
at all of the proposed fee levels of $15/SF, $20/SF and $25/SF.
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
5.5%
6.0%
50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua
Housing Fee at $25/SF Housing Fee at $20/SF
Housing Fee at $15/SF Target Return or Yield on Cost
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 16
Figure D-3
Condominium Development Feasibility at Alternative Housing Fee Levels
Figure D-4
Single Family Attached Development Feasibility at Alternative Housing Fee Levels
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
Housing Fee
at $25/SF
Housing Fee
at $20/SF
Housing Fee
at $15/SF
Feasibility Gap
Developer
Margin/Return
Housing Fee
Other
Development
Costs
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
Housing Fee at
$25/SF
Housing Fee
at $20/SF
Housing Fee
at $15/SF
Feasibility Gap
Developer
Margin/Return
Housing Fee
Other
Development
Costs
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 17
E. Financial Analysis of Onsite Affordable Housing Provision
The next step in the financial analysis is to understand the potential financial trade-offs to a developer
from including affordable housing units within new market rate development versus paying a housing fee.
As one of the City’s key housing goals is to incentivize the onsite provision of affordable housing within
new development rather than collect housing fees, this section evaluates the potential financial effects of
providing affordable housing onsite to households at various income levels. An affordability gap analysis
is used to measure the difference or gap between what households at different income levels can afford to
pay for housing and the cost of renting or purchasing housing, which is then factored into project costs.
1. Household Income levels
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) publishes areawide median
income (AMI) levels calculated annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for various household income thresholds and different household sizes in San Mateo County:
• Very Low Income (also referred to as VLI) means a household whose income is 50% or below
AMI, adjusted for household size.
• Low Income household (also referred to as LI) means a household whose income is above 50%
up to 80% AMI. In recent years, HUD has adjusted the LI limits in high-housing cost areas in a
way that exceeds these percentages in San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin counties.8
• Moderate Income household (also referred to as MOD) means a household whose income is
above 80% up to 120% AMI.
• Above Moderate Income (also referred to as Above MOD) means a household whose income is
above 120% AMI. This analysis focuses on Above MOD households up to 150% AMI.
Figure E-1 below shows the various household income levels that correspond to different housing types
by bedroom size and household size. For example, a one-person, very low income household at or below
50% AMI that occupies a studio (0 Bedroom) unit has a household income threshold of $51,350.
Table E-1
2018 Household Income Levels Corresponding to Housing Types by Bedroom Size
San Mateo County
8 https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/25/the-eye-popping-definition-of-what-is-low-income-in-the-bay-area-increases-again/
Hosehold Income Level Bedroom Size (Persons per Household)
Percent
Income Category of Areawide 0 Bedroom
Median Income (1)
Bedroom Size (Persons per Household)
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
(2)(3)(4)(5)
Very Low 50%$51,350
Low 60%$61,650
Low 70%$71,950
Low 80%$82,200
Moderate (Median)100%$82,900
Moderate 110%$91,200
Moderate 120%$99,450
Above Moderate 135%$111,900
Above Moderate 150%$124,350
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, HUD
$58,650 $66,000 $73,300 $79,200
$70,400 $79,250 $88,000 $95,050
$82,200 $92,500 $102,700 $110,950
$93,950 $105,700 $117,400 $126,800
$94,700 $106,550 $118,400 $127,850
$104,200 $117,250 $130,250 $140,650
$113,700 $127,900 $142,100 $153,450
$127,850 $143,850 $159,850 $172,600
$142,050 $159,850 $177,600 $191,800
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, HUD
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 18
2. Affordability Gap for Apartment Developments
Utilizing the San Mateo County data on household income levels, Seifel analyzed the housing
affordability gaps between market rate and below market rate (BMR) apartments that are considered
affordable to households at specific AMI levels according to State standards. The analysis was conducted
for all of the housing prototypes, but focuses first on the affordability gap for apartments.
Figure E-1 below shows the market rate rent and affordable rent at various target AMI levels for a typical
apartment unit, which averages between one to two bedrooms in size based on recent developments.9
As it illustrates, market rents are about $3,700 for the lower density apartment prototypes while a typical
very low income household at 50% AMI (at a typical household size of 2 to 3 persons) can only afford to
pay about $1,500 per month in rent (net of a standard utility allowance). This translates to an affordability
gap of about $2,200 per month, which is the difference between projected market rents and what a very
low income household can afford based on a standard of 30% of income toward housing costs.
Likewise, a moderate income household at 100% AMI can afford to pay about $2,400 per month in rent,
resulting in an affordability gap of about $1,300 per month in rent. Households would need to earn about
155% of AMI to be able to afford projected market rents.10
Figure E-1
Projected Monthly Rent for Typical New Apartment in Burlingame and Rental Affordability Gap
Seifel performed a similar set of calculations to measure the difference or affordability gap between the
value of an apartment unit assuming market rate rents and the value assuming BMR rents affordable to
households at specific AMI levels. Typical vacancy and operating expense assumptions are used to
calculate net operating income (NOI) at alternative rent levels, and the resulting NOI is divided by the
9 The affordability gap is calculated based on the weighted average distribution of units and corresponding household sizes for
both apartment and for-sale prototypes.
10 The State affordability standard for rental housing is based on 30% of income toward housing for the following household
income levels: very low income at 50% AMI, low income at 60% AMI and moderate income at 110% AMI. The affordability
standard of 30% of income for rental housing is used for all AMI levels in this analysis.
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000
50% AMI
60% AMI
80% AMI
100% AMI
110% AMI
Market Rate
Affordable Housing Cost Rental Affordability Gap Market Rate Housing Rent
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 19
4.25% cap rate to project values at each target AMI level. Figure E-2 below shows the affordability gap
based on apartment values at different household income levels, indicating a difference in value of about
$400,000 between the value for a market rate apartment and the value if the apartment were rented at
BMR rents affordable to a very low income household.
Figure E-2
Value of a New Apartment in Burlingame and Affordability Gap in Value
Utilizing the San Mateo County data on household income levels, Seifel also analyzed the housing
affordability gaps between market rate and below market rate sales prices for condominium and single
family attached units that would be affordable at specific AMI levels.
Figure E-3 on the next page shows the market sales price and affordable price at various target AMI
levels for a typical condominium unit, which averages about two bedrooms in size based on recent
developments. As it illustrates, market prices for new condominiums are projected to be about $939,000
while a moderate income household at 100% AMI (at a typical household size of about 3 persons) can
only afford to pay about $360,000, which translates to an affordability gap of about $580,000, which is
the difference between projected market sales price and what a moderate income household at 100% AMI
can afford based on a standard of 30% of income toward housing costs.11
Figure E-4 on the next page likewise shows the market sales price and affordable price at various target
AMI levels for a typical single family attached unit, which also averages about two bedrooms in size
based on recent developments. As it illustrates, market prices for new single family attached units are
projected to be about $1.63 million while a moderate income household at 100% AMI (at a typical
household size of about 3 persons) can only afford to pay about $360,000, which translates to an
affordability gap of about $1.27 million.12
11 The State affordability standard for ownership housing for a moderate income household is based on 35% of income toward
housing for households at 110% AMI, and this 35% of income standard is applied to all AMI levels at 110% AMI and above
for ownership housing. The 30% of income standard is applied to all AMI levels below 110% AMI for ownership housing in
this analysis.
12 Ibid.
$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000
50% AMI
60% AMI
80% AMI
100% AMI
110% AMI
Market Rate
Value at Restricted Rent Affordability Gap Market Rate Apartment Value
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 20
Figure E-3
Affordability Gap for Condominium Unit in Burlingame at Various AMI Levels
Figure E-4
Affordability Gap for Single Family Attached Unit in Burlingame at Various AMI Levels
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000
80% AMI
100% AMI
120% AMI
135% AMI
150% AMI
Market Rate
Affordable Housing Cost Affordability Gap Market Rate Condominium Value
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000
80% AMI
100% AMI
120% AMI
135% AMI
150% AMI
Market Rate
Affordable Housing Cost Affordability Gap Market Rate Single Family Attached Value
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 21
3. Financial Effect of Alternative Onsite Apartment Requirements
Based on discussions with City staff, Seifel evaluated the financial effect of alternative affordable housing
policy options on development feasibility for apartments by comparing how much it would cost to
provide varying percentages of affordable housing units at different target household AMI levels. Given
the significant affordability gaps for apartments, Seifel performed sensitivity analysis related to the
following onsite affordable housing compliance options for apartments:
• Percentage of affordable units to be provided onsite– 10% and 15%
• Target household income levels– Very low income (50% AMI), low income (60% and 80%
AMI) and moderate income (100% and 110% AMI)
As one of the key City policy objectives is to incentivize the provision of onsite affordable housing
instead of the payment of housing fees, this analysis calculates the potential cost to the developer of
providing housing onsite on a per residential net square foot basis for a typical apartment. For example,
one scenario analyzed the potential cost to a developer of providing a mixed income apartment
development with 15% of units rented at BMR rents that are affordable to very low income households at
50% AMI, which translates to a cost of about $75/NSF in contrast to a cost of about $45/NSF for
moderate income households at 100% AMI. Figure E-5 illustrates the potential financial effect of
providing affordable apartments at alternative onsite requirements within these compliance options.
Figure E-5
Affordability Gap at Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements on Apartments
$0 /NSF $25 /NSF $50 /NSF $75 /NSF $100 /NSF
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Low Income (60% AMI)
Low Income (80% AMI)
Moderate Income (100% AMI)
Moderate Income (110% AMI)
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Low Income (60% AMI)
Low Income (80% AMI)
Moderate Income (100% AMI)
Moderate Income (110% AMI)
10% Affordable 15% Affordable
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 22
4. Financial Effect of Alternative Onsite Ownership Requirements
Figure E-6 similarly illustrates the potential financial effect of providing onsite affordable housing within
condominium developments given alternative onsite requirements. Given the significant affordability
gaps for both of the for-sale housing prototypes, Seifel performed sensitivity analysis on the following
onsite affordable housing compliance options for condominiums and single family attached units:
• Percentage of affordable units to be provided onsite– 10% and 15%
• Target household income levels–Low income (80% AMI), moderate income (100% and 120%
AMI) and above moderate income (135% and 150% AMI)
As an example, one scenario analyzed the potential cost to a developer of providing a mixed income
condo development with 15% of units sold at prices that are affordable to moderate income households at
100% AMI, which translates to a cost of about $85/NSF in contrast to a cost of about $30/NSF for units
priced to be affordable at 150% AMI, which is closest to the proposed housing fee level of $25/NSF.
Figure E-6
Affordability Gap at Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements on Condominium Units
Figure E-7a similarly illustrates the potential financial effect of providing onsite affordable housing
within single family attached developments given alternative onsite requirements. Given the significant
affordability gaps for single family attached units, an alternative scenario was tested that assumed smaller
onsite affordable units (1,200 NSF versus the typical average size of 1,500 NSF), which substantially
lowered the potential cost to a developer of providing a mixed income single family development.
As shown in Figure E-7b, even when smaller units are assumed, the cost of providing 15% of units at
prices that are affordable to moderate income households at 100% AMI translated to a cost of about
$130/NSF while the cost of providing units to above moderate income households at 150% AMI was
about $90/NSF.
$0 /NSF $25 /NSF $50 /NSF $75 /NSF $100 /NSF
Low Income (80% AMI)
Moderate Income (100% AMI)
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
Moderate Income (135% AMI)
Moderate Income (150% AMI)
Low Income (80% AMI)
Moderate Income (100% AMI)
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
Moderate Income (135% AMI)
Moderate Income (150% AMI)
10% Affordable 15% Affordable
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 23
Figure E-7a
Affordability Gap at Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements
on Single Family Attached Units (1,500 NSF/Unit)
Figure E-7b
Affordability Gap at Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements
on Smaller Single Family Attached Units (1,200 NSF/Unit)
$0 /NSF $50 /NSF $100 /NSF $150 /NSF $200 /NSF
Low Income (80% AMI)
Moderate Income (100% AMI)
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
Moderate Income (135% AMI)
Moderate Income (150% AMI)
Low Income (80% AMI)
Moderate Income (100% AMI)
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
Moderate Income (135% AMI)
Moderate Income (150% AMI)
10% Affordable 15% Affordable
$0 /NSF $50 /NSF $100 /NSF $150 /NSF $200 /NSF
Low Income (80% AMI)
Moderate Income (100% AMI)
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
Moderate Income (135% AMI)
Moderate Income (150% AMI)
Low Income (80% AMI)
Moderate Income (100% AMI)
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
Moderate Income (135% AMI)
Moderate Income (150% AMI)
10% Affordable 15% Affordable
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 24
F. Financial Feasibility of Onsite Affordable Housing Provision
The next step in the financial analysis is to understand how the inclusion of affordable housing units
within new market rate development will likely affect development feasibility of housing in Burlingame,
as one of the City’s key housing goals is to incentivize the onsite provision of affordable housing within
new development rather than through the payment of housing fees. Given the significant cost of providing
affordable units onsite, this section focuses on testing onsite requirements at 10% of total housing units.
Apartment prototypes are tested based on three potential onsite housing compliance scenarios:
• Scenario 1– 10% of units at 100% AMI
• Scenario 2– 10% at 110% AMI
• Scenario 3– 5% at 80% AMI and 5% at 110% AMI
Ownership prototypes are tested based on three alternative onsite housing compliance scenarios:
• Scenario 1– 10% at 110% AMI
• Scenario 2– 7% of units at 110% AMI and 3% at 135% AMI
• Scenario 3– 5% of units at 110% AMI and 5% at 135% AMI
1. Feasibility of Alternative Onsite Apartment Requirements
As Figure F-1a indicates, development feasibility is improved by allowing developers to provide units
onsite that are affordable to moderate income households and by requiring an onsite housing requirement
of 10% instead of 15% as additional rental income would be generated. However, only the highest density
scenario at 120 dua is feasible under any of the scenarios that are tested.
Figure F-1a
Apartment Development Feasibility Under Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua
Feasibility
Gap
Developer
Margin/Return
Housing Fee
Other
Development
Costs
Scenario 1
(10% @100% AMI)
Scenario 2
(10% @110% AMI)
Scenario 3
(5% @80% AMI &
5% @110% AMI)
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 25
Figure F-1b shows development feasibility based on the most common return metric for apartments of
YOC (assumed at 5.25%). The feasibility analysis indicates that apartments developed at 120 du/acre are
financially feasible under all affordability scenarios, as shown in Figure E-7. However, apartment
developments at densities of 50 du/acre and 70 du/acre are not financially feasible under any of the
affordability scenarios based on the development cost assumptions assumed for this analysis.
Figure F-1b
Apartment Feasibility Based on YOC Under Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements
2. Feasibility of Alternative Onsite Ownership Requirements
Figures F-2 and F-3 similarly illustrate how development feasibility improves by allowing developers to
provide units onsite that are affordable to moderate income and above moderate income households at
135% AMI. As these figures illustrate, condominium developments will likely be feasible with a 10%
onsite affordable housing requirement that is focused on moderate income households with an option to
provide housing that is affordable to above moderate income households under a high development cost
scenario. In contrast, single family attached housing does have a feasibility gap under the three potential
onsite housing scenarios, but this gap would be significantly reduced if affordable housing units could be
provided at smaller unit sizes, such as 1,200 square feet as tested earlier.
0.04
0.045
0.05
0.055
0.06
50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua
Scenario 1 (10% @100% AMI) Scenario 2 (10% @110% AMI)
Scenario 3 (5% @80% AMI & 5% @110% AMI) Target Return or Yield on Cost
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 26
Figure F-2
Condominium Feasibility Under Alternative Onsite Housing Requirements
Figure F-3
Single Family Attached Feasibility Under Alternative Onsite Housing Requirements
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
Scenario A
(10% @110% AMI)
Scenario B
(7% @110% AMI
& 3% @135% AMI)
Scenario C
(5% @110% AMI
& 5% @135% AMI)
Feasibility Gap
Developer
Margin/Return
Other
Development
Costs
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
Scenario A
(10% @110% AMI)
Scenario B
(7% @110% AMI
& 3% @135% AMI)
Scenario C
(5% @110% AMI
& 5% @135% AMI)
Feasibility Gap
Developer
Margin/Return
Other
Development
Costs
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 27
G. Conclusion
As development costs have increased over the past few years, developers are finding it increasingly
difficult to develop new housing in the City of Burlingame, and the City must carefully consider how best
to implement its affordable housing programs in order to continually encourage new residential
development to occur.
As rents and prices have continued to increase, the difference between the cost of housing and what many
households can afford to pay for housing has increased, leading to a widening “affordability gap” for new
housing. In order for new development to be financially feasible when including onsite affordable
housing units, the cost of providing new affordable housing must be able to be factored into the total costs
of developing housing while still leaving sufficient developer margin or return to allow development to
go forward. Given the complexities of finding qualified households and assuring continued affordability
of onsite affordable housing units, developers typically prefer to pay a housing fee rather than build
housing units onsite unless the cost of providing units onsite is less than paying the fee.
1. Key Findings from Apartment Analysis
• Apartment rents are not increasing as fast as construction costs, making it more difficult for
apartments to be financially feasible.
• Depending on total development costs associated with new apartments, rental units may not yield
sufficient returns to attract capital (creating a development feasibility gap).
• Higher density apartment developments are more financially feasible when land values can be
spread among a greater number of units, providing greater opportunities for developers to pay for
public requirements such as affordable housing.
• The financial analysis indicates that housing fees at higher fee levels (between $20–$25/SF)
should be focused on higher density rental developments of 100 dwelling units per acre or more.
• Onsite affordable housing requirements of 10% of total units focused on moderate income
households (between 80% and 120% AMI) are more financially feasible and best correlate to
housing fee levels between $15 and $25/SF.
2. Key Findings from Analysis of Condominium and Single Family Attached Units
• Housing prices have been increasing rapidly, and most buyers need significant cash or “trade-up”
value in homes to afford new units, making it much more difficult for first-time homebuyers to
purchase a new home.
• For-sale developments are more financially feasible than apartments given high price points, but
the housing affordability gap is much greater, particularly for large units.
• The financial analysis indicates that housing fees at $25/SF can be supported by new ownership
development in Burlingame.
• Allowing affordable housing units to be a smaller size, particularly for single family attached
units, enhances financial feasibility and thus encourages the provision of housing onsite.
• Onsite affordable housing requirements of 10% of total units focused on households between
110% and 135% AMI are financially feasible for ownership housing assuming reasonable
development costs.
DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Page 28
3. Policy Considerations to Encourage Onsite Affordable Housing
Based on the financial analysis shown in this report, input from real estate professionals active in
San Mateo County and best practices from other cities, the City may want to consider the following
policies to encourage the provision of onsite affordable housing in Burlingame, as these policies will
enhance financial feasibility for new housing development:
• Develop a more predictable and streamlined process for land use approval and design review in
order to reduce the time and risk associated with infill development.
• Allow more housing units to be built, along with incentives and concessions similar to what is
allowed under State Density Bonus Law, when developers provide onsite affordable housing.
• Allow smaller sized units to be dedicated as affordable housing (especially for ownership,
single family attached units) so long as they meet the minimum size standards of the California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee and are not below a certain threshold requirement established
by the City (such as cannot be smaller than 70% to 75% of the average square footage for a
similar unit type).13
• While the bedroom mix of the affordable units should be proportionate to the bedroom mix of
market rate units, potentially allow a different unit mix if it furthers other City goals.
• Encourage the dispersion of affordable housing units throughout new development but allow
developments with higher heights to evenly distribute units throughout the first five floors
(or 60% of all floors), which will allow upper floors to be rented or sold at higher prices.
• Allow reductions in citywide parking standards for residential and retail (with respect to parking
stall size and parking ratios), especially near transit and public parking.
• Limit the total cost of City imposed permit, processing and development impact fees to levels that
are close to current levels and provide developers with certainty regarding how much these fees
will increase annually until building permits are pulled. (For example, link future increases in fee
amounts after initial development application to published inflationary indices.)
In conclusion, this analysis indicates that the City of Burlingame can achieve its housing goal to
encourage the onsite provision of housing to address the City’s affordable housing needs by carefully
crafting its housing fee program to incentivize the provision of housing onsite through the establishment
of varying fee levels for apartment and ownership housing, and by implementing some or all of the
housing policy options discussed above.
13 As of July 2018, the minimum unit sizes for the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee are: 450 square feet for a one-
bedroom, 700 square feet for a two-bedroom and 900 square feet for a three-bedroom unit, although access requirements for
persons with disabilities may lead to slightly larger unit size requirements.
RESOLUTION NO. __________
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING
CHAPTER 25.82 TO THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL
IMPACT FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS:
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580(d) states that all cities have a
responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development
of housing and to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of
the community; and
WHEREAS, the provision of safe and stable housing for households at all income levels
is essential for the public welfare of the city. The current shortage of affordable housing has
caused many lower- and middle-wage workers to commute longer distances from less
expensive areas resulting in increased traffic in the City, and has also caused local residents’
housing costs to increase due to high levels of demand for existing housing resulting in a severe
housing cost burden for many residents; and
WHEREAS, the City's 2015-2023 Housing Element states that it is the City's policy to
establish programs to provide direct financial and technical assistance to facilitate the
development of affordable workforce housing. The City can achieve its goal of assisting in the
development of new housing that is affordable at all income levels only if adequate funding is
available to support the development of such housing; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that future development projects mitigate their impact on the need
for affordable housing in Burlingame, and to ensure that any adopted residential impact fees do
not exceed the actual affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects on
which the fees relate, the City agreed to participate in the preparation of a nexus study through
the countywide 21 Elements collaboration project; and
WHEREAS, in order to meet the needs of Burlingame’s workforce, dwelling units will
need to house a variety of household types, incomes, and age groups; and
WHEREAS, the City has received and considered a Residential Impact Fee Nexus
Study (the “Nexus Study”), dated November 2015, prepared by Strategic Economics and
Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study uses widely used, appropriate methodology to determine
the maximum amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by residential development
on the need for affordable housing; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. __________
2
WHEREAS, the findings provided in the Nexus Study have been further supported in the
Financial Analysis of Proposed Affordable Housing Program (the “Financial Analysis”), dated
November 2018, prepared by Seifel Consulting, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that development projects remain economically feasible, the
residential impact fees specified in the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance detailed in Exhibit A,
attached, are lower than the maximum amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by
new development on the need for affordable housing as determined in the Nexus Study and
Financial Analysis; and
WHEREAS, the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance detailed in Exhibit A, attached, will
substantially advance the City's legitimate interest in providing additional housing affordable to
all income levels in the city by providing funds for the development of housing affordable to very
low, low, and moderate income households; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Residential Impact Fee should be
administered consistent with the requirements applicable to fees for public facilities in California
Government Code Section 66000 et seq., commonly referred to as the “Mitigation Fee Act,”
without determining that it is required to do so; and
WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the date this resolution being heard, data was
made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide
the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to
provide the service, including general fund revenues, in accordance with Government Code
Section 66019; and
WHEREAS, at least fourteen days prior to the date this resolution being heard, notice
was provided to any persons or organizations who had requested notice, in accordance with
Government Code Section 66019; and
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed fees was published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the manner set forth in Government Code Section 6062a as required by
Government Code Section 66018; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, after proceedings duly
and regularly held and noticed as provided by law, did on February 11, 2019 review and
consider the staff report and all other written materials and testimony pres ented at said hearing,
and recommended to the City Council that it adopt the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, based on the findings above, the City desires to further the public health,
safety and welfare by requiring residential development projects in Burlingame to mitigate their
impact on the need for affordable housing in the city; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. __________
3
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), which indicates that
administrative actions that do not result in physical changes to the environment are not
considered “projects” requiring review. The proposed Ordinance is also exempt per Section
15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), which is a categorical exemption that applies
to code amendments that will not have any significant environmental effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City
Council that it adopt an ordinance adding Chapter 25.82 to the Burlingame Municipal Code
establishing residential impact fees for new residential developments in the City, as described
herein.
Chair
I, _______________________________, Secretary of the Burlingame Planning Commission,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of February, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
_________________________
Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AREA
STANDARD WAGE POLICY FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SUBJECT
TO THE IMPOSITION OF IMPACT FEES UNDER CHAPTER 25.82 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580(d) states that all cities
have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and
development of housing and to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of the City
of Burlingame to determine that the development of an area standard wage policy, in
addition to the City's commitment to enforcing prevailing wage requirements as to public
works projects, as such projects are defined in California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq.,
is necessary to protect local job opportunities and to increase wages of workers and
residents in the city; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a
residential impact fee ordinance (Municipal Code Section 25.82) that authorizes the
imposition of residential impact fees for certain residential development projects to mitigate
the impact of such projects on the need for affordable housing in the city (the "Residential
Impact Fee Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with its Residential Impact Fee Ordinance, the City has
received and considered reports from the Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study dated
November 2015, prepared by Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.;
and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study demonstrates that new residential development
projects create a need for affordable housing in the city by creating many jobs paying such
low wages that workers cannot afford market rate housing in the city; and
WHEREAS, the findings provided in the Nexus Study have been further supported
in the Financial Analysis of Proposed Affordable Housing Program (the “Financial
Analysis”), dated November 2018, prepared by Seifel Consulting, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the payment by residential development
projects of "Area Standard Wages," which shall be defined as the general prevailing wage
determinations for San Mateo County as made by the State of California Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations, will increase certain households' ability to afford
housing in the city, thereby reducing the impact of those residential development projects
on the need for affordable housing in the city; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the reduced impact of projects paying Area Standard
Wages, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to adopt an Area
Standard Wage Policy that will reduce the Residential Impact Fee for all residential
development projects that voluntarily enter into an agreement with the City to pay Area
Standard Wages consistent with this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the staff report accompanying this Resolution and referenced
documents have been presented to and considered by the Planning Commission in support
of the findings and approvals set forth in this Resolution; are hereby incorporated by
reference to this Resolution; and, together with the above recitals any public testimony
received, form the evidentiary basis and establish the analytical route for reaching the
ultimate findings and conclusions contained in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this Resolution
by this reference.
2. The provisions of this Resolution shall apply to all residential development
projects, as such terms are defined in the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance,
where the developer voluntarily enters into an "Area Standard Wage
Participation Agreement" (an “Agreement”) with the City. The Agreeme nt shall
apply to construction of the development project and related public works that
are within the customary jurisdiction of the construction trades and crafts,
whether performed on or off-site, but need not include off -site work performed
by materialmen, as defined under California law.
3. Upon execution of an Agreement that conforms to the requirements of this
Resolution, initial fees shall be imposed on new residential development
projects as follows:
With Prevailing / Area Wage
Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above
Up to 50 du/ac $14.00
51-70 du/ac $17.00
71 du/ac and above $25.00
For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above
$30.00
If the developer commits a material breach of such Agreement, the difference
in residential impact fees between the adopted fees and the reduced amount
under this Resolution shall become due and payable to the City, in addition to
all other remedies set forth herein.
4. All employees performing construction work for a project subject to an
Agreement shall be paid not less than the Area Standard Wage or the highest
prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined and published by the
California Department of Industrial Relations subject to California Labor Code
Section 1733 from the commencement of co nstruction until the issuance of
the latter of either a final certificate of occupancy or a final inspection. Nothing
in this Resolution shall be construed to prohibit payment of more than Area
Standard Wages.
5. The Agreement shall apply to the employees of any employer, including the
developer, any general contractor or subcontractor, or other contractor
engaged in construction including their successors or assignees (collectively,
the "employer"), but it shall not apply to supervisory or managerial personnel
or to persons employed in the rental, operation, or maintenance of the
residential development project.
6. The initial Area Standard Wage for each of the employer's employees shall be
the published wage rate as of the date the em ployee commences work on the
residential development project. The employer shall be responsible for
checking on a quarterly basis whether the Area Standard Wage has been
adjusted. In the event that the Area Standard Wage has been adjusted, the
employer shall pay such adjuste d Area Standard Wage; provided, however,
that in no event shall the employer pay less than the initial Area Standard
Wage.
7. The employer shall keep an accurate payroll record as specified in California
Labor Code Section 1776(a). Certified copies of the pa yroll records shall be
available for inspection at all reasonable hours at a local office of the employer.
Copies of the Area Standard Wage Participation Agreement and the records
granting the permits authorizing the residential development project shall b e
provided upon request of a City representative. Any employee, his or her
designee, or the public may also request copies of the payroll records from the
City. The addresses and social security numbers of the employees may be
masked or deleted so as to prevent disclosure in copies furnished to the public.
The failure of an employer to comply with the requirements of this section shall
create a presumption that Area Standard Wages have not been paid.
8. Nothing in this Resolution shall prevent the employment of any number of
properly registered apprentices, as defined in Chapter 4, Division 3 of the
California Labor Code. Every such apprentice shall be paid not less than the
Area Standard Wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the crafts or
trade at which he or she is employed and shall be employed only at the work
of the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. The employment and
training of each apprentice shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
apprenticeship standards and apprentice agreements under which he or she
is in training.
9. The provisions of this Resolution shall be incorporated into the Agreement for
all residential development projects where the developer voluntarily agrees to
enter into an Agreement. The developer shall also cause the provisions of this
requirement to be incorporated into each contract and subcontract which
would be subject to this requirement. In the event the provisions are not so
incorporated, the developer shall be liable to the worker in any action or
proceeding for the difference between the Area Standard Wage rate required
to be paid and the amount actually paid to the worker, including costs and
attorney fees, as if the developer were the actual employer.
10. The Community Development Director, or his or her designee, shall maintain
for public inspection the current Area Standard Wages. All bid specifications
and contracts subject to the provisions of this Resolution shall reference the
obligations imposed under this Resolution. A copy of the applicable wage rates
together with a copy of a "Notice to Employees," which notice shall be
prepared by the developer and approved by City staff, shall be given to any
employer subject to the provisions of this Resolution, and all s uch employers
shall post a copy of the Area Standard Wages applicable to the work to be
done at the job site in a prominent, visible place readily accessible to the
workers employed in the construction of the improvements .
11. No laborer or employee to whom the wage, salary, or other labor standards of
this Resolution are applicable shall be discharged or in any other manner
discriminated against by the employer because such employee has filed any
complaint or instituted, or caused to be instituted, any proceeding or has
testified or is about to testify in any proceeding under or relating to the
provisions of this Resolution.
12. In the event of a breach of this Resolution or an Area Standard Wage
Participation Agreement, the employer shall be liable to the employee for any
unpaid wages overtime wages, and benefits established by this Resolution.
13. In the event of failure to pay any employee, laborer, or mechanic (including
any apprentice, trainee, or helper) employed in the construction of a residential
development project subject to this Resolution all or part of the wages required
by this Resolution, the developer shall, upon written demand of the Community
Development Director, withhold or cause to be withheld from any moneys
payable on account of work performed by a contractor an amount as may be
considered necessary to pay laborers and mechanics employed by such
contractor or subcontractor the full amount of wages, overtime wages, and
benefits required by these labor standards after providing 10-days written
notice of such intent to the contractor or subcontractor who has failed to pay
the applicable Area Standard Wages to any worker. The developer shall, after
such written notice to the contractor, disburse such amounts withheld for and
on account of the contractor to the respective employees to whom they are
due. If the employee cannot be found to satisfy the unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime wages, and benefits, all such sums shall be remitted to the City's
general fund, including a credit for applicable accrued penalties.
14. Nothing in this Resolution shall preclude enforcement by the California
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for any matter over which the
Division has jurisdiction.
15. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to issue
guidelines, rules or regulations from time to time in furtherance of this
Resolution.
16. Adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) because the adoption of this Resolution is not a project,
in that it is related to a government funding mechanism which does not involve
any commitment to any specific project (CEQA Guidelines Section
15378(b)(4)), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the Area Standard Wages provisions may have a sig nificant
effect on the environment, in that this Resolution contains no provisions
modifying the physical design, development, or c onstruction of residences or
residential structures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).
17. This Resolution shall take effect only if the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance
is adopted and effective.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to
the City Council that it establish an area standard wage policy for new residential
developments subject to the imposition of impact fees under Chapter 25.82 of the
Municipal Code, as described herein.
Chair
I, _______________________________, Secretary of the Burlingame Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted
at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of February, 2019
by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU
NPEN
D A I L Y J O U R N A L C O R P O R A T I O N
To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the
BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER. Please read this notice carefully and call us with
any corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if
required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for
this notice is (are):
Mailing Address : 915 E FIRST ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
Telephone (800) 788-7840 / Fax (800) 464-2839
Visit us @ www.LegalAdstore.com
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BURLINGAME/COMM. DEV. DEPT.
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
HRG NOTICE OF HEARING
PC 02.11.19 Res Impact Fees
01/31/2019
Publication
Total
$49.50
$49.50
Notice Type:
Ad Description
COPY OF NOTICE
3217523
!A000004971334!
The charge(s) for this order is as follows. An invoice will be sent after the last
date of publication. If you prepaid this order in full, you will not receive an
invoice.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
The CITY OF BURLIN-
GAME PLANNING COM-
MISSION will hold a public
hearing to consider an
ordinance establishing a
Residential Impact Fees on
new residential development
to support workforce
housing.The Planning
Commission will review the
proposed ordinance and
make a recommendation to
the City Council.
The hearing will be held on
Monday,February 11,
2019,at 7:00 p.m.in the City
Hall Council Chambers,501
Primrose Road,Burlingame,
California.
The staff report for this item
and copies of the proposed
amendments may be
reviewed prior to the meeting
at the Community Develop-
ment Department,Planning
Division,Burlingame City
Hall,501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame;and on the
City's website at
www.burlingame.org.For
additional information please
call the Planning Division at
(650)558-7250.
To be published Thursday,
January 31,2019.
1/31/19
NPEN-3217523#
EXAMINER -BOUTIQUE &
VILLAGER
PROJECT LOCATION
800 Winchester Drive
Item No. 8b
Regular Action Items
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 800 Winchester Drive Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit to attach a new garage to an existing single family
dwelling.
Applicant and Property Owners: Neel and Adrienne Patel APN: 029-074-340
Architect: Mike Amini, Craftsmen’s Guild Lot Area: 6,750 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to t he California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 2,196 SF (0.33
FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The existing detached garage is located along the right side
property line, 28 feet from the rear property line and 78 feet from the front property line. The detached garage is
within the rear 41% of the lot.
The applicant is proposing a first story addition at the rear of the house, which will include the demolition of the
existing detached garage and construction of a new attached one-car garage. The total proposed floor area is
2,621 SF (0.39 FAR), where 3,260 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. Also being proposed is demolition of
an existing 150 SF arbor located along the left side property line. The proposed project is 639 SF below the
maximum allowed floor area.
The proposed project includes increasing the number of bedrooms from three to f our. The code requires one
covered and one uncovered parking spaces for a four-bedroom house. The applicant is requesting a Special
Permit for an attached garage, which will provide one covered parking space (10'-7” wide x 20' deep clear
interior dimensions). The new attached garage will be setback 61’-5” from the front property line, where a
minimum of 25’ is required for an attached one-car garage. One uncovered parking space is provided in the
driveway leading to the garage. 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)); and
Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a)).
This space intentionally left blank.
Item No. 8b
Regular Action Item
Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive
2
800 Winchester Drive
Lot Area: 6,750 SF Plans date stamped: January 30, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front:
20’-0"
No change
61’-5” to new garage
15'-0" or block average
25’ to attached garage
Side (left):
(right):
4’-0”
15’-11”
4’-0” (to addition)
5’-0” (to addition)
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear: 51’-6” 35’-0” 15'-0"
Lot Coverage:
2,256 SF
33.4%
2,635 SF
39%
2,700 SF
40%
FAR:
2,196 SF
0.33 FAR
2,621 SF
0.39 FAR
3,260 SF¹
0.48 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(15' wide x 27' deep)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered
(10'-7” x 20’)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered
(10' x 20’)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
¹ (0.32 x 6,750 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,260 SF (0.48 FAR)
2 Special Permit required for an attached garage (CS 25.26.035(a))
Staff Comments: The revised changes on the plans date stamped January 30, 2019 were to the roof plan and
rear setback (33’-2” previously proposed, 35’-0” currently proposed). The currently proposed rear stairs have a
landing that does not exceed 30 inches above grade and therefore do not count in lot coverage. There is no
change to the previously proposed FAR.
Design Review Action Hearing: The proposed project was brought forth straight to an Action hearing on
January 14, 2019. The Planning Commission supported the Special Permit application for an attac hed garage
but had some concerns with the design of the proposed roof and addition at the rear of the house . They decided
to continue the project and referred the applicant to meet with a Design Review Consultant (see attached
January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes).
Listed below were the Commissions’ main concerns:
Attached garage is not well integrated into the existing structure ;
Lack of a unified roof; and
Current roof plan for proposed design may create drainage issues .
The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped January 30, 2019 to address the Planning Commission’s
comments and concerns. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design
review consultant is provided in the next section.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The applicant and property owner met with the design
review consultant to address the Planning Commission's main concerns. Please refer to the attached design
reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated February 5, 2019, for a detailed review of the project. The
design reviewer notes that the “revisions made to the initial proposal have improved the architectural style and
Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive
3
massing of the project.” Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer supports the
proposed changes .
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 neighborhood;
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):
(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.
Design Review and Special Permit Find ings (Attached Garage): That the proposed attached garage is
consistent with the garage pattern in the neighborhood that has a mix of both detached and attached garages .
That the proposed front setback to the attached garage is significantly pushed towards the rear of the house
which maintains the attributes of a detached garage. That the proposed garage is set back from the face of the
main dwelling by 41'-5" and is single story so that the garage form is secondary to the primary street presence of
the main dwelling. That the proposed design of the garage is integrated well into the existing structure and t hat
no landscape trees are proposed to be removed for construction of the attached garage. For these reasons, the
project may be found to be compatible with the design review and special permit criteria listed above.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis cont ained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resoluti on 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 the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 30, 2019, sheets A1 through A5;
2. that any changes to the garage door material, garage façade, or to the front setb ack of the attached
garage shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be
determined by Planning staff);
Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive
4
3. 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;
4. 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 si te 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; th e
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed 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
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 Re cycling 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 requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
affect 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 certific ation that the
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved 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 the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (garage façade, garage door material ) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. Mike Amini, Craftsmen’s Guild, applicant and designer
Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners
Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive
5
Attachments:
January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Design Review Analysis, dated February 5, 2019
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Neighborhood examples of houses with attached garages, date stamped December 6, 2018
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 1, 2019
Area Map
A6Craftsmen's Guild Inc.10566 South De Anza Blvd., Cupertino CA 95014Phone: (408) 366-1000 Fax: (408) 366-1100California State Contractor's License Number: 507159NOTICE TO ALL CONTRACTORS:These drawings embody ideas, which are proprietary to the Craftsmen's Guild,Inc. (CGI) and are designed, created, evolved and developed for constructionperformed solely by the CGI. The CGI will not be responsible for these plans anddrawings if construction is performed by others. All contractors are responsiblefor verification of all conditions. dimensions and details indicated in thesedrawings. All materials and connections shall meet local and National buildingcodes and shall be the responsibility of all contractors.800 Winchester DrThe Patel ResidenceDRAWN BY:SIAMAKCHECKED BY:DATE ISSUEDPROJECT/FILE NAMEPROJECT NUMBERREVISION No.Burlingame, CaEXISTINGDOWNSPOUTEXISTINGHOUSENEIGHBOR'S ROOFS WHICHMATCHES WITH THE PREVIOUSDESIGNEXISTINGDOWNSPOUTROOF DRAINAGE
PROJECT LOCATION
1613 Coronado Way
Item No. 8e
Regular Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1613 Coronado Way Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Jerry Deal, Jerry Deal Associates APN: 025-203-130
Property Owner: Gregory Button Lot Area: 5,500 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Project Description: The existing single-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 1,917 SF (0.34
FAR). The proposed project includes adding a new second story that would increase the floor area to 2,858 SF
(0.52 FAR), where 2,860 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed as per the zoning code. The proposed project
is 2 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.
The existing house is nonconforming in lot coverage, in part due to existing trellises along the right side and rear
of the house (2,544 SF, 46.3% existing where 2,200 SF, 40% is the maximum allowed). With this application, a
portion of the existing trellis (5 SF) would be removed, which would reduce the lot coverage to 2,539 SF (46.1%).
A variance for lot coverage is not required in this case because there is no increase in lot coverage proposed
with this application (Code Section 25.54.020).
The existing house contains three bedrooms and with the proposed project the number of bedrooms would
increase to four (storage room on second floor does not qualify as a bedroom since it is only accessible through
the master bedroom). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom
house. The existing garage (10’-10” x 34’-8” clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space. One
uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) 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 application:
Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)
(2)).
1613 Coronado Way
Lot Size: 5,500 SF Plans date stamped: January 15, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 15’-0” no change 15’-0” or block average
(2nd flr): NA 35’-4½” 20'-0" or block average
Side (left):
(right):
4’-0”
4’-0”
no change
no change
4-0"
4-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
28’-6”
NA
no change
42’-5”
15'-0"
20’-0”
Item No. 8e
Regular Action Item
Design Review 1613 Coronado Way
2
1613 Coronado Way
Lot Size: 5,500 SF Plans date stamped: January 15, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
Lot Coverage: 2,544 SF1
46.2%
2,539 SF2
46.1%
2,200 SF
40%
FAR: 1,917 SF
0.34 FAR
2,858 SF
0.52 FAR
2,860 SF³
0.52 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(10’-10” x 34’-8”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
no change
1 covered
(10’ x 20’)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building Height: 15’-3” 28’-1” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
1 Existing non-conforming lot coverage.
2 Variance not required since there is no increase in lot coverage.
³ (0.32 x 5,500 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,860 SF (0.52 FAR)
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 26,
2018, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular
action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached
November 26, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a
complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant submitted a response letter dated January 24, 2019, and revised plans date stamped January 15,
2019, for responses to the Commission’s comments and a detailed summary of changes made to the project
since the design review study meeting.
Planning staff would note that with the revised plans, the master bathroom and storage room on the second floor
was enlarged by 132 SF, increasing the proposed FAR to 2,858 SF where 2,860 SF is the maximum allowed. In
addition, by changing the roof configuration from a sloped roof to a flat roof, the overall building height decreased
by 1’-1”, from 29’-2” to 28’-1”.
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 neighborhood;
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.
Design Review 1613 Coronado Way
3
Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring
flat roofs, proportional plate heights, a combination of stucco and horizontal and vertical wood siding, roof eave
fascia, 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.
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 include 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 the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 15, 2019, sheets A-1 through A-7, L1, SF, GBM and BMP;
2. that the planters and landscape privacy screening on the second floor deck shall be installed as shown
on the Proposed Second Floor Plan and shall be maintained in proper working order to sustain the
privacy screening; that the building permit shall include a planting and irrigation plan for the planters
located on the second floor deck;
3. 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);
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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 changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
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;
9. 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;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
Design Review 1613 Coronado Way
4
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. 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 approved 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 the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. 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
14. 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.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
c. Jerry Deal, applicant and designer
Gregory Button, property owner
Attachments:
November 26, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated January 24, 2019
Application to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 1, 2019
Area Map
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 26, 2018
a.1613 Coronado Way, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling. (J Deal Assocaites, Jerry Deal, applicant
and designer; Gregory Button, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal
Aggarwal
Commissioner Tse was recused from this item as she has a business relationship with the next door
neighbor who submitted a letter of concern regarding the project.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal, represented the applicant, along with Gregory Button, property owner.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> House has a nice, modern feel to it in terms of the first floor roof. Roof over living spaces is striking in
terms of a single, flat plane that covers the first floor. It has more depth to it than one can perceive from
the drawings. Have you considered replicating that theme to have a big sweeping roof on the second floor?
The proposed gable seems a bit foreign because of the strength of the first floor roof. Could also have
deep roof overhangs on the second floor that wouldn't count towards lot coverage because it would be a
roof over a roof. (Deal: Could look at changing to flat roofs on second floor. Would prefer to have flat
roofs at different heights.)
>Simplicity of roof forms and corner windows give the house a nice feel.
> Have you spoken to the neighbor to the left regarding the rear patio? (Button: Have spoken to the
neighbor, indicated that she did not have any privacy concerns with the proposed addition. Her house
backs up to my property and pool is located on other side of house. Have been on roof and you can't see
the pool and patio area from roof.)
> Concerned that a spray foam roof will not look good on a pitched /gable roof, however if roof is
flattened then it may not be visible and would alleviate concern.
> In master bathroom there is a French door out to roof, but no railing is shown. Were you intending to
provide a railing or Juliette balcony? If it is a door, most likely will need some sort of railing to comply with
building code requirements. (Deal: Original intent was to provide a large window, but not to be used as a
door. Also needs access to the roof for maintenance. Will look into changing door to an opaque window in
consideration of the privacy concerns expressed by the neighbor to the right.)
> What is the purpose of having such a large roof deck off the master bedroom? Concerned with privacy
and noise issues. (Button: Would like to have a seating area to have a cup of coffee in the morning. Roof
deck would only be accessible through the master bedroom. Would be a beautiful area with landscaping,
including vines and plants. Interested in making the space private and providing privacy for the neighbors .
There is extensive existing foliage that makes it hard to see anything. Attempted to contact neighbors to
left, but have been out of the county so have not been able to discuss the project with them yet.)
> Have you looked at living roofs? One example is a system using trays of succulents that interlock .
Perhaps the roof deck can be combined with a living roof.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/4/2019
November 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
> Also concerned with large roof deck, larger than what we've been allowing recently. Could be
distracting if there is a large gathering on the deck, especially at night. Would be less concerned if it's
well landscaped with permanent landscaping. (Button: If you were standing on the deck right now and
making noise, not sure where people would hear it from. Patio of neighbor to left is located on the other
side of their house; the proposed second floor addition would block noise to neighbor on right side. Feel
roof deck is sufficiently set back from everyone.) Houses are built close together, still feel something
should be done to address privacy and noise concerns.
> Have you spoken to the neighbor on the right? (Button: Yes, noted that he didn't have any objections .
Will coordinate with him further.)
> Gable roof seems out of place. Additional corners created on second floor aren't necessary, could
just be a simple rectangle with a flat roof, perhaps the center gets popped up. (Deal: Could move
bathroom wall at front of house so that it aligns with the staircase and fill in the area.)
> Encourage a simple roof with deep overhangs in certain places, with a play of shadows on that depth.
> Roof deck is approximately 175 SF; typically have asked applicants to limit to 100 SF. However, in
previous projects applicants have added planter boxes on deck to soften perimeter and reduce usable
area of deck; prevents people from standing at the railing. (Button: Like suggestion, would allow for
desired vegetation on roof deck.)
>Revise plans to show landscaping on roof deck.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Feel clear direction has been provided, don't see too many changes needed.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
Recused:Tse1 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/4/2019
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design
Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1613 Coronado Way, Zoned
R-1, Gregory Button, property owner, APN: 025-203-130;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 11, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial
evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and
categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states
that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition
will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the
addition, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording
of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 11th day of February, 2019, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1613 Coronado Way
Effective February 22, 2019
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped January 15, 2019, sheets A-1 through A-7, L1, SF, GBM and BMP;
2. that the planters and landscape privacy screening on the second floor deck shall be installed
as shown on the Proposed Second Floor Plan and shall be maintained in proper working
order to sustain the privacy screening; that the building permit shall include a planting and
irrigation plan for the planters located on the second floor deck;
3. 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);
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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
changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination 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;
9. 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;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1613 Coronado Way
Effective February 22, 2019
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor
area ratio for the property;
12. 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 approved 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 the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. 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
14. 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.
1613 Coronado Way
300’ Radius
APN #025.203.130
PROJECT LOCATION
1350 Columbus Avenue
Item No. 8d
Regular Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Variance
Address: 1350 Columbus Avenue Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Architect: Gary Diebel, AIA | Diebel and Company Architects APN: 027-152-310
Property Owners: Rich Schoustra and Holly Rogers Lot Area: 6,000 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Project Description: Located on an interior lot, the subject property contains an existing two-story house and a
detached garage with 2,761 SF (0.46 FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a
329 SF first floor addition at the rear of the house and to demolish and rebuild the second floor (832 SF).
Because there is no permanent direct access to the attic, this area is exempt f rom floor area. The existing lot
coverage is nonconforming at 2,455 SF (40.9%) where 2,400 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed. Improvements
may be proposed to a single-family structure so long as there is no increase to the existing nonconforming lot
coverage. An increase to nonconforming lot coverage requires approval of a Variance. With the proposed
project, the existing nonconforming lot coverage (2,455 SF, 40.9%) will increase by 323 SF (2,778 SF, 46.3%).
Overall, the total floor area will increase to 3,325 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,356 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum
allowed. The proposed project is 31 SF under the maximum allowed floor area.
With this application, there is no increase to the number of existing bedrooms; four bedrooms are proposed. Two
parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached garage provides one
covered parking space (11’-1” x 17’-1” clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided
in the driveway. The interior depth of the garage is nonconforming and no changes are proposed to the garage.
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 application s:
Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)
(2)); and
Lot Coverage Variance (2,455 SF (40.9%) existing; 2,778 SF (46.3%) proposed; where 2,400 (40%) SF is
the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.26.065 and C.S. 25.50.080 (d)(3)).
This space intentionally left blank.
Item No. 8d
Regular Action Item
Design Review and Variance 1350 Columbus Avenue
2
1350 Columbus Avenue
Lot Size: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: January 18, 2019 and February 1, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 17’-5” no change 21’-0” (block average)
(2nd flr): 30’-2” 27’-3” 21’-0” (block average)
Side (left):
(right):
3’-0”
8’-5”
4’-0” (to addition)
no change
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
26’-2” (to deck)
45’-7”
35’-6” (to addition)
43’-7” (to addition)
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,455 SF
40.9%
2,778 SF
46.3%
2,400 SF
40%
FAR: 2,761 SF
0.46 FAR
3,325 SF
0.55 FAR
3,356 SF 1
0.56 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-1” x 17’-1”
clear interior dimensions) +
1 uncovered (9’ x 20’)
no change
1 covered (9’ x 18’ for
existing garages) +
1 uncovered (9' x 20')
Building Height: 25’-0½” 25’-0½” 30'-0" above average top
of curb
DH Envelope: encroachment on left side;
non-conforming complies C.S. 25.26.075
1 (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF + 336 SF = 3,356 SF (0.56 FAR)
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on January 28,
2019, the Commission voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been
submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached January 28, 2019 Planning Commission
Minutes).
Overall, the Commission felt that the proposed additions and design are incorporated well with the existing
house and looks like it was part of the original house. There was general support for the Variance request for lot
coverage due to the lot sloping downward from the front to the rear of the lot. The Commission noted that if there
was no slope, the rear uncovered deck would not count towards lot cov erage and the proposed first floor
addition would be within the maximum allowed lot coverage for the property. Also, the Commission wanted
clarification on which windows were to remain and a note added to the plans identifying the proposed window
material.
The applicant submitted revised plans and a letter of response to the Planning Commission dated January 31,
2019 (see attachments). The architect added clarifying notes to the plans regarding the window material. No
changes were made to the design of the proposed project.
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;
Design Review and Variance 1350 Columbus Avenue
3
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; a nd
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 proposed structure
(featuring a combination of hip and gable roofs, proportional pla te heights, aluminum clad windows with
simulated true divided lites, stucco siding, wood corbels, and wood columns) is compatible with the 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 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 improvements 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.
Suggested Findings for Lot Coverage Variance: That the subject property sloping downward from the front
to the rear of the lot establishing the finished floor at 2’-1” above grade at the front of the house and
transitioning to 4’-4” above grade at the rear of the house creates an exceptional and extraordinary
circumstance. That if the subject property ha d no slope, the existing 351 SF uncove red rear deck would have
a finished floor that is 2 5 inches above grade and therefore not count towards lot coverage (improvements
that exceed 30 inches above grade count in lot coverage). Hence, the proposed 329 SF first floor addition
would be in complia nce with lot coverage regulations . The proposed first floor addition will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity as it complies with setback regulations, is designed and will
be finished with materials to match the existing house. Therefore the proposed project may be found to be
compatible with the required Variance criteria.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the ana lysis contained within the staff report. Action should include 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 r ecord. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 18, 2019, sheets A0.1- A2.4, A2.8-A3.2, A3.6-A4.1, L1.0 and date stamped February 1, 2019,
sheets A2.5, A2.6, A3.3, and A3.4;
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
Design Review and Variance 1350 Columbus Avenue
4
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this pe rmit;
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;
5. 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;
6. 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 changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
affect 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:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
11. 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 approved 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 the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. 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
13. 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.
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Design Review and Variance 1350 Columbus Avenue
5
Associate Planner
c. Gary Diebel, AIA, applicant and architect
Rich Schoustra and Holly Rogers, property owners
Attachments:
January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Architect Response Letter to the Commission, dated January 31, 2019
Letters of Support from Neighbors
Application to the Planning Commission
Letter of Explanation submitted by the property owner, date stamped December 10, 2018
Letter of Explanation submitted by the project architect, date stamped December 10, 2018
Variance Application
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 1, 2019
Area Map
PROJECT LOCATION
251 California Drive
Item No. 8e
Regular Action Items
1
City of Burlingame
Commercial Design Review
Address: 251 California Drive Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
Request: Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing
commercial storefront.
Applicant and Architect: Marco Fung APN: 029-211-040
Property Owner: Ken White Lot Area: 4,600 SF
General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Howard Mixed Use District Zoning: HMU
Current Use: Automobile repair shop (rear portion); Vacant (front portion)
Proposed Use: No land use is being proposed for this application
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions,
plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review.
Summary: The applicant is proposing changes to the exterior façade of the existing commercial storefront
at 251 California Drive, zoned HMU. The building is currently vacant at the front portion and is still being
used as an automobile repair shop at the rear portion.
The proposed front elevation consists of a new aluminum frame and glass (double pane) storefront. Above
the new storefront, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing transom windows with new transom
windows and repaint the parapet border and existing stucco bands. No new signage or changes to the
existing signband is being proposed. Improvements also include updating the stucco on the ground border
wall and updating the outside light fixtures (dark bronze aluminum finish). Minimal interior improvements are
proposed as part of the project.
The following application is required:
Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront in
the HMU Zoning District (CS 25.33.045).
Parking Background: The property at 251 California is located within the boundaries of the Burlingame
Avenue Off-street Parking District, which was created in 1962. Assessments were collected from property
owners within the district to pay 60% of the cost to acquire and build public park ing lots in the downtown
area. Since this property has no off-street parking, the assessment was paid.
Those property owners who chose to take a credit for parking which was provided on their site did not pay
the full assessment (they got a credit). Once a credit was taken, the property owner was obliged to maintain
the parking on the site which was the basis for the credit.
In November 2016, the property owner had inquired about a potential tenant classified as a commercial
recreation use. At the time, in addition to required approval of a Conditional Use Permit, commercial
recreation uses also triggered a request for a Parking Variance because it was an intensification of the
existing use (auto repair shop). A commercial recreation use requires 1 parking space for every 200 SF of
floor area and an auto repair use requires 1 parking space per 800 SF of floor area.
The subject property lies within the Parking Sector of the Downtown Specific Plan. Retail uses and food
Item No. 8e
Regular Action Item
Commercial Design Review 251 California Drive
2
establishments on the ground floor that are located within this Parking Sector, are exempt from parking
requirements (CS 25.70.090 (a)). After evaluating the circumstance of this property, the Planning Division
concluded that the net increase calculation for parking should be based on the most intensive use that
would otherwise be exempt (food establishments at 1 space per 200 SF of floor area) rather than strictly the
existing use. Therefore, commercial recreation uses (parking ratio of 1 space per 200 SF of floor area)
would not require any additional parking (or a Parking Variance) based on this determination.
Staff comments: None.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on November
13, 2018, the Commission had concerns about the proposed exterior façade changes and referred the
applicant to a design review consultant (see the attached November 13, 2018, Planning Commission
Minutes).
Some of the comments that the Commission had included:
Existing storefront/façade and block has charm, project should not take away from this;
Stripped down design is not approvable as proposed;
Existing rhythm, scale, and pedestrian friendly nature need to be captured by proposed design;
Existing façade does not have to be preserved but elements such as the transom windows and
scale/interface of the transom windows and doors/storefront should be replicated.
The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped January 28, 2019 to address the Planning
Commission’s comments and concerns.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The applicant and property owner met with the
design review consultant to address the Planning Commission's comments. Please refer to the attached
design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated February 1, 2019, for a detailed review of the
project. The design reviewer notes that the “revised design is incorporating the original elements of the
building” and retains its “existing rhythm.” Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design
reviewer supports the proposed changes.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652
adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows:
1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas;
2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize comm ercial use
of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate
street frontages;
3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development;
4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby;
5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent
among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original
architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area;
6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
Commercial Design Review 251 California Drive
3
Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the new aluminum framed storefront window and door
system, transom windows, added ground border wall for the main entry, and stucco siding is consistent with
the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; that the proposed
storefront promotes pedestrian activity by allowing views directly into the business; that the proposed
storefront improvements are consistent with the architectural style and mass and bulk with other structures
by using stucco siding and an aluminum and glass storefront system on the ground floor, the project may be
found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review 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
include 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 the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 28, 2019, sheets A0.01 through A10.05;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
3. 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);
4. 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 changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
6. 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;
7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
affect 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. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
Commercial Design Review 251 California Drive
4
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and
10. 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.
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, Associate Planner
c. Marco Fung, applicant and architect
Ken White, property owner
Attachments:
November 13, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Design Review Analysis, dated February 1, 2019
Application to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 1, 2019
Area Map
NEW ±12'-5"X ±7'-9"(VIF)STOREFRONTWINDOWNEW DOUBLE PANESGLAZING WITHDARK ANODIZEDALUMINUM FRAMEWINDOWNEW ±5'-0"X ±7'-9" - VIFSTOREFRONTNEW 10'-0"X±12'-10" - VIFDARK ALUMINUMSTOREFRONTROLL-UP DOORNEW DOUBLE PANES GLAZING WITHDARK ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMEDOOR & WINDOW SYSTEM - SEE 6/A1.01 FOR ACCESSIBLEENTRY ELEVATION8'-0"
±7'-9"
(E)
STUCCO
WALL
TO REMAIN
(N)
STUCCO
WALL
MATCH
EXISTING
(N)
STUCCO
WALL
MATCH
EXISTINGNEW ±5'-0"X ±7'-9" - VIFSTOREFRONTNEW 6'-0" X ±9'-0"STOREFRONTDOORS2'-6"±12'-5" NEW STOREFRONT WINDOW±16'-2" NEW STOREFRONT WINDOW±12'-0" NEW STOREFRONT WINDOWNEW
PAINTED
PARAPET
= 1'-0"
5'-0"A3.01VINCINTY MAPNORTHBUILDING OWNERKEN WHITE251 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010T: 650.400.0207ARCHITECTARCHIT STUDIO318 WESTLAKE CTR, SUITE 286DALY CITY, CA 94015T: 650.270.1754CONTACT: MARCO FUNGCONTRACTORCALIFORNIA DRHATCH LNPROJECTLOCATION318 Westlake Center, Suite 286Daly City, CA 94015t.650.270.1754e-mail:mfung@architstudioarchitecture.comThese plans and specifications are the property ofArchit Studio, LLP. These documents may not becopied, reproduced, used or implemented in any way,in part or in whole, without the written consent of ArchitStudio, LLP. All common law rights of copyright arehereby specifically reserved.A R C H I T TS U D I O
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR
318 WESTLAKE CENTER, SUITE 286, DALY CITY, CA 94015
T: 650.270.1754 E: mfung@architstudioarchitecture.comPrint Record2018.08.XXReleased for ConstructionNot Released for ConstructionSheet TitleDateProject No.2018.1452018.07.22251 CALIFORNIA DRBURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 029211040SPEC TENANTIMPROVEMENT FORMARKETING(NOT FOROCCUPANCY)PLANNING SUBMITTAL2019.01.17CITY SUBMITTALBURL
INGAME
AVEHOWARD AVEHIGHLAND AVEWEST LN1SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"DEMOLITION FRONT ELEVATION2SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONGENERAL NOTESPROVIDE 2 COATS PRIMERS AND 2 COATS OF FINISH PAINTOUTDOOR LIGHT SCONCE SHALL BE WATERPROOFED ANDPROVIDE CAULKING WHERE PENETRATION OCCURSEXTERIOR STOREFRONT SHALL BE DARK BRONZE ALUMINUMEXTERIOR GLAZING SHALL BE 38" TEMPERED DUAL PANESCOMPANY: PPGOUTDOOR LITE: “SOLARGRAY” GLASS BY PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.INDOOR LITE: “STARPHIRE®” (ULTRA-CLEAR) FLOAT GLASS BY PPGINDUSTRIES, INC., SPUTTER COATED ON THIRD SURFACE (3) †LOW-E COATING: “SOLARBAN” 70XL SOLARCONTROL (SPUTTERED) BY PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.U VALUE: 0.29SHGC 0.31PROVIDE NEW EXTERIOR PAINT ON EXISTING AND NEW STUCCOFINISHESCOMPANY: KELLY MOOREADEXISTINGROLL-UP DOORTO BE REMOVEEXISTING SIGNTO BE REMOVEEXISTINGSTOREFRONT WINDOW & DOORTO BE REMOVEEXISTINGSTOREFRONT WINDOWTO BE REMOVEEXISTING TILETO REMAINEXISTINGTRANSOM WINDOWTO BE REMOVEEXISTINGWINDOW HEADERTO BE REMOVE TYP.EXISTINGWALL PAINTINGTO BE REMAINNEW EXTERIOR LIGHTNEW EXTERIOR LIGHTNEW EXTERIOR LIGHTNEW EXTERIOR LIGHTELEVATIONSECTION &SPECIFICATION3SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"SECTIONENLARGE PLAN(NOT IN SCALE)C3B/-3C/-NEW STUCCOEXTERIOR WALLEXTERIORINTERIORNEW STOREFRONTWINDOWBOTTOM OFEXISTINGROOF STRUCTURETOP OF EXISTINGOPENINGBOTTOM OFEXISTINGROOF STRUCTURETOP OF EXISTINGOPENINGFINISH GRADEFINISH GRADENEW SECTIONALOVERHEADSTOREFRONTDOORNEW STUCCOCEILINGSOFFITNEW 58" TYPE 'X'EXTERIORGYP SHEATHING0'1'2'4'NEW TRANSOMWINDOW ATEXISTINGTRANSOMWINDOW AREAFUTURE SIGN SHALLBE UNDERSEPARATE PERMITBOTTOM OFEXISTINGROOF STRUCTURETOP OF EXISTINGOPENINGTOP OFDOOR OPENINGNEW STOREFRONTWINDOW & DOOREXTERIORINTERIOREXTERIORINTERIORCBEEXTERIOR LIGHT SCONCE SHALL BE UPLIGHT ONLY PER CITY REQUIREMENT (DUE TO LIGHT SCONCE IS AT PROPERTY LINE)BOTTOMOF LIGHTSCONCESHALLBE COVEREDOR MODIFIEDTO AVOIDDOWNLIGHTINGTYPBA3A/-1&2/-CALIFORNIA DRIVEDARK BRONZE ALUMINUM FINISHESNEWCURBNEWCURB
EXISTING TILETO REMAIN
GLEXISTINGGRAPHICSHATCHLANECALIFORN
IA
DRIVEPUBLICSIDEWALKGAS 1"ELECTRICALPANELELECTRICALMETERAIRCONDITIONGL45.00
'PLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPL102.33'
119.33'41.50'PLPLENTRY /EXITNEW ALUMINUMSTOREFRONT WINDOW AND DOORNEW ALUMINUMSTOREFRONTGRADE LEVELOVERHEAD DOORNEW NON-LOAD BEARINGEXTERIOR WALL WITHSTUCCORESTRMPLPLPLSPEC TENANTIMPROVEMENT FORMARKETING(PLANNING SUBMITTAL)251 CALIFORNIA DR., BURLINGAME, CAA0.01TITLE SHEET & SITE PLANA1.01ACCESSIBILITY DETAILA2.01FLOOR PLAN A3.01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA10.00 CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLISTA10.01 CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURESA10.02 CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURESA10.03 CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURESA10.04 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES1.ARCHIT STUDIO HAS PREPARED THESE DOCUMENTS ONLY FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS & CONSTRUCTIONNOTED, INDICATED OR SHOWN AS 'NEW WORK', & ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ALL OTHERCONSTRUCTION, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT NOTED, INDICATED OR SHOWN AS EXISTING OR ASPROVIDED 'BY OTHERS' UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED OR NOTED ON THESE DOCUMENTS. ARCHITSTUDIO HAS NEITHER CHECKED OR VERIFIED THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, QUALITY OFCONSTRUCTION, ACCESSIBILITY TO, EGRESS FROM OR DESIGN OF THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION ORANY OTHER WORK NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFIED, DETAILED OR SHOWNON THESE DOCUMENTS. REPRESENTATION OF EXISTING CONDITION ARE MADE W/ THE BESTKNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE & ARE TO BE FIELD VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN IN QUESTIONEXIT LOAD INDICATED ON THESE DOCUMENTS REFLECTED THE JUDGEMENT OF ARCHIT STUDIO & AREBASED UPON THE BEST KNOWLEDGE & INFORMATION AVAILABLE @ THE TIME THESE DOCUMENTSWERE PREPARED. IF DUE TO THE FACTOR UNKNOWN TO ARCHIT STUDIO, THE USE OR OCCUPANT LOADOF THE SPACES DOES NOT CONFORM TO THOSE INDICATED ON THESE DOCUMENT, ARCHIT STUDIO ISNOT TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR ACTIONS / EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRE AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGES INUSE OR OCCUPANT LOAD.ARCHIT STUDIO SURVEY OF EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY CONDITIONS HAS BEEN PERFORMED FOR THERELATIVE DEGREE OF COMPLIANCE ONLY, AS STIPULATED BELOW FOR THE REFERENCED PROJECT.AS THE WORK IS PRE-EXISTING, & ARCHIT STUDIO IS NOT THE ARCHIT OF RECORD, ARCHIT STUDIOSHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY WORK RELATING TO THE EXISTING ACCESSIBILITYREQUIREMENTS & NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION FOR ELEMENTS WHICH ARE BELIEVED BY US& OTHERS TO BE NON-COMPLIANT. OUR SERVEY & STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE IN NO WAYABSOLVES THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES & LIABILITIES IMPLIED THEREIN FORTHE WORK IN PLACE. NOR DOES THIS SURVEY IN ANY WAY IMPLY THAT MY ELEMENT IN FACT COMPLIESWITH THE INTERPRETATIONS OF ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS BY ANY AND ALL REVIEWING PARTIESOR AGENCIESTHE AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT REQUIRES REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS IN EXISTINGFACILITIES WHERE SUCH REMOVAL IS READILY ACHIEVABLE. THE DEFINITION OF READILY ACHIEVABLECONTAINED IN THE ADA IS FLEXIBLE & SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. THEADA FURTHER PROVIDES THAT ALTERNATION TO A FACILITY MUST BE MADE IN SUCH A MANNER THATTO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, THE ALTERED PORTION OF THE FACILITY ARE READILYACCESSIBLE TO AND BY INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. ARCHIT STUDIO HAS USED ITS BESTPROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE ADA REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER FEDERAL,STATE AND LOCAL ACCESSIBILITY RULES, CODE, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS AS THEY APPLY TOTHE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE REQUIREMENTS OF ADA WILL BE SUBJECT TO VARIOUS AND POSSIBLYCONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS. ARCHIT STUDIO CANNOT AND DOES NOT WARRANT / GUARANTEETHAT THE PROJECT WILLL COMPLY WITH ALL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ADA REQUIREMENTS AND / ORTHE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES, CODES, ORDINANCES ANDREGULATIONS AS THEY APPLY TO THE PROJECT. IN ADDITION, THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING CODEALLOWS NON-COMPLIANT FEATURES TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNDER PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS ANDUNDER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE UNDER 'UNREASONABLEHARDSHIP' AS APPROVED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL. AS SUCH, ARCHIT STUDIO SHALL NOT BEHELD RESPONSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN WHICH THESE ARE AND WHICH NON-COMPLIANT ELEMENTS WOULDREQUIRE RETROFITTING TO MEET COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS.2.3.4.JURISDICTIONCITY OF BURLINGAMECODE2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODEALL RELATED BURLINGAME COUNTY ORDINANCESCOPE OF WORKENLARGE ROLL-UP DOOR OPENINGS FOR NEW ROLL-UP DOORSNEW STOREFRONT DOOR & WINDOWS.REMOVE AND REBUILD BATHROOM.OCCUPANCY GROUP: B / MCONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-BNUMBER OF STORY: 1BUILDING AREA: NO CHANGE (4600 SF)AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER: NOOCCUPANCY SUMMARY:BUSINESS AREA (RETAIL) : 1963 SF / 60 SF = 33 OCCREAR RETAIL AREA: 2564 SF / 100 SF = 43 OCCBATHROOM: 71 SF / 100 SF = 1 OCCTOTAL: 4600 SF (77 OCC)DISCLAIMERSHEET INDEXPROJECT DATADEFERRED SUBMITTALS-TITLE SHEETA0.01VINCINTY MAPNORTHBUILDING OWNERKEN WHITE251 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010T: 650.400.0207ARCHITECTARCHIT STUDIO318 WESTLAKE CTR, SUITE 286DALY CITY, CA 94015T: 650.270.1754CONTACT: MARCO FUNGCONTRACTORCALIFORNIA DRHATCH LNPROJECTLOCATION318 Westlake Center, Suite 286Daly City, CA 94015t.650.270.1754e-mail:mfung@architstudioarchitecture.comThese plans and specifications are the property ofArchit Studio, LLP. These documents may not becopied, reproduced, used or implemented in any way,in part or in whole, without the written consent of ArchitStudio, LLP. All common law rights of copyright arehereby specifically reserved.A R C H I T TS U D I O
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR
318 WESTLAKE CENTER, SUITE 286, DALY CITY, CA 94015
T: 650.270.1754 E: mfung@architstudioarchitecture.comPrint Record2018.08.XXReleased for ConstructionNot Released for ConstructionSheet TitleDateProject No.2018.1452018.07.22251 CALIFORNIA DRBURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 029211040SPEC TENANTIMPROVEMENT FORMARKETING(NOT FOROCCUPANCY)PLANNING SUBMITTAL2019.01.17CITY SUBMITTALBURL
INGAME
AVEHOWARD AVEHIGHLAND AVEWEST LN⅊⅊⅊⅊1SITE PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"NORTHHATCH ALLEYCALIFORN
IA
DRPROJECT LOCATION251 CALIFORNIA DRADJACENTBUILDING-NICADJACENTBUILDING-NICDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYSIDEWALKWATERMETERGASMETERELECTRICMETER&PANELAIR CONDITION0'4'8'16'“CONSTRUCTION HOURS”WEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M.SATURDAYS: 9:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18.07.110 FOR DETAILS.)“ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TOBE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FORTHESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BYTHE PLANNING COMMISSION.” THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECTDESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A REVISION TO THE CITY FORANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANSPRIOR TO PERFORMING THE WORK.ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANYONE WHO IS DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY MUSTHAVE A CURRENT CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSENOTE: A CONDITION OF THIS PROJECT APPROVAL IS THAT THE DEMOLITIONPERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED AND, AND NO WORK CAN BEGIN (INCLUDING THEREMOVAL OF ANY BUILDING COMPONENTS), UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT HASBEEN ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FORASSURING THAT NO WORK IS AUTHORIZED OR PERFORMED.INDICATE ON THE PLANS THAT A GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BEOBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.THIS PROJECT IS FOR MARKETING ONLY - SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT FORTENANT IMPROVEMENT IS REQUIRED - FURNITURE PLAN IS UNAVAILABLE ATTHIS TIME IN THE TENANT SPACE INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE “OFFICE” OR AREAWHERE BOOKKEEPING AND FINANCIAL RECONCILIATION WILL TAKE PLACE. IFTHE OFFICE IS TO BE LOCATED ON THE MEZZANINE LEVEL THEN ALSOINDICATE AN ACCESSIBLE OFFICE SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 2016 CBC§11B-203.9NOTES FROM BUILDING DEPARTMENT1.BASED ON THE SCOPE OF WORK, THIS ISA “SMALL” PROJECT THAT REQUIRES A STORMWATERCONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT. THISPERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDINGPERMIT. AN INITIAL FIELD INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIORTO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION (ON PRIVATEPROPERTY OR IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OFWAY).2.ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUCH ASPLACEMENT OF DEBRIS BIN IN STREET, WORK IN SIDEWALKAREA, PUBLIC EASEMENTS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, ISREQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIORTO STARTING WORK.3.CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON-CITYHOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M. FOR ALLACTIVITIES (INCLUDING HAULING).4.REPLACE DAMAGED AND DISPLACED CURB, GUTTERAND/OR SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE.5.ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATERMAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TOBE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDMATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATERDEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED, ALLFIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BEINSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICECONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATEUNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL.6.SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION ISREQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW SEWERFIXTURE PER ORDINANCE NO. 1710. THE SEWERBACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATE IS REQUIREDPRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT.7.THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER)SHALL BE TESTED PER ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15.12.TESTING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE BUILDINGDEPARTMENT COUNTER. A SEWER LATERAL TESTENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIREDNOTES FROMENGINEERING DEPT
GLSIDEWALK45.00'PLPL119.33'ENTRY /EXITNEW ALUMINUMSTOREFRONT WINDOW AND DOORRESTRMPLPLPL30"X48" CLRNEW ALL GENDER RESTRM SIGN - SEE 8/A1.01EXISTING 2% SLOPE(ANY DIRECTION @ LANDING)ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVELPROVIDE "EXIT'TACTILE SIGN - SEE 10/-SEE 2/- FOR INTERIOR ELEVATIONACCESSIBILITYA1.01TAPERED EDGES WHERE EXPOSEDTYP. SECTION A-ATRUNCHATED DOME PRODUCT SHALL BE COMPLIED W/ CBC FIGURE 11B-23A & BE INSTALLEDPER TITLE 24. DETECTABLE WARNINGS MUST BE 'LISTED' AS TESTED & APPROVED BY DEPTOF STATE ARCHITECT / MANUFACTURER OF THE PRODUCT SHALL PROVIDE A WARRANTYLETTER FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 5 YEARSSCALE: NOT TO SCALETRUNCATED DOMES6SCALE: 1-1/2"=1'-0"EXIT / EXIT ROUTE SIGNMIN.CHARACTERHEIGHTHORIZONTALVIEWINGDISTANCEHEIGHT TO FINISHFLOOR OR GROUNDFROM BASELINE OFCHARACTER40" TO 70"LESS THAN 72"72" OR GREATER58"58" PLUS 18" PER FOOT OFVIEWING DISTANCE ABOVE 72"GREATER THAN 70" BUTLESS THAN OR EQUALTO 120"LESS THAN 180"2"180" OR GREATER2" PLUS 18" PER FOOT OFVIEWING DISTANCE ABOVE 180"GREATER THAN 120"LESS THAN 21'-0"3"21'-0" OR GREATER3" PLUS 18" PER FOOT OFVIEWING DISTANCE ABOVE 21'-0"FLOORA. TACTILE SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED ALONGSIDE THE DOOR AT THE LATCH SIDE.B. AT DOUBLE DOORS WITH ONE ACTIVE LEAF, THE TACTILE SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE INACTIVE LEAFC. AT DOUBLE DOORS WITH BOTH ACTIVE LEAFS, THE SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED TO THE RIGHT OF THE RIGHT HANDDOOR.D. WHERE THERE IS NO WALL SPACE AT THE LATCH SIDE OF A SINGLE DOOR OR AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF DOUBLE DOORS,SIGNS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE NEAREST ADJACENT WALL.E. SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED SO THAT A CLEAR SPACE OF 18 INCHES MINIMUM BY 18 INCHES MINIMUM, CENTERED ONTHE TACTILE CHARACTERS, IS PROVIDE BEYOND THE ARC OF ANY DOOR SWING BETWEEN THE CLOSED POSITIONAND 45 DEGREE OPEN POSITION.F. WHERE PERMANENT IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE IS PROVIDED FOR ROOMS AND SPACES THEY SHALL BE LOCATED ONTHE APPROACH SIDE OF THE DOOR AS ONE ENTERS THE ROOM OR SPACE.G. SIGNS THAT IDENTIFY EXITS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE APPROACH SIDE OF THE DOOR AS ONE EXITS THE ROOM ORSPACE.11 B -703.2 RAISED CHARACTERS. RAISED CHARACTERS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 11 B-703.2 AND SHALL BEDUPLICATED IN BRAILLE COMPLYING WITH SECTION 11 B-703.3. RAISED CHARACTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED INACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11 B-703.4.11B-703.2.1 DEPTH. RAISED CHARACTERS SHALL BE 1 / 32 INCH (0.8 MM) MINIMUM ABOVE THEIR BACKGROUND.IIB-703.2.2 CASE. CHARACTERS SHALL BE UPPERCASE. 11 B-703.2.3 STYLE. CHARACTERS SHALL BE SANS SERIF.CHARACTERS SHALL NOT BE ITALIC, OBLIQUE, SCRIPT, HIGHLY DECORATIVE, OR OF OTHER UNUSUAL FORMS.11 B-703.2.4 CHARACTER PROPORTIONS. CHARACTERS SHALL BE SELECTED FROM FONTS WHERE THE WIDTHOF THE UPPERCASE LETTER "0" IS 60 PERCENT MINIMUM AND 110 PERCENT MAXIMUM OF THE HEIGHT OF THEUPPERCASE LETTER "I".IIB-703.2.5 CHARACTER HEIGHT. CHARACTER HEIGHT MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE BASELINE OF THECHARACTER SHALL BE 5/8 INCH (15.9 MM) MINIMUM AND 2 INCHES (51 MM) MAXIMUM BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF THEUPPERCASE LETTER "I".IIB-703.2.6 STROKE THICKNESS. STROKE THICKNESS OF THE UPPERCASE LETTER "I" SHALL BE 15 PERCENTMAXIMUM OF THE HEIGHT OF THE CHARACTER.11 B-703.2. 7 CHARACTER SPACING. CHARACTER SPACING SHALL BE MEASURED BETWEEN THE TWO CLOSESTPOINTS OF ADJACENT RAISED CHARACTERS WITHIN A MESSAGE, EXCLUDING WORD SPACES. WHERECHARACTERS HAVE RECTANGULAR CROSS SECTIONS, SPACING BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL RAISED CHARACTERSSHALL BE 18 INCH (3.2 MM) MINIMUM AND 4 TIMES THE RAISED CHARACTER STROKE WIDTH MAXIMUM. WHERECHARACTERS HAVE OTHER CROSS SECTIONS, SPACING BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL RAISED CHARACTERSSHALL BE '/16 INCH (1.6 MM) MINIMUM AND 4 TIMES THE RAISED CHARACTER STROKE WIDTH MAXIMUM AT THEBASE OF THE CROSS SECTIONS, AND 1/8 INCH (3 .2 MM) MINIMUM AND 4 TIMES THE AISED CHARACTER STROKEWIDTH MAXIMUM AT THE TOP OF THE ROSS SECTIONS. CHARACTERS SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM RAISEDBORDERS AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS \ INCH (9.5 MM) MINIMUM.IIB-703.2.8 LINE SPACING. SPACING BETWEEN THE BASELINES F SEPARATE LINES OF RAISED CHARACTERSWITHIN A MESSAGE HALL BE 135 PERCENT MINIMUM AND 170 PERCENT MAXIMUM F THE RAISED CHARACTERHEIGHT.IIB-703.2.9 FORMAT. TEXT SHALL BE IN A HORIZONTAL FORMAT.IIB-703.3 BRAILLE. BRAILLE SHALL BE CONTRACTED (GRADE 2) AND SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 11 B-703.3AND 11 B-703.4.IIB-703.3.1 DIMENSIONS AND CAPITALIZATION. BRAILLE DOTS SHALL HAVE A DOMED OR ROUNDED SHAPE ANDSHALL COMPLY WITH TABLE 11 B-703.3.1. THE INDICATION OF AN UPPERCASE LETTER OR LETTERS SHALL ONLY BEUSED BEFORE THE FIRST WORD OF SENTENCES, PROPER NOUNS AND NAMES, INDIVIDUAL LETTERS OFTHE ALPHABET, INITIALS, AND ACRONYMS.11B-703.3.2 POSITION. BRAILLE SHALL BE POSITIONED BELOW THE CORRESPONDING TEXT IN A HORIZONTALFORMAT, FLUSH LEFT OR CENTERED. IF TEXT IS MULTI-LINED, BRAILLE SHALL BE PLACED BE10W THE ENTIRETEXT. BRAILLE SHALL BE SEPARATED 3/8 INCH (9.5 MM) MINIMUM AND 1/2 INCH (12.7 MM) MAXIMUM FROMANY OTHER TACTILE CHARACTERS AND 3/8 INCH (9.5 MM) MINIMUM FROM RAISED BORDERS AND DECORATIVEELEMENTS.SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"ACCESSIBLE MOUNTING HEIGHTTOP OF INTERIOR PARTITIONDOOR AS SPECIFIEDTHERMOSTATLIGHT SWITCH: DOTTED LINEINDICATES LOCATION OFLARGER PLATE IF NEEDEDFOR MORE SWITCHESHARDWARE SET ASSCHEDULEDCONVENIENCE WALL OUTLETWALL TELEPHONE OUTLETFINISH FLOORNOTE:LOCATE ELECTRICAL &TELEPHONE WALL OUTLETS &SWITCH PLATES AT NEARESTSTUD FROM SCALEDLOCATION ON PLAN UNLESSOTHERWISE SPECIFICALLYNOTED.DOOR CONSTRUCTIONVISION PANEL AS SCHEDULED78910DETAILSVINCINTY MAPNORTHBUILDING OWNERKEN WHITE251 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010T: 650.400.0207ARCHITECTARCHIT STUDIO318 WESTLAKE CTR, SUITE 286DALY CITY, CA 94015T: 650.270.1754CONTACT: MARCO FUNGCONTRACTORCALIFORNIA DRHATCH LNPROJECTLOCATION318 Westlake Center, Suite 286Daly City, CA 94015t.650.270.1754e-mail:mfung@architstudioarchitecture.comThese plans and specifications are the property ofArchit Studio, LLP. These documents may not becopied, reproduced, used or implemented in any way,in part or in whole, without the written consent of ArchitStudio, LLP. All common law rights of copyright arehereby specifically reserved.A R C H I T TS U D I O
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR
318 WESTLAKE CENTER, SUITE 286, DALY CITY, CA 94015
T: 650.270.1754 E: mfung@architstudioarchitecture.comPrint Record2018.08.XXReleased for ConstructionNot Released for ConstructionSheet TitleDateProject No.2018.1452018.07.22251 CALIFORNIA DRBURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 029211040SPEC TENANTIMPROVEMENT FORMARKETINGPLANNING SUBMITTAL2018.08.XXCITY SUBMITTALBURL
INGAME
AVEHOWARD AVEHIGHLAND AVEWEST LN25114SCALE: 1/2"=1'-0"ACCESSIBLE ENTRY ELEVATIONBLDG SUITE ADDRESS SIGN ON (E) STOREFRONT PER LOCAL FIRE DEPT & CBC SEC 501.2APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBER," MIN TEMPEREDGLASS W/ ALUM.FRAME - TYPINTERNATIONAL SYMBOLOF ACCESSIBILITY DECALTHRESHOLD LESS THAN 1/2"BLDG NUMBER, OR APPROVED BLDG IDENIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE & VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THESE NUMBER SHALL BE CONTRASTED WITH BACKGROUND. ADDRESS NUMBER SHALL BE ARABIC NUMERALS OR ALPHABETIC LETTERS. NUMBERS SHALL BE A MIN OF 4" HIGH W/ A MIN STROKEWIDTH OF 0.5"1PROPOSEDACCESSIBILITYFLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NORTH0'2'4'8'2INTERIORELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NORTH0'2'4'8'ABCDREFER 9/- FOR ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR ELEVATIONSCALE: 38"=1'-0"RESTROOM FIXTURE & ACCESSORIES MOUNTING HEIGHTNAPKIN/ TAMPONDISPOSERNAPKIN/ TAMPONDISPENSERNAPKINDISPENSER&WASTEDISPOSERLAVATORYSECTIONLAVATORYURINAL14" MIN &17" MAXPROJECTIONFROM WALLTOILETSEATCOVERDISPENSERTOILETPAPERDISPENSERTOILETTOILET36" LONG GRAB BAR42" LONG GRAB BARFLUSH HANDLE @OPEN SIDE OF HCSTALLSOAP DISPENSERINSULATED PIPE UNDER SINKMIRRORREAR GRAB BAR CANBE 36" HIGH AFF WHENTANK TYPE TOILETOCCURSCLCL
8'-0"8'-0"EQ6'-0"EQ1'-0"1'-178"EQ10'-0" X 12'-6"EQ 3 EQ PANES @ EXISTING OPENING=11'-6" - VIF±11'-6" X ±13'-0" HIGH
(BOTTOM OF ROOF STRUCTURE:
±20'-0" VARIES HEIGHT)A2.01VINCINTY MAPNORTHBUILDING OWNERKEN WHITE251 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010T: 650.400.0207ARCHITECTARCHIT STUDIO318 WESTLAKE CTR, SUITE 286DALY CITY, CA 94015T: 650.270.1754CONTACT: MARCO FUNGCONTRACTORCALIFORNIA DRHATCH LNPROJECTLOCATION318 Westlake Center, Suite 286Daly City, CA 94015t.650.270.1754e-mail:mfung@architstudioarchitecture.comThese plans and specifications are the property ofArchit Studio, LLP. These documents may not becopied, reproduced, used or implemented in any way,in part or in whole, without the written consent of ArchitStudio, LLP. All common law rights of copyright arehereby specifically reserved.A R C H I T TS U D I O
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR
318 WESTLAKE CENTER, SUITE 286, DALY CITY, CA 94015
T: 650.270.1754 E: mfung@architstudioarchitecture.comPrint Record2018.08.XXReleased for ConstructionNot Released for ConstructionSheet TitleDateProject No.2018.1452018.07.22251 CALIFORNIA DRBURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 029211040SPEC TENANTIMPROVEMENT FORMARKETING(NOT FOROCCUPANCY)PLANNING SUBMITTAL2019.01.17CITY SUBMITTALBURL
INGAME
AVEHOWARD AVEHIGHLAND AVEWEST LN1DEMOLITIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NORTHFLOOR PLAN2PROPOSEDSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NORTHFLOOR PLANFLOOR PLANEXISTING AIRCONDITIONERTO BE REMOVEEXISTING BATHROOM25 SFTO BE REMOVEEXISTING COUNTER & SINKTO BE REMOVEEXISTINGSTOREFRONTWINDOWTO BE REMOVEEXISTINGSTOREFRONTWINDOW & DOORTO BE REMOVEEXISTINGROLL-UP DOORTO BE REMOVENEWSTOREFRONTWINDOWNEWSTOREFRONTWINDOW & DOORNEWOVERHEADDOOR WITHSTOREFRONTGLAZINGNEWBATHROOM71 SF/100SF1OCCEXISTING WATER HEATERON TOP OF BATHROOMTO BE REMOVE5($5$5($1,&6)EXISTING BATHROOM25 SFTO BE REMOVEBUSINESS AREA1984 SFBUSINESS AREAPOTENTIAL EXERCISE AREA1963 SF/50 SF = 40 OCC (1 EXIT REQUIRED)ORPOTENTIAL RETAIL USE1963 SF / 60 SF = 33 OCC (1 EXIT REQUIRED)0'2'4'8'0'2'4'8'EXISTING ARTWORKTO REMAIN &RESTOREPOLISH (E)CONC SLAB@ OUTDOOR5($5$5($1,&6)CAL GREEN MANDATORY MEASURESCONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION, DISPOSAL AND RECYCLINGSEE A10.01 & A10.02 FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONBUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONSEE A10.01 & A10.02 FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONPOLLUTANT CONTROLSEE A10.01 & A10.02 FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONINDOOR MOISTURE CONTROLSEE A10.01 & A10.02 FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONENVIRONMENTAL COMFORTSEE A10.01 & A10.02 FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONOUTDOOR AIR QUALITYSEE A10.01 & A10.02 FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONSITE DEVELOPMENTSEE A10.01 & A10.02 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION96 GALTRASHBIN96 GALRECYCLEBIN96 GALORGANICSBINEEPROVIDE FIRE DEPT KNOX BOXILLUMINATING EXIT SIGN WITH 90 MINUTES MINIMUM BACKUPPOWER & EMERGENCY NIGHT LIGHT TYP(EXIT (41 OCC)(EXIT (43 OCC)STORAGE (2564 SF /60 SF = 43 OCC)FEFE
SheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRGPLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-11-18EGRESS WINDOW CHARTWINDOW136" X 60"SIZENET CLEAROPENING AREA+36" A.F.F.SILLHEIGHT32" X 58" = 12.89 sf23436" X 48"+36" A.F.F.32" X 44" = 9.78 sf36" X 84"34" X 84" = 19.83 sfSWINGDOOR36" X 54"32" X 52" = 11.55 sf+30" A.F.F.1REVISION SET 1CR01-16-19
SheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRGPLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-11-181REVISION SET 1CR01-16-19
10"HOLLY19"SYCAMORE412679999999999993333333333555111111111212121212121117774888811111161114141414141488EE2EEV3V3EEEEEEEG2G2G2V2AAABBFFGDV 2RESIDENCE(N)GARAGE(N)(N) UNIT PAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE*SAND/BASE ROCKBASE(E) 6'-0" SOLIDWOOD FENCING9'-7"(N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAYAPRON PER CITY STDS(N) STONELANDING / STEP(E) SYCAMORETREE TO REMAINO C C I D E N T A L A V E N U EOUTLINE OF (E)HOUSE TO BEREMOVED(E) SIDEWALK(E) CURB /GUTTER(E) SHRUBS TOBE REMOVED*PERVIOUS(N) GRANITEFINES PATH*PERVIOUS(E) 6'-0" SOLIDWOOD FENCING(N) CONC. WALK(E) 6'-0" SOLIDWOOD FENCING(N) EVERGREENFAST-GROWINGHEDGE *PERNEIGHBOR'SREQUEST(N) 5' WOODTRASH ENCLOSURE(N) PAVER DRIVEWAYCONCRETE UNIT*TURN-AROUND(N) NATIVEGRASS(N) STONELOGGIA(N) 3'-0" TALL BBQ /COUNTERTOP3'(N) UNIT PAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE*SAND/BASE ROCKBASE*PERVIOUS(E) WATERMETER(N) DROUGHTTOLERANTGROUNDCOVER(N) STONEPATH12'-0"(N) EVERGREENPRIVACY HEDGE(N) EVERGREENPRIVACY TREES(N) SPECIMENTREE(N)LAWN(N)LAWN(N) STONESTEPRESIDENCE(N)GARAGE(N)O C C I D E N T A L A V E N U E1111111111111112H1MX3MX5MX4MX6H7MX(N) BACKFLOWPREVENTIONDEVICE3/4" PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE
L1.0DATE:DECEMBER 6, 2018SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANTITLE:SHEET NO:PLANLANDSCAPEREVISIONSMCVEIGH RESIDENCE
329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIASCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"IRRIGATION PLANPLANTING NOTES1.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT AND SOD QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK.2.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THEAMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION.3.PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED AS DEER RESISTANT DUE TO CHANGING HABITS OF DEER.4.ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES,WITH A CHIP SIZE OF NO LESS THAN ONE INCH. A 2 INCH LAYER OF GREENWASTE MULCH UNDER THE BARKMULCH IS RECOMMENDED.5.SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKSLARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED INTYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS.6.PLANTING HOLES SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE SIZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANTHOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 5% ORGANIC COMPOST & 95% EXISTINGSOIL. PLANTING HOLES OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE INOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI, PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECS.7.TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIA. POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITHTWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE-EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE.8.RESIDUAL WEED PRE-EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY. APPLICATION SHALLBE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.9.LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25%. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED ATTIME OF INSTALLATION.IRRIGATION NOTES1. THE CONCEPTS ON THE IRRIGATION PLAN ARE SCHEMATIC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THE FULL EXTENT OFWHICH ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ASNECESSARY BASED ON ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS.2. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS SUPERSEDE ANY SPECS ON THESE PLANS / DETAILS.3. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL USE PRESSURE REGULATORS AS NEEDED TO KEEP ALL COMPONENTS WITHINOPTIMAL PSI RANGE, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS.4. CONTROLLER TYPE SHALL BE A SMART CONTROLLER. RAIN SENSORS AND / OR WEATHER STATIONS ARERECOMMENDED.5. CONTROLLER SHALL BE SET TO IRRIGATE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8PM AND 10AM. CONTROLLER SHALL BESET TO IRRIGATE DEEPLY AND LESS FREQUENTLY TO ENCOURAGE DROUGHT RESISTANT ROOT GROWTH.IRRIGATION SCHEDULE TO BE DETERMINED BY AUDITOR / CONTRACTOR.6. PIPING BETWEEN THE WATER METER AND A REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE BRASS OR COPPER TYPE'K'.7. THE BOTTOM OF THE REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE INSTALLED MIN. 12" ABOVE THE GROUND.8. A 100 MESH FILTER SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE MAINLINE BEFORE THE REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY.9. VALVES SHALL BE HOUSED IN WEATHER-PROOF PLASTIC BOXES, WITH LOCKABLE LIDS MARKED WATER.10. CONTROL WIRE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH WATERPROOF PLASTIC WIRE NUTS.11. MAIN SUPPLY LINES & FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC SCH 40, SIZE AS NOTED ON PLAN, BURIED 12" - 16" DEEP.12. LATERAL SUPPLY LINES & FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC SCH 40, SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR, BURIED9" - 12" DEEP.13. FLEXIBLE POLY PIPE TO BE 12" -34", DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR . ALL 14" FLEXIBLE DISTRIBUTION LINES TOBE A MAXIMUM OF 5'-0" IN LENGTH & ARE TO BE STAKED.14. BUBBLERS SHALL BE SPACED TO CREATE AN EVEN WET ZONE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE CANOPY OF ALL NEWSHRUBS, NEW TREES & EXISTING IMMATURE NON-NATIVE TREES. BUBBLERS SHALL BE PLACED TO AVOID AS MUCHAS POSSIBLE IRRIGATING OAK TREES & ANY OTHER EXISTING, MATURE NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS.15. HOSE BIBS SHALL BE MOUNTED ON GALVANIZED STEEL RISERS 30" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. SECURE TO A#4 STEEL BAR DRIVEN 18" INTO SOLID GROUND.16. CHECK VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL DOWNHILL DRIPLINE & DISTRIBUTION LINE.17. RISER HEIGHT IN LAWN AREAS SHALL BE 4". RISER HEIGHT IN MEADOW AREAS AND OTHER LANDSCAPEAREAS SHALL BE 12". THE RISERS FOR SPRINKLERS ON SLOPES SHALL BE SET APPROXIMATELY PERPENDICULARTO THE PLANE OF THE SLOPE.18. IF LOCATION OF A SUPPLY LINE INTERFERES WITH THE DRILLING OF THE PLANT HOLES, THE PLANT HOLESSHALL BE LOCATED AS TO CLEAR THE SUPPLY LINES.18. ALL LINES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY FLUSHED OUT PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF VALVES, SPRINKLERS, EMITTERS,& OTHER TERMINAL FITTINGS.19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE FINAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO ENSURE PROPERCOVERAGE AND PREVENT WATER RUN-OFF AND EXCESS SPRAY.20. ALL SPRAY AND DRIP ZONES TO BE MIN. 5'-0" AND PREFERABLY 10'-0" AWAY FROM OAK TREE TRUNKS.HUNTER MPR40 BODY W/ MP ROTATOR SERIES30-55(C)-CORNER, (1)-1000 etc.CFILTER / PRESSURE REGULATORFEBCO 825Y REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLYPVC SCH 40 SLEEVINGIRRIGATION LEGENDDESCRIPTIONPVC SCH 40 LATERAL PIPINGPVC SCH 40 MAINLINEIRRITROL 100 SERIES CONTROL VALVESHUT-OFF VALVESYMUNDER ALL PAVING / WALLS AS NEEDED PER MFR'S SPECSSIZING TBD BY CONTRACTORW/ GLOBE VALVEW/ SHUT-OFF VALVESBRASS BALL VALVEREMARKSSEE PLAN FOR SIZINGW/ WEATHER STATIONWEATHERMATIC SMARTLINE SERIES CONTROLLERHOSEBIB30" TALL BRASS LINE & FIXTURE60-100--60-10060-100-175 max.PSI30-5560-100-GPM.07-2.63----------SIZING TBD BY CONTRACTORIRRIGATION METHODWATER USE(SPY: SPRAY DRP: DRIP BUB: BUBBLER SUB: SUB-SURFACE)(VL: VERY LOW L: LOW M: MEDIUM H: HIGH MX: MIXED)MXDRPNETAFIM TECHLINE CV DRIPLINE
PROJECT LOCATION
1457 El Camino Real
Item No. 9b
Environmental Scoping &
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study for Proposed
9-Unit Residential Condominium Building
Address: 1457 El Camino Real Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
Request: Application for Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use
Permit for building height, and Front Landscape Variance 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
Environmental Review: The Planning Commission should review the proposed project for areas of potential
significant environmental effects. The Commission should add any additional effects of the project that they
anticipate might be potentially significant. The areas of investigation for environmental evaluation as defined by
CEQA are listed on the attached sheet for your reference. These potential environmental effects which will be
considered in the CEQA document include:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• Cumulative Impacts
The issues identified by the Commission will be incorporated into the environmental documents for the project.
At this time, staff notes that based on preliminary analysis, it appears that the type of CEQA document required
will be a Mitigated Negative Declaration. However, the type of CEQA document will be finalized during the
environmental review process. The City is currently awaiting submittal of proposals from CEQA consultants for
the preparation of the CEQA document.
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
Item No. 9b
Environmental Scoping &
Design Review Study
Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
2
dwelling units per acre. The project also proposes to add a second curb cut within the Caltrans right-of-way.
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. 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 entries 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 1,052
SF, with the units ranging from 731 SF to 1,219 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
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);
Conditional Use Permit for building height exceeding 35’-0” (47’-4” proposed) (C.S. 25.28.060); and
Front setback landscape variance to have 31.9% of the front setback landscaped where 50% of the
front setback is required to be landscaped (C.S. 26.30.070 (e)(1)).
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'-4" 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 parking spaces on the site are covered.
Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
3
With two proposed driveways at a required width of 12 feet each, the applicant is also requesting a front
setback landscaping variance (31.9% of the front setback proposed to be landscaped where 50% is the
minimum required) (C.S. 26.30.070(e)(1)).
Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L1.0). The
applicant is proposing 31.9% (328 SF) landscaping within the required front setback where 50% (528 SF) is
the minimum required. The applicant is requesting approval of a Front Setback Landscaping Variance for the
deficient landscaping within the front setback.
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.
1457 El Camino Real
Lot Area: 8,160 SF Plans date stamped: January 28, 2019
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front:
Underground garage:
20’-7” (all floors)
20’-7”
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:
4,068 SF
49.9%
4,080 SF
50% (for interior lots)
Building Height: 47’-3”
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
Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
4
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Driveway Width: 12'-0”
12’-0" required
Driveway Aisle: 27’-10” (underground garage)
18’-0" required
Front Setback Landscaping:
31.9%1
328 SF
50%
514 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.
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;
Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
5
(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.
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 improvements 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.
Planning Commission Action:
1. Environmental Scoping: As the first discussion item, the Planning Commission should review and
take public comment on the proposed project and the areas of potential environmental effects as listed
in the staff report. The Commission should add any additional effects of the project that it believes
should be addressed in the CEQA document. The areas of investigation for environmental evaluation
as defined by CEQA are listed in the attached Initial Study Checklist for your reference.
2. Design Review Study: As the second discussion item, the Commission should comment on the design
of the project as required by Chapter 25.57 of the Zoning Ordinance, Design Review, and to the
following design criteria for multi-family residential projects:
a. Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood;
b. Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural
styles;
c. Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the
architectural style used; and
d. Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future.
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner
Troy Kashanipour, architect
Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1457 El Camino Real
6
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Application
Front Setback Variance Application
Environmental Information Form, submitted by the applicant
Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 1, 2019
Area Map
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 4, 2019 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF CLARIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1245 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved
first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at
1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on January 14,
2019 (see attached January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes).
The application was approved with the following condition of approval, which needs to be
addressed prior to issuance of a building permit.
Condition of Approval No. 2: that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of the window located in the second
floor dormer along the left side of the house, with direction to raise the sill height and
reduce the size of the window; could consider a casement window at this location.
The applicant submitted an explanation letter and revised plans, date stamped January 22,
2019, showing a smaller window with a raised sill height in the second floor dormer (Bedroom
#3) (see building elevation and section on sheet A.5). The size of the window decreased from
3’-6” wide x 5’-0” tall to 3’-0” wide x 4’-0” tall. The sill height was raised by 1’-0”, from 1’-6” to
2’-6” above finished floor. In order to comply with egress requirements, the type of window was
changed from double-hung to casement.
Other than the clarifications shown on the 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:
Letter submitted by applicant, dated January 22, 2019
January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Revised Plans, date stamped January 22, 2019
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 14, 2019
f.1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for
changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric and Jennifer Lai, applicants and property owners; Chu
Design Associates Inc., designer) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
James Chu, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions for the applicant.
Public Comments:
Frank and Robin Knifsend, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue: Thanked designer and owners for changes made to the
project, they are improvements to the plan. This house, with a tall foundation and sloping lot, has a lot of
mass from our perspective. Noted a number of items that we hope would be considered as additional
changes before design is approved. Have brought down the plate height by 10 to 11 inches, but
concerned about almost three foot extension at rear of house. Doesn't seem like a lot, but it's the last
open area without a structure along property line. Also concerned with gable dormer along left side of
house, seems a lot bigger, there isn't much of a roof below the dormer to help minimize the wall of gable .
In addition, window is much bigger, which is the reason for the large well. Would like to see window size
reduced from 5'-6" to 4'-0" tall, allowing for more roof in front of wall to reduce its mass. Some windows on
first floor are still five feet tall, seems to scale well on plans, but one doesn't realize how big this house is .
At point of gable, finished floor of house is five feet off ground and house is almost 30 feet tall. Still feel
there could be a few more changes that would improve the design, without significantly changing the
overall design. Would hope that before final approval of the project, the surveyor would also shoot the
plate heights in addition to the roof peak, because we still don't have trust in the design, nor in the
communication between the designer and contractor. Would have liked to see more articulation along left
side of house.
Chu: Based on feedback provided on the original design, shifted second floor dormer to not align with the
neighbor's window. Working with landscape architect to revise landscape plan. There is a change that the
existing birch tree, located at rear of house, may need to be removed; it's not a very attractive tree and is
tilting to one side. Will replace with a better tree. Also thought about providing additional privacy
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
screening along left side of house, particularly in front of the kitchen and bedroom #1 windows. Trying to
work very hard to satisfy neighbors' concerns.
Melissa Macko, neighbor: Understand that creek is not a part of the Planning Commission's purview .
However, as a neighbor that is located down creek from this site, concerned that there is no plan to
address creek stabilization along this property. Creek flooded two years ago. There is nothing but dirt
behind this lot. If we have another storm like we did two years ago, it will be a disaster. Would encourage
someone to look at the situation and stabilization of the creek, needs to be someone more than a
landscape architect, like an engineer to address stabilization of creek. Wanted this to be noted because
it is a concern of the neighbors.
Sally Brown, neighbor: Live in house across creek from project site. Very concerned about the creek and
second comments from previous speaker. Planting will not be sufficient to stabilize creek. Our house
and house to right is only area with natural creek bank and not culverted. Creek has been eroding
naturally for last couple of years. Feel that bank along subject property will end up in creek if stabilized
only by vegetation. Is a really big concern for us.
Chu: Concur with concerns expressed by neighbors. Landscape architect is working with Building Division
to protect creek. Solution recommended by the Building Division is to plant specific groundcover to
stabilize creek, also have erosion control in place.
>What is sill height in gable along left hand side in Bedroom #3? Is there a reason why sill height is
pushed down so low in this bedroom? (Chu: Approximately 14-16 inches because window needs to meet
egress requirements.)
>What is the minimum size required for an egress windows? (Chu: Clear opening has to be a certain
size.)
>Have never seen a bedroom window with a 6'-8" header that has a sill that low. (Chu: Reason for size
is because window is double-hung. Could meet egress requirements with smaller casement window.)
>May have a problem with window as proposed, will not be able to open window all the way if sill height
really is 18 inches, is a safety issue. (Chu: Understand that this requirement only applies to windows
facing the street.)
>Would you consider changing the window to a casement window and still keep the same grid profile?
(Chu: Yes, can consider it.)
>Required sill height for an egress window is higher than 18 inches, so the sill height could come up.
>Window looks like it fits the house, but it is a very large window. Should consider making this window
smaller.
Philip Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue: Concerned about the way the contractor has treated protection of the
creek bank. There has been significant erosion in the last month to the point where there is no soil under
the existing fence. Contractor has done bizarre things on site, took live power line across creek, wrapped
it around our oak tree and tied it to our metal fence. Would like to see inspectors visit the site more
regularly.
Steve Macko, 1257 Cabrillo Avenue: Have built adjacent to and over the creek on their house, aware of
requirements regarding building in and around the creek and the care you have to take in doing so, have
not seen that care on this project. Creek comes down the hill and make a 90-degree turn at the rear of
this property. With the force of water flowing through there during a big storm, no amount of groundcover
will deter further deterioration of that creek wall. It will require a built structure to the property. Surprised
that as owners, they are not more concerned about the safety of the detached garage being built at the
rear of the property as the creek bank gives way over time. When the soil erodes under the foundation,
the garage will end up in the creek and cause problems for a lot of homeowners up the creek. More
investigation needs to be done regarding impact to creek and measures that have not been take to
ensure that this is going to be a safe build.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2019
January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Can staff provide a status regarding what work staff is doing with the applicant about protecting the
creek? (Hurin: Will forward comments and concerns to the Department of Public Works, Engineering
Division, who is working with the applicant regarding creek stabilization. Additional work may be required
after the Engineering Division visits the site and determines what appropriate action is required .
Appreciate comments and concerns expressed by neighbors.)
>Very sympathetic to the neighbors, it's a big change compared to what was there before.
>Applicant has not executed this project well, but have done a lot of work to bring a project that fits into
the neighborhood and meets the design guidelines. The revised project is less impactful to the neighbors
than the originally approved project.
>Project has come a long way. There were a number of special considerations asked for initially, but
since then have eliminated those by lowering the height and removing encroachments into the side
setback.
>Project design complies with the design guidelines.
>Project is working with the existing foundation, that is quite tall but typical of the house of this era .
Have mitigated that by lowering the plate height and overall height of building.
>Have done the massing and articulation we see in project typically approved for design review. Can
support project.
>Changes made along the left side are significant, especially pulling house back to comply with four
foot setback requirement.
>Changes made to windows on upper floor to reduce apparent size of wall are significant, now see more
sloped roof and less wall.
>Concerned about size of window in Bedroom #3, should revisit sill height and window size.
>Is a well designed project.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning
Commission review of the window located in the second floor dormer along the left side of the
house, with direction to raise the sill height and reduce the size of the window; could consider a
casement window at this location.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Gaul2 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2019