Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.02.25Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 25, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1328 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of on-site parking. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Hari and Depali Abhyankar, property owners) (163 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 2/21/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 250 California Dr - Staff Report 250 California Dr - Attachments 250 California Dr - 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. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Staff Report Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Attachments Proposed Amendments to Title 25 Zoning PC Resolution Attachments: 1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a project that was continued from a prevoius hearing 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 b. 1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: 1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and 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. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and designer; Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 1629 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1629 Howard Ave - Attachments 1629 Howard Ave - Historic Resource Study 1629 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/21/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1628 Lassen Way, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review 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 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Master SWU Associates, Steve Wu, applicant and designer; Jeff Park, property owner) (139 noticed) Staff contact: Ruben Hurin d. 1628 Lassen Way - Staff Report 1628 Lassen Way - Attachments 1628 Lassen Way - Plans Attachments: 1448 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a 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 Bluestein, applicant and property owner; RDS -Residential Design Solutions, designer ) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon e. 1448 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1448 Drake Ave - Attachments 1448 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: 1505 Sherman Avenue, zoned R -1 and R-3 - Application for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to add twelve additional students for a pre -school use at a church. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Rev. Schufreider and Dan Ionescu, applicants; Trinity Lutheran Church, property owner) (257 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit f. 1505 Sherman Ave and 1248 Sherman Ave - Staff Report 1505 Sherman Ave and 1248 Sherman Ave - Attachments 1505 Sherman and 1248 Balboa - Plans Attachments: 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a real estate office on the third floor (Urban Compass, Inc., applicant; Vocon, designer; Opus One Properties, property owner) (82 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon g. 988 Howard Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 988 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/21/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1425 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Raymond Wong, property owner; Chu Design Associates (applicant and designer) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz a. 1425 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1425 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1425 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting February 19, 2019 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 February 25, 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 March 7, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/21/2019 City of Burlingame Special Permit Address: 1328 Capuchino Avenue Meeting Date: February 25, 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 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveniences are exempt from environmental review. 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 th e following application:  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) (C.S. 25.26.035 (b)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 7a Consent Calendar Special Permit 1328 Capuchino Avenue -2- 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 39.9% 2,399 SF 40% 2,400 SF 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 Study Meeting: At the Study meeting on February 11, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed request for a Special Permit for reduction of on -site parking. The Commission did not see any issues with reducing the existing two-car detached garage into a one -car detached garage since the required parking for the main dwelling is still being provided. The prop osed project was voted on to be placed on the consent calendar (see attached February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). 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 (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 Special Permit 1328 Capuchino Avenue -3- (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. Special Permit Findings (Reducing On -site Parking): That the proposed single-car garage complies with the code requirements for the proposed 4 - bedroom house, that no existing landscaping is to be eliminated, that the proposed remodel will not substantially alter the envelope of the existing residence, and that the reconfiguration of the garage door will match the existing character of the main dwelling , the project may be found to be compatible with the 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 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 25, 2019, sheets A1 through A8; 2. that if the structure is altered at a later date and the number of bedrooms is increased, then the Special Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as de termined 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 site work shall be required to comply with a ll the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. 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 th ese venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 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; and 7. 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 . ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. James Neubert Architects , applicant and architect Hari and Depali Abhyankar, property owners Attachments: February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 15, 2019 Area Map City of Burlingame One Year Extension Address: 250 California Drive Meeting Date: February 25, 2019 Request: Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office). Applicant and Property Owner: 20 Hobart LLC APN: 029-213-010 Architect: MBH Architects Lot Area: 11,515 SF (0.26 acres) General Plan: Service and Special Sales - Downtown Specific Plan (California Drive Mixed Use District) Zoning: CAR (California Drive Auto Row) Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects, which consists of projects characterized as in-fill development. Summary of Request: The applicant is applying for a one year extension of a previously approved application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office). The application was originally approved by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2018 (see attached March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). The Planning Commission approval allows the applicant until March 22, 2019 to obtain a building permit. However, as noted in the applicant’s letter date stamped February 7, 2019, due to the complexity of the design phase of the underground parking structure/system, it has taken the applicant more time to explore parking designs in preparing the construction drawings. As a result, a building permit will not be issued before the one year deadline. A one year extension may be considered by the Planning Commission. If the extension is not granted, the property owner must reapply with a new application. There have been no changes to the approved plans since the March 12, 2019 Planning Commission approval. Project Description of Previously Approved Project: The project site is located at the corner of California Drive, South Lane and West Lane. The existing site consists of a paved parking lot and is currently used as a vehicle display area by a nearby automobile dealership (Ocean Honda). The proposed development is on a project site of 11,515 SF (0.26 acres) and is surrounded by urban uses, including one and two-story commercial buildings across the railroad tracks and East Lane to the north, multi-story commercial buildings across California Drive to the south, a one-story commercial building to the east, and the Burlingame Train Station across South Lane to the west. The project includes construction of a new four-story mixed use office building (retail and office) with below-grade parking in an automated parking system. The mixed use office building totals 45,000 SF which consists of retail and office uses, lobby areas, storage and mechanical rooms in the basement, vehicle entrance areas into the automated parking system, enclosed stairways and elevators, and covered roof decks on the fourth floor. The building contains 5,387 SF of retail space on the ground floor and 28,458 SF of office space on the ground floor and in the three floors above. The project also includes 1,037 SF of roof deck areas at the front and rear of the building on the fourth floor. The CAR District Regulations state that office uses on the ground floor are only allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Code Sections 25.38.030 (a) and (b)). The ground floor office space (720 SF) will be occupied by the Burlingame Historical Society and will also have storage space in the basement. The office space on the second through fourth floors have been designed as a shell to be able to accommodate either a single tenant or multiple tenants. Tenants for the office spaces have not yet been determined. Item No. 7b Consent Calendar One Year Extension 250 California Drive -2- The exterior facades consist of brick veneer and an aluminum and glass window wall system, anchored by a slate stone base. The California Drive and South Lane facades contain brushed stainless steel entry doors, while the rear of the building along W est Lane contain roll-up doors with perforated metal panels or aluminum metal panels. There will be metal canopies over entries to the building on the ground floor at the front and rear of the building. Two roof deck areas on the fourth floor will be covered by metal brise soleil awnings (an architectural feature of a building that reduces heat gain within that building by deflecting sunlight). There will be a metal cap reveal along the top edge of the building. A total of nine new, 24-inch box street trees (four along California Drive and five along South Lane) will be planted as part of the project. The Planting Plan indicates the trees will be Trident Maple (Acer Buergerianum). The project consists of 5,387 SF of retail on the ground floor and 28,458 SF of office on the first through fourth floors. Off-street parking is required for the proposed retail and office uses in the building. Based on the 1:400 GSF parking ratio for retail uses and 1:300 GSF parking ratio for office uses, a total of 109 off-street parking spaces are required. A total of 98 parking spaces are provided on-site in an automated puzzle parking system. This represents balance of 11 parking spaces. Land Use section 3.6.1 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows that in instances where uses proposed are not exempt from providing parking, in-lieu fees may be paid instead of providing parking on-site where there is expansion, intensification, or construction of new buildings. In this case, the mixed use office building is not exempt from providing parking since it is not located within the parking sector. The applicant notes that the parking in-lieu fees will be paid for the balance of spaces required for the proposed project. A Parking Variance is not required, as the payment of in-lieu fees is provided as an option through the Downtown Specific Plan for projects within the parking sector. Currently, the fee is $52,467.57 per parking space. The parking in-lieu fee for the proposed project is $577,143.27 (11 spaces x $52,467.57). The project includes installation of an automated puzzle parking system. The system consists of three levels and extends 26’-1” below grade (31’-0” to bottom of car lift pit). Drivers will enter in one of two parking bays, located at the rear of the building off West Lane. The driver then exits the vehicle and walks to the adjacent lobby (Lobby 2) to retrieve a ticket from the parking kiosk. The system will not activate until the driver is outside of the vehicle and retrieves a parking ticket. Some customers may have an app on their smart phone, which can communicate to the parking system in lieu of a ticket or fob key. The system employs a turntable at each entry bay so that it rotates the vehicle so that it may exit in a forward direction. The applicant notes that queuing of parking and retrieving vehicles takes approximately 90 seconds. The following applications were approved for this project:  Commercial Design Review for a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office) (Code Sections 25.38.045 and 25.57.010(c) (1));  Conditional Use Permit for office use in a portion of the ground floor (Code Section 25.38.030 (a)); and  Conditional Use Permit for building height exceeding 35’-0” in height (55’-0” proposed where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed building height) (Code Section 25.38.030 (h)). The development table for the previously approved project is provided for reference on the following page. This space intentionally left blank. One Year Extension 250 California Drive -3- 250 California Drive PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Use: Retail on ground floor (retail business not determined) (5,387 SF) Office on ground floor and on upper three floors ¹ (28,458 SF) Permitted Uses: Retail uses related to automobile sales and service and office uses above the ground floor Conditional Uses: Retail uses not related to automobile sales and service and office uses on the ground floor SETBACKS Front Build-To Line (California Dr): 77% of front wall of the ground floor is located at front property line No minimum required; at least 60% of front wall of the ground floor must be located at front property line Left Side (South Ln): Right Side (Interior): 0’-0” 1’-6” No minimum required Rear (West Lane): 0’-0” No minimum required BUILDING ENVELOPE: Ground Floor Ceiling Height: 15’-0” 15’-0” Building Height: 55'-0" ³ 55’-0” (CUP required if building exceeds 35’-0”) OFF-STREET PARKING Off-Street Parking: 98 spaces provided in automated puzzle parking system ² Office - 1 space per 300 GSF Retail - 1 space per 400 GSF Office: 28,458 SF/300 GSF ratio Retail: 5,387 SF/400 GSF ratio Total = 109 spaces Driveway Width: 20'-0" driveway width (shared driveway with 226 Lorton Avenue) Parking areas with not more than 30 vehicle spaces shall have a minimum driveway width of 12’-0" ¹ Conditional Use Permit approved for office use in a portion of the ground floor. ² Conditional Use Permit approved for building height exceeding 35’-0” in height (55’-0” proposed where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed building height). ³ Parking in-lieu fee, in the amount of $577,143.27 (11 spaces x $52,467.57), will be submitted in-lieu of providing 11 off-street parking spaces. Staff Comments: None. One Year Extension 250 California Drive -4- Suggested Findings for a One Year Extension of a Previously Approved Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's March 12, 2018 Regular Action Meeting and that there are no changes proposed to the previously approved applications for a the new mixed use office building, the project is found to be compatible with the criteria for the Design Review and Rear Setback Variances. Planning Commission Action to Extend Permit to March 23, 2020: 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 February 27, 2018, sheets A0.0.0 through A9.2.1, ALTA, C-4, L1.01 and L2.01; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of 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 the maximum elevation at the top of the roof screen shall not exceed elevation 89.24’, and that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 85.22’ for a maximum height of 55’-0”, and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge and top of roof screen shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The main lobby finished floor shall be elevation 31.0’; the second floor finished floor shall be elevation 46.92’; the third floor finished floor shall be elevation 59.22’, and the fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 71.52’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 5. that the on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the tenants and visitors of the office and retail facilities on this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles or goods either by individuals or businesses not on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the parking in-lieu fee in the amount of $577,143.27, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the commercial linkage fee in the amount of $683,675.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $195,233.05, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 9. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $195,233.05, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; One Year Extension 250 California Drive -5- 10. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 11. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit shall be prohibited; 12. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 20, 2017 and July 13, 2017 memos, the Engineering Division’s January 11, 2018, November 17, 2017, September 25, 2017 and July 28, 2017 memos, the Fire Division’s October 4, 2017 and August 14, 2017 memos, the Parks Division’s September 27, 2017 and July 25, 2017 memos, and the Stormwater Division’s September 27, 2017 and July 20, 2017 memos shall be met; 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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; 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 17. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, 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: 18. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 19. that 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; 20. 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 21. 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. One Year Extension 250 California Drive -6- THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN: 22. the project sponsor shall prepare a Geotechnical Study identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent groundwater dewatering would be allowed. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal high water table and all areas for non-residential uses shall be flood-proofed and anchored, in accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth as recommended by geotechnical engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit; 23. the project sponsor shall implement all appropriate control measures from the most currently adopted air quality plan at the time of project construction; 24. the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or as necessary. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered or otherwise loaded consistent with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 25. the project sponsor shall implement the following Greenhouse Gas reduction measures during construction activities: a. Alternative-Fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment shall make up at least 15 percent of the fleet. b. Use at least 10 percent local building materials. c. Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. One Year Extension 250 California Drive -7- 26. the project sponsor shall provide adequate secure bicycle parking in the plan area at a minimum ratio of 1 bicycle spot for every 20 vehicle spots; 27. that employers shall post and update information on alternate modes of transportation for the area (i.e. bus/shuttle schedules and stop locations, maps); 28. the project sponsor shall incorporate commercial energy efficiency measures such that energy efficiency is increased to 15% beyond 2008 title 24 standards for electricity and natural gas; 29. the project sponsor shall incorporate recycling measures and incentives such that a solid waste diversion rate of 75% is achieved upon occupation of each phase of plan development; 30. the project sponsor shall incorporate commercial water efficiency measures such that water consumption is decreased by a minimum of 10 percent over current standard water demand factors; 31. that construction shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 ft. of the nest, until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; 32. that for projects within the Plan Area that require excavation, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (and Phase II sampling, where appropriate) would be required. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determines that remediation is required, the project sponsor would be required to implement all remediation and abatement work in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional W ater Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or other jurisdictional agency; 33. that the following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: - Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and - Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. 34. the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by construction contractors: The project sponsor shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; One Year Extension 250 California Drive -8- 35. that if the project increases sewer flows to the sanitary sewer system, the project sponsor shall coordinate with the City Engineer to determine if improvements to public sanitary sewer infrastructure are needed. If improvements are needed, the following shall apply:  that prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall develop a plan to facilitate sanitary sewer improvements. The plan shall include a schedule for implementing sanitary sewer upgrades that would occur within the development site and/or contribution of a fair share fee toward those improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. 36. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the development plans shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal to determine if fire flow requirements would be met given the requirements of the proposed project, and the size of the existing water main(s). If the Fire Marshal determines improvements are needed for fire protection services, then the following shall apply:  that prior to issuance of a building permit the project sponsor shall be required to provide a plan to supply adequate water supply for fire suppression to the project site, consistent with the Fire Marshal’s requirements. The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementation of the plan including installation of new water mains, and/or incorporation of fire water storage tanks and booster pumps into the building design, or other measures as determined by the Fire Marshal. 37. that if evidence of an archeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeological Documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC; 38. that should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of construction, the project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City; and 39. that if human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking One Year Extension 250 California Drive -9- account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. 20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner MBH Architects, project architect Attachments: One Year Extension Request Letter Submitted by t he Applicant, date stamped February 7, 2019 March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Applications from Original Approval Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 15, 2019 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 12, 2018 d.250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for office use in a portion of the ground floor for construction of a new, 4-story mixed use office building (retail and office). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ryan Guibara and Andres Grecchi represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Noted that there is a shadow missing to the right of the stair tower on the elevation. (Grecchi: confirmed this.) >Likes the changes that have been made. >On Sheet 3.1.2, noted that the "Prussian Blue" notation appeared to point to the incorrect detail on the elevation. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes most of the changes. Much improved. >Reduced size of the mullions helps to reduce the impact of the blue window grids. >Likes the highly structured brick faces on South Lane, West Lane, and California Drive. Less comfortable with the main entry details, but is much better than the original proposal. >Likes it even more so now. The darker brick rendering distances the project more from the historic train station. >The darker brick that is shown now even distances itself more from the design and finish of the train Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2019 March 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes station. The project fits with the rules that the Commission is given to judge project design. Nice, well designed. >Having the open space between the project and the train station helps, as does the width of California Drive; helps with the scale. This will be an integral part of Downtown. >Thanks for providing the amount of retail shown on the ground floor. >Likes the project. The redesign of the trellis element to be more like "eyebrows" fits better with the design aesthetic of the building. Has an elegance to it. The factory feel to the windows is bolstered by the lighter muntins; has been improved. >Expressed concern with building more Downtown; perhaps should wait for the General Plan to be adopted. Would also like to see what new State mandates will be implemented regarding housing. Doesn't feel that the project is compatible with the surrounding development. Feels that mass, bulk, and scale are out of context with surrounding development. A four -story building as proposed is not an appropriate transition to the lower-scale development in the vicinity. Feels that the project will overshadow the historic Train Station. Feels that the exception of providing the opportunity for a 55-foot height has become a "rule" rather than the base height of 35-feet. Doesn't feel that the project fits into the auto -oriented focus of the CAR district. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: >Because of the nature of California Drive, this is the location for projects like the one proposed. >Everything known about the updated General Plan incorporates the policy direction of the adopted Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. This project is compliant with the policies in the Plan. >This project will preserve the historic mural and, in fact, puts it on display in the offices of the Burlingame Historical Society. >The developer has done great projects Downtown and has shown commitment to Burlingame. >Supports the project. Aye:Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - Nay:Gum, and Gum2 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2019 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for office use in a portion of the ground floor and building height for construction of a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office) at 250 California Drive, Zoned CAR, 20 Hobart LLC, 999 Baker Way, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA, 94404, property owner, APN: 029-213-010; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 25, 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 15332, In-Fill Development Projects, is hereby approved. 2. Said One Year Extension of Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such One Year Extension of Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 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 25th day of February, 2019, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension 250 California Drive Effective March 7, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 27, 2018, sheets A0.0.0 through A9.2.1, ALTA, C-4, L1.01 and L2.01; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of 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 the maximum elevation at the top of the roof screen shall not exceed elevation 89.24’, and that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 85.22’ for a maximum height of 55’-0”, and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge and top of roof screen shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The main lobby finished floor shall be elevation 31.0’; the second floor finished floor shall be elevation 46.92’; the third floor finished floor shall be elevation 59.22’, and the fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 71.52’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 5. that the on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the tenants and visitors of the office and retail facilities on this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles or goods either by individuals or businesses not on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the parking in-lieu fee in the amount of $577,143.27, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the commercial linkage fee in the amount of $683,675.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $195,233.05, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 9. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $195,233.05, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 10. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension 250 California Drive Effective March 7, 2019 Page 2 11. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of- way without an encroachment permit shall be prohibited; 12. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 20, 2017 and July 13, 2017 memos, the Engineering Division’s January 11, 2018, November 17, 2017, September 25, 2017 and July 28, 2017 memos, the Fire Division’s October 4, 2017 and August 14, 2017 memos, the Parks Division’s September 27, 2017 and July 25, 2017 memos, and the Stormwater Division’s September 27, 2017 and July 20, 2017 memos shall be met; 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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; 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 17. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, 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: 18. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 19. that 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; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension 250 California Drive Effective March 7, 2019 Page 3 20. 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 21. 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. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN: 22. the project sponsor shall prepare a Geotechnical Study identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent groundwater dewatering would be allowed. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal high water table and all areas for non-residential uses shall be flood-proofed and anchored, in accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth as recommended by geotechnical engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit; 23. the project sponsor shall implement all appropriate control measures from the most currently adopted air quality plan at the time of project construction; 24. the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or as necessary. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered or otherwise loaded consistent with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension 250 California Drive Effective March 7, 2019 Page 4 g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 25. the project sponsor shall implement the following Greenhouse Gas reduction measures during construction activities: a. Alternative-Fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment shall make up at least 15 percent of the fleet. b. Use at least 10 percent local building materials. c. Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. 26. the project sponsor shall provide adequate secure bicycle parking in the plan area at a minimum ratio of 1 bicycle spot for every 20 vehicle spots; 27. that employers shall post and update information on alternate modes of transportation for the area (i.e. bus/shuttle schedules and stop locations, maps); 28. the project sponsor shall incorporate commercial energy efficiency measures such that energy efficiency is increased to 15% beyond 2008 title 24 standards for electricity and natural gas; 29. the project sponsor shall incorporate recycling measures and incentives such that a solid waste diversion rate of 75% is achieved upon occupation of each phase of plan development; 30. the project sponsor shall incorporate commercial water efficiency measures such that water consumption is decreased by a minimum of 10 percent over current standard water demand factors; 31. that construction shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 ft. of the nest, until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension 250 California Drive Effective March 7, 2019 Page 5 32. that for projects within the Plan Area that require excavation, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (and Phase II sampling, where appropriate) would be required. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determines that remediation is required, the project sponsor would be required to implement all remediation and abatement work in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or other jurisdictional agency; 33. that the following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: - Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and - Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. 34. the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by construction contractors: The project sponsor shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; 35. that if the project increases sewer flows to the sanitary sewer system, the project sponsor shall coordinate with the City Engineer to determine if improvements to public sanitary sewer infrastructure are needed. If improvements are needed, the following shall apply:  that prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall develop a plan to facilitate sanitary sewer improvements. The plan shall include a schedule for implementing sanitary sewer upgrades that would occur within the development site and/or contribution of a fair share fee toward those improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension 250 California Drive Effective March 7, 2019 Page 6 36. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the development plans shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal to determine if fire flow requirements would be met given the requirements of the proposed project, and the size of the existing water main(s). If the Fire Marshal determines improvements are needed for fire protection services, then the following shall apply:  that prior to issuance of a building permit the project sponsor shall be required to provide a plan to supply adequate water supply for fire suppression to the project site, consistent with the Fire Marshal’s requirements. The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementation of the plan including installation of new water mains, and/or incorporation of fire water storage tanks and booster pumps into the building design, or other measures as determined by the Fire Marshal. 37. that if evidence of an archeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction- related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeological Documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC; 38. that should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of construction, the project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City; and 39. that if human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension 250 California Drive Effective March 7, 2019 Page 7 with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. 250 California Drive, CAR A3.1.1NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION1(CALIFORNIA DRIVE)(WEST LANE)960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo.DateIssueDrawing No.QAQCPLFROM TO FACE OF BUILDINGPL1'-6"PLMAIN LOBBY ENTRY+31.00T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9215'-11"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"FROM TO FACE OFBUILDING1'-6"PLA D J .P R O P E R T YN . I . C .A D J .P R O P E R T YN . I . C .S O U T HL A N ES O U T H L A N EROLL-UP GARAGE DOORWITH PERFORATED METALPANELS - TYP. OF TWO.PAINTED METAL ROLL-UPDOOR AND STOREFRONTSYSTEM WITH INFILLALUMINUM METAL PANELSSLATE STONE BASE CAPRIBLACK WITH NATURALCLEFT FINISHBRICK VENEERPAINTED METAL CLOSUREPANELMETAL CANOPY, TYP. OF 3PAINTED METAL DOOR ANDPANEL ABOVEDRAWN AT OBLIQUE ANGLESEE EXT. ELEV. 2/A3.1.2FROM TO FACE OFBUILDING3'-0"PLS O U T HL A N EBRICK VEENERALUMINUM & GLASS WINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASSWINDOW WALL SYSTEMMETAL CANOPY WITHMETAL ADDRESS NUMBERSMETAL BRISE SOLEIL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEMETAL CAP REVEAL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEBRUSHED STAINLESS STEELENTRY DOORSLATE STONE BASE -COLOR: CAPRI BLACKNATURAL CLEFT FINISHBRICK VEENERPLPLT.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22TOP OF CURB+3O.53T.O. ROOF DECK+83.921'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-7"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. RETAIL SLAB+30.32T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-7"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22METAL BRISE SOLEIL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEMETAL CAP REVEAL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASS WINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEREAR LOBBY ENTRY+30.15T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-9"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"LIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWN ILLUMINATION TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OFBURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE "BUG", BACKLIGHT, UPLIGHT, AND GLARERATINGS.DOWN LIGHTS - TYP. @UNDERSIDE OF ALL THREECANOPIESDOWN LIGHTS TYP.UNDERSIDE OF ENTRYCANOPIESLIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWNILLUMINATIONLIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWN ILLUMINATIONEXTERIOR ELEVATION LEGENDT.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.24T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96AVG TOP OF CURB+29.84AVG. TOP OF CURB+30.71ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT SEE SOUTH ELEVATIONBUILDING HEIGHTMEASURING POINT55'-0" TO ROOF RIDGE, SEE SOUTH ELEVATION FOR ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT PER PLANNING BUILDING HEIGHTMEASURING POINT55'-0" TO ROOF RIDGE, SEE SOUTH ELEVATION FOR ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT PER PLANNING A3.1.2SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo.DateIssueDrawing No.QAQCC A L I F O R N I AD R I V EW E S TL A N EW E S TL A N EC A L I F O R N I AD R I V EPLPLPLPL4'-0"FROM TO FACE OF BUILDINGPLW E S TL A N EBRICK VEENERBRICK VENEERLINE OF ADJACENTBUILDING WITH HISTORICMURAL FACING COURTYARDELEVATIONH I S T O R I C M U R A L C O U R T Y A R DSLATE STONE BASE WITHCLEFT FINISHSLATE STONE BASE WITHCLEFT FINISHLINE OF HISTORIC MURAL -ADJACENT BUILDING WALLA D J .P R O P E R T YREAR LOBBY ENTRY+31.00T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.24SECOND FLOOR+46.9215'-11"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.224'-2"REAR LOBBY ENTRY+30.15T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-9"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.224'-2"METAL CAP REVEALCOLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASSWINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASSWINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEMAIN LOBBY ENTRY+31.00T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9215'-11"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"4'-2"METAL CAP REVEALCOLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASSWINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUERETAIL FLOOR+30.32SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-9"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"1'-4" 1'-4"T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.24EQ.EQ.METAL BRISE SOLEIL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEMETAL BRISE SOLEIL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUELIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWNILLUMINATIONEXTERIOR ELEVATION LEGENDLIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWN ILLUMINATION TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OFBURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE "BUG", BACKLIGHT, UPLIGHT, AND GLARERATINGS.T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96AVG TOP OF CURB+ 30.34+ 30.22AVG TOP OF CURB(SOUTH LANE)METAL PANEL INFILLBUILDING HEIGHTMEASURING POINTBUILDING HEIGHTMEASURING POINT55'-0" TO ROOF RIDGE, SEE SOUTH ELEVATION FOR ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT PER PLANNING A1.0.0960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo.DateIssueDrawing No.QAQCSITE PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEAREA OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, N.I.C.SIDEWALKACCESSIBLE EXIT PATH OF TRAVEL TO PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAYSITE PLAN NOTES1. ELEVATOR IS GURNEY ACCESSIBLE WITH 7'-6" X 5' X 6" CABDIMENSIONS87'-3"PROPERTY LINE 114'-5"PROPERTY L INE 107'-0"PROPERTY LINE128'-0 1/2" PROPERTY LINE 53'-5" MURAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EXTERIOR WALL VEHICULARENTRYVEHICULARENTRYMAINENTRYCALIFORNIA DRIVEWEST LANE SOUTH LANEBURLINGAMECALTRAIN STATION250 CALIFORNIABURLINGAME CALTRA IN TRACKSADJACENTPROPERTY,N.I.C. 18'-0"(1) STORYREAR LOBBYENTRY(E) FIRE HYDRANT(N) DOMESTICWATERCONNECTION(N) FDCONE WAY ONE WAY3 PARK ING SPACES REMOVED(N) STREET TREES ANDTREE GRATES - TYP OF10, W/ CITY OFBURLINGAME STANDARDTREE GRATE. SEELANDSCAPE DWGS.TO BURLINGAMETRAIN STATIONTO BUS STOP ON CAL IFORN IA DR .AND HOWARD AVECLOSUREPANELSCLOSUREPANELSCLOSUREPANELS(E) PGE VAULTRED CURB FRONT ING REAR OF BU ILD ING ALONG WEST LANE(N) FIRE WATERCONNECTION(N) VAULT FOR UNDERGROUNDELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER(N) ELECTRICALCONNECTION(N) STORMWATERCONNECTION(N) EDGE OF CURBEXTENDED WEST INTORIGHT OF WAY BY 1'-3"LINE OF PREVIOUS CURBEDGE SHOWN DASHED PRECEDENT IMAGES TREE GRATE TREE GRATE TO BE CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARD: URBAN ACCESSORIES OT TITLE-24 4’-0” SQUARE DARK GREEN POWDERCOATED GRAY IRON GRATE PLANTERS AND WOOD BENCHES FESTOON LIGHTING BANDED PAVING PATTERN EXISTING MURAL TO REMAIN STREET TREE SHRUBS & GROUNDCOVER CITY STANDARD TREE PLANTING DETAIL NTS Acer buergerianum Aspidistra elatior ‘Variegata’Polystichum munitum Carex oshimensis ‘Everillo’Heuchera ‘Santa Ana Cardinal’ Liriope muscari ‘Silvery Sunproof’Echeveria derenbergii Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REGULAR ACTION (Public Hearing): Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapters 25.32 and 25.70 to Amend the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) Zoning Regulations to Allow Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use. MEETING DATE: February 25, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: 8a ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed change to the Zoning Code to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines which states that minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, are exempt from environmental review. The proposed change does not represent a change to the intensity of use allowed within the current zoning for the area, and would be considered minor alterations to land use limitations, which are exempt from environmental review. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission shall review the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, consider all public testimony (both oral and written) and, following conclusion of the public hearing, consider recommending adoption of the ordinance by the City Council, or alternatively, provide direction to staff regarding modifications to the ordinance prior to formulation of a recommendation to the City Council: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTERS 25.32 AND 25.70 TO AMEND THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE BACKGROUND At its August and October meetings, the City Council’s Economic Development Subcommittee discussed the retail environment in the City’s two commercial business districts, Downtown Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. The meeting in August included discussion with a commercial broker representing a large vacant storefront on Burlingame Avenue in which she shared her perspective about which uses may be attracted to Burlingame Avenue in general. For the October meeting, property owners were invited to attend and share their perspectives. The August 17, 2018 and October 11, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting minutes are attached. As part of the discussion, commercial recreation was discussed as a potential use to add to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) district. Currently, commercial recreation is allowed as a Conditional Use in the Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU), Howard Mixed Use (HMU), Donnelly Avenue Commercial (DAC), Chapin Avenue Commercial (CAC), and Broadway Commercial Districts. Commercial recreation is not permitted in the BAC district. Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial Zoning Regulations February 25, 2019 2 As part of “Envision Burlingame,” the Zoning Ordinance including the BAC District will be reviewed and updated. The timeframe for the full update is anticipated to take approximately one year. However, the consideration and potential addition of commercial recreation as a Conditional Use is a focused effort that provides a more immediate benefit. On November 19, 2018, the City Council gave direction to staff to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District. DISCUSSION Burlingame Avenue has traditionally been focused on retail, restaurant, and service uses. However, given the evolving nature of all of those uses (particularly retail), many business and shopping districts are finding a need to introduce additional new uses in order to remain vibrant and competitive. Some communities are finding that active commercial recreation uses can be an appropriate addition to their business and shopping districts. In particular, commercial recreation can generate regular “foot traffic”, which can benefit neighboring retailers, restaurants, and services. As noted above, commercial recreation is allowed as a Conditional Use in the areas surrounding Burlingame Avenue (specifically the BMU, HMU, DAC, and CAC Districts), but is not permitted in the BAC District. As a Conditional Use, conditions can be imposed on a business to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding area. Suggestions in the subcommittee meetings included consideration of requiring a retail or food service component at the front of a commercial recreation business, and requiring that storefront windows be maintained clear rather than obscured. The attached Draft Ordinance sets forth text amendments to the City’s existing BAC District regulations to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use. The Draft Ordinance also sets forth text amendments to the Off-Street Parking regulations to exempt commercial recreation uses from providing off-street parking, if located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (retail, personal service and food establishment uses located on the first floor and within the parking sector are currently exempt). Staff has provided a summary of the proposed changes below: Proposed Amendment to Code Section 25.32.030 (BAC District Regulations): Staff has prepared an amendment to the BAC District regulations that allows commercial recreation uses the opportunity to request approval of a Conditional Use Permit and establishes criteria for approval of such requests, including:  Requiring active visible uses such as retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the business along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk. The active area must measure at least fifteen (15) feet in depth; and  Maintaining a clear view into the business by not allowing storefront windows or doors to be obscured. Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial Zoning Regulations February 25, 2019 3 Proposed Amendment to Code Section 25.70.090 (Off-Street Parking): Retail, personal and food establishment uses located on the first floor that are located within the parking sector are currently exempt from off-street parking requirements (Code Section 25.70.090 (a)). The basis for this exemption originated when the City acquired and built public parking lots in the downtown area, by way of assessments (60% of cost) collected from property owners within the Burlingame Avenue Off-street Parking District (created in 1962). The Planning Division previously has determined that for uses located within the parking sector, the net increase calculation for parking should be based on the most intensive use that would otherwise be exempt (in this case 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, since there would be no intensification of use based on the most intensive use permitted. Staff has prepared an amendment to the off-street parking regulations for vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed amendment to Code Section 25.70.090 (a) adds commercial recreation as an exempt use from providing off-street parking, if located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. This amendment is being proposed in order to facilitate the City Council’s directive of allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District by removing Parking Variances and parking in-lieu payment requirements, which would deter commercial recreation type businesses from considering the BAC District as a potential location. The Draft Ordinance is provided as an Attachment to this report. Text to be added are bold and text to be deleted are in strikeout, both in red font. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should review the summary in this report and the attachments, conduct a public hearing, and consider public input. Following the public hearing the Commission may consider two alternatives: 1. Recommend the proposed ordinance to the City Council for action; or 2. Direct staff to make adjustments to the ordinance and refer it back to the Commission for reconsideration and action. Prepared by: Ruben Hurin Planning Manager Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial Zoning Regulations February 25, 2019 4 Attachments:  Zoning Code Sections 25.32.030 and 25.70.090 – Redlines with Proposed Amendments  November 19, 2018 City Council Minutes  August 17, 2018 and October 11, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Minutes  Proposed Resolution Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Code)  Public Hearing Notice – published February 14, 2019 Proposed Amendments 25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District: (a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use; (b) Grocery stores and markets; (c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours only; (d) Above the first floor only: (1) Real estate offices, (2) Health services, (3) Financial institutions; (e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities; (f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; (g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section 25.32.070; (h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet. (i) Commercial recreation use which meets all of the following criteria: (1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the business, measuring at least fifteen (15) feet in depth, shall be provided along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and (2) Storefront windows or doors shall not be obscured and shall provide a clear view into the business. 25.70.090 Vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the Parking Sector Boundaries Map, Figure 3-3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: (a) Retail, personal service, and food establishment, and commercial recreation uses located on the first floor within the parking sector shall be exempt from providing off- street parking. Any other uses on the first floor, and all uses above or below the first floor shall provide off-street parking as required by this chapter. (b) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in the parking sector shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail, personal service or food establishment uses. (c) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the disaster. This parking shall be provided on-site. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 18 protected and their status. She added that her preliminary analysis shows that there are 21 trees that are protected, and 14 of those trees are in poor health. Ms. Merkes stated that the second question asked whether a TDM strategy would be applied to the project. She explained that this is a management plan and would be something that could be added as a goal. Ms. Merkes stated that the third question concerned curb management and utilizing the driveway for drop- offs. She explained that she has been working on creating two drop-off zones. Vice Mayor Colson asked if there is a tree replanting diagram. Ms. Merkes responded in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. b. PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH A REVIEW AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION USES CDD Gardiner stated that at the Economic Development Subcommittee’s October meeting, the members discussed the retail environment in the city’s two commercial districts. He explained that commercial recreation was discussed as a potential use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Currently, commercial recreation is allowed as a conditional use in the Howard Mixed Use Zone and on Broadway. He stated that staff is requesting that City Council authorize the Planning Commission to review the proposal to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial zone. Councilmember Keighran stated that while she agreed that the Planning Commission should look into this, she wasn’t sure if she agreed with allowing commercial recreation businesses on Burlingame Avenue. Councilmember Ortiz stated that this request makes him think of the Pilates studio and how it has increased foot traffic on Broadway. Therefore, he saw how it could be beneficial for a street but was concerned that it might not be appropriate on Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Commercial broker Christina DeRockere discussed the interest she has received from fitness companies to take over the space at Sole Desire. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment. City Manager Goldman stated that this discussion occurred at two different Economic Development Subcommittee meetings. At the first meeting, the commercial broker who represents the J Crew space discussed the difficulty of leasing the space because of its size. She stated that at the second meeting, in October, six property owners and others joined the conversation. She explained that they told a compelling Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 19 story about how it was important to open Burlingame Avenue up to different uses provided there is a retail front. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the property owners, real estate agents, and small business owners told the Subcommittee members that the City needed to rethink programing in the major commercial downtown areas. She discussed the interest of several fitness studios, like SoulCycle, to open on Burlingame Avenue. She stated that her concern is that if the City doesn’t get ahead of this, Burlingame Avenue could end up having several empty storefronts. She added that the State is considering taxing services. Therefore, the City would be able to capture these taxes by incorporating commercial recreation into the downtown commercial areas. Councilmember Beach agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he gets the pressure to try to fill up the spot. He added that while he could get comfortable with allowing fitness studios on Burlingame Avenue, he wouldn’t be okay with fast food or banks. Councilmember Keighran asked if the commercial recreation would include entertainment uses like music venues. City Manager Goldman stated that it wasn’t something that came up at the Subcommittee but the Council can ask the Planning Commission to include entertainment in the study. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the Planning Commission should first look into the commercial recreation uses like fitness as there is immediate need, but could later look into entertainment. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 11:04 p.m. 1 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Friday, August 17, 2018 – 2:30 p.m. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Finance Director (FD) Carol Augustine, and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner Also in Attendance: Julie Taylor (Colliers International) and Giselle Marie Hale (Redwood City Planning Commissioner) DISCUSSION ITEMS Fencing Policies for Vacant Lots: EDS Relihan provided an example of vacant lot regulations from the City of San Mateo. He noted that the regulations do not specify the type of fencing, but there are requirements that vacant lots be maintained, and that fencing and landscaping look attractive. A maintenance plan is required to be submitted to the City. CDD Gardiner noted that he spoke to San Mateo staff, and confirmed that staff works with the property owners on the specifications of the fencing as part of the overall maintenance plan that is required. Sometimes this is in conjunction with an early demolition permit. Although desired types of desired fencing are not specified, the regulations do not allow chain link and barbed wire fencing. The Subcommittee suggested that when early demolition permits are issued, part of the approval could be to require a fence of better quality than a chain link fence, and that the fencing segments be tied together to be secured and keep intruders out. The intention would be to have the fencing be secure, but also be aesthetically attractive. The request and coordination could be administered on the staff level, rather than requiring review by the Planning Commission. EDS Relihan asked if there was interest in drafting an ordinance and implementing regulations. CM Goldman cautioned that staff is already currently working on a number of ordinances, so the Subcommittee suggested that the various matters under discussion could be bundled together to be most efficient, and that timing could be flexible given the matter is not of an urgent nature. The items could be combined into a package to discuss with the City Attorney at a future date. There was discussion on the distinction between vacant properties versus “dormant” or “unoccupied” properties, and also a distinction between fencing during construction and fencing of vacant or unoccupied properties where construction is not ongoing. Cyclone/chain link fencing could be appropriate with active construction projects, and can be combined with screen graphics depicting the project under construction. Subcommittee members suggested EDS Relihan speak to developers of recent projects to get a sense of what may be practical for unoccupied/vacant properties compared to projects that are under construction. 2 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Alternatively, the matter could be discussed in the October Subcommittee meeting involving landlords. CM Goldman suggested there may be a timing consideration and distinction between properties unoccupied and vacant for an extended period, versus projects where construction is imminent. She noted the paragraph in the San Mateo regulations describing maintenance requirements, and suggested those may be more important than fencing. Fencing may be less important if a vacant lot is otherwise clear of weeds and debris, but if the property owner chooses fencing to secure the property, the fencing should be good quality. CDD Gardiner noted that construction fencing could be specified as a condition of approval, and would not need to wait for an ordinance. The Subcommittee agreed with this approach. Decals for Available Commercial Spaces: Julie Taylor, Executive Vice President of Colliers International, joined the meeting. EDS Relihan introduced the item and noted that while the State provides guidance on the posting of real estate signs, it does not address marketing graphics such as window decals or appliques. He checked San Mateo and San Francisco regulations, and it does not appear either requires that the windows of vacant commercial spaces be covered in graphics. Stores with such graphics would most likely be the result of the brokers or property owners initiating the placement themselves. Taylor cautioned against obscuring storefronts, since the view out of the space towards the sidewalk can be important for marketing to prospective tenants. She emphasized the importance of being able to see the foot traffic, natural light, and co-tenancies from inside the space. A medium-ground would be vinyl banners across just the bottom of the storefront, but it is important to maintain views out of the space and allow natural light into the space. She mentioned an approach at the Salesforce Transit Center which engaged local artists to paint portions of the storefronts. The Subcommittee mentioned they want to dissuade storefronts from being obscured with butcher paper since they can become dilapidated, and noted the Charmelle 28 space on Burlingame Avenue is an example where graphics have been applied nicely. The Subcommittee suggested there may be a range of acceptable alternatives, including clean and maintained unobscured windows, decal graphics, or artwork. If the windows are unobstructed, the interior of the space should be clear and presentable. CM Goldman suggested this matter may be combined with the vacant property maintenance provisions discussed earlier, and that different options could be provided. Taylor suggested that obscured windows may be desired during active construction, but if the space is vacant and not under construction, the maintenance provisions would otherwise apply. Typically when construction is underway, trade dress-up will be applied. CDD Gardiner suggested initially these options could be presented as guidelines for property owners, as an interim measure rather than waiting to be codified in an ordinance. EDS Relihan agreed that it would present a positive message, and offered to have suggested guidelines to share with landlords in the October Subcommittee meeting. CM Goldman agreed with this approach, as it would be a collaborative effort with the property owners. Taylor suggested there be a handout or slides to show examples, and offered to share some examples. Burlingame Avenue Use Opportunities: Giselle Marie Hale of the Redwood City Planning Commission joined the meeting. 3 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Taylor mentioned that retail spaces are taking longer to lease. Retailers are typically taking smaller spaces than they used to lease. Onsite retail has become particularly hard for heavy goods, as customers will come to stores to browse but then order online so they can ship to home. Too many companies are contracting, not expanding. However, a presence of some stores is necessary to support online commerce, as seeing stores keep brands “top of mind” with customers. Taylor continued that the area of growth is “fitness and food.” There is a great deal of interest among tenants in being located near fitness and food, which is a change from past practices. Tenants get excited if they see an assortment of hot restaurants and a tenant like Soul Cycle or Rumble boxing, because they see energy and repeat visits. These uses generate more traffic on the street than retail alone. She encouraged broadening options, but cautioned against uses such as banks that offer limited foot traffic. Taylor also suggested uses such as WeWork for their potential to generate foot traffic, provided there is retail at the front such as a café. This could be useful for spaces on side streets, such as the former Anthropologie space. Day spas could also be good for side streets, but do not have the same volume of traffic as a recreational use. The Subcommittee suggested uses such as WeWork could be classified as a service rather than an office if it were available to be used by the public. Taylor noted that it can be expensive for owners to subdivide space, as they need to build demising walls, install HVAC systems, etc. This would require capital or credit, which can be challenging for some owners. Conversion to food uses can also be very expensive, and ideally food spaces would be square rather than narrow and deep. “L-around” configurations can work for dividing a space, but they require a strong tenant for the “L” portion because if that tenants leaves, it can be difficult to re-lease the space. The Subcommittee inquired how uses are regulated on Burlingame Avenue and downtown, and CDD Gardiner mentioned that uses are either “Permitted,” “Conditional” (requiring Planning Commission approval), or “Prohibited.” Allowing fitness uses on Burlingame Avenue would require amending the allowed uses, as currently Commercial Recreation is allowed on side streets with a Conditional Use Permit, but not on Burlingame Avenue itself. Taylor cautioned that if rules are changed, there should be thought on encouraging the type of uses that will generate foot traffic and be complementary to retail uses. A private Pilates studio, for example, will not create a lot of foot traffic. The Conditional Use Permit mechanism may be the best option for ensuring compatibility. There can be a requirement that there be merchandised space in the first 12 or 15 feet of the storefront. EDS Relihan mentioned that there are hybrid approaches that combine electronic displays with online ordering. Taylor mentioned that such pioneering concepts first go into San Francisco or somewhere like Santana Row, where there is significant foot traffic and co-tenancy. Some are test concepts. The Subcommittee inquired how a code amendment to allowed uses would be approached. As part of the General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update, the zoning update should prioritize Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. CDD Gardiner noted that the timeframe for the zoning update is approximately one year beyond the General Plan adoption, but a more focused code amendment could be initiated by the City Council, or could be initiated by an applicant in conjunction with a permit application. The Subcommittee emphasized that Burlingame Avenue offers a “lifestyle.” Taylor suggested that people should be able to feel like they can get everything that they need. The Subcommittee mentioned that rising rents have created vacancies. Taylor said it c an be hard to readjust people’s expectations when the market is changing. Rents have rolled back, because they are 4 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 directly tied to tenants’ sales volumes. A healthy ratio is 10% occupancy cost for retail (including pass through), 8% for restaurants. New tenants will want to factor their projections more conservatively, whereas a renewal may be able to be more aggressive than 10 percent. EDS Relihan noted that the Downtown Business Improvement District (DBID) has had challenges finding space for events. There have been logistical challenges with obtaining permission from Public Works. Taylor noted that farmers’ markets and food truck events can be effective at attracting people, but there may not be enough surrounding density to sustain some events. The Subcommittee members remarked on the conflict between people being opposed to increasing density and development downtown, but also lamenting the loss of retail. Taylor suggested that density can help fill the gap from online sales, and that the city-owned parking lots offer opportunities to add density. She suggested that in the development of parking lots, ground leases would be preferable for the City to retain the asset. Taylor emphasized that the process for applicants needs to be clear, and that prospective businesses are sensitive to barriers to entry. The formula retail conditional use permit process in San Francisco has resulted in vacancies, since retailers fear the risk and unpredictability. Retailers will pursue easier, more predictable alternatives. EDS Relihan noted that he has created materials to clarify the conditional use permit process for prospective applicants. He noted he has received inquiries to allow offices in basement spaces and suggested it should be considered. Subcommittee members inquired about the loss of sales taxes from retail changing to services. Taylor said the taxes captured locally by online sales that would have otherwise been collected in other jurisdictions needs to be factored. Giselle Marie Hale noted that Redwood City is getting increased density, but doesn’t have a retail base. Taylor suggested that new buildings need to be designed to accommodate a range of uses, including ventilation shafts and cooking infrastructure, and ceiling heights of 11 feet clear or higher. Spaces in new buildings are sometimes too deep or the ceilings are too low, and the developers do not finish the shells. It is better to have less retail space, but space that is leasable, rather than a large amount of retail space that is not configured correctly. The Subcommittee concluded that these issues will be further discussed in a retail summit next spring. Taylor suggested that the City invite district managers of the corporate stores, since they have a relationship with the community. She added that even in a healthy retail economy, filling vacancies can take some time because companies take time to make decisions; it can take a year or more for a retailer to make all the decisions to enter a market. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Potential city tools and incentives for businesses attraction  Succession planning for businesses looking to sell ADJOURNMENT 5 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Thursday, October 11, 2018 – 2:30 p.m. 1 ATTENDANCE Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Parks and Recreation Director (PRD) Margaret Glomstad, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Finance Director (FD) Carol Augustine, and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner Members of the Public Present: Chris Blom, John Britton, Nick Delis, Stephanie Delis, Clark Funkhouser, Ryan Guibara, Ron Karp, Riyad Salma, Julie Taylor, Silvia Wong, and Vierra Wong DISCUSSION ITEMS Burlingame Avenue Downtown Zoning: EDS Relihan introduced the item. He said the interest originates from inquiries he and Planning staff have received for various businesses that would not be allowed under current zoning regulations. Given the changing nature of retail and commercial uses in downtown districts, it seemed appropriate to consider the range of uses desired for Burlingame Avenue and Broadway, and determine if amendments to the zoning regulations would be appropriate to accommodate uses that might not be allowed currently. Commercial property owners were invited to this meeting to provide input, including identifying potential tenants that may have inquired about leasing space that may or may not be able to be accommodated under current zoning. Vice Mayor Colson provided further introduction, noting that the vacancy of the large J. Crew space on Burlingame Avenue had been part of the impetus for the discussion. Retail consultant Julie Taylor had been invited to the August 17, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting to share her thoughts on the issue. Ms. Colson noted that there will be further conversations in the community on this topic in the coming year. She added that commercial recreation and co-working businesses have been suggested as new uses not currently allowed on Burlingame Avenue. Property owners in attendance had a number of observations and suggestions including:  Suggestion to review the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zoning chapter to look at which uses are permitted and not permitted, and how those fit with the 21st century. The current zoning lists a number of outmoded uses such as variety stores, drug stores, and travel agencies.  The nature of banks has changed from decades ago; they should be allowed.  There has been interest in commercial recreation, but it is not allowed in the BAC zone.  There is a provision in the zoning that states that anything that is not listed is therefore prohibited. The property owners suggest changing this provision to allow more flexibility in the future.  Does not need to have three different types of food service uses. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 2  Should consider the goal of Burlingame Avenue downtown retail and Broadway retail. The current regulations are very restrictive. Set a broad goal, a vision statement.  The “retail” use is really restrictive downtown, and what is allowed varies from block to block. Different retail criteria for different locations, zoning is disparate.  The CUP process does not work for leasing, creates risk for landlords. Needs a faster process for getting a decision. For example, staff-level review with a 48-hour turnaround, which could be appealed if there was disagreement with the decision.  Soul Cycle or other commercial recreation would be a good tenant for Burlingame Avenue. It brings a lot of energy, particularly with the right instructor. It is a better location than Howard Avenue.  There is still high demand for retail.  Could consider allowing office on the ground floor provided the first 15 or 20 feet is retail. Could have office space behind, accessed through a hallway.  Education uses bring foot traffic, and eating and shopping. Parents have to drop off kids and pick them up, and will shop and eat in the meantime.  There appears to be increased foot traffic on Burlingame Avenue at the lunch hour. There needs to be more eating establishments. Young people with disposable income are coming to Burlingame, and they want to eat, but want to get in and out quickly. Needs more flexibility for a wider spectrum in restaurants. Subcommittee members showed concern with the process to obtain permits and wanted to ensure they do not impose undue constraints on prospective businesses. Julie Taylor, Colliers International, provided comments on retail environments in general. She said that every category of retail property is trying to figure out how to replace the lost soft-good tenants. Shopping centers are replacing retail space with food; for example a Macy’s converted into an Eataly in Los Angeles. She suggested making the zoning as broad as possible to allow multiple types of uses. She said there should still be retail on the ground floor, but the City could expand the zoning to include fitness provided it has a retail component at the front. It is reasonable to tell a recreation use that it cannot obscure its windows, and must instead have an entry vestibule, perhaps with apparel, that is welcome and open during regular business hours. She also suggested co-working could be considered if it has a café presence at the front, particularly since co-working brings more businesspeople, which then brings better lunchtime traffic and cocktail hour traffic. On larger frontages, an option could be to have a significant portion of the frontage be occupied by retail, but have co-working occupy just 20 feet in front with a “throat entrance” leading to a larger space behind. However, she also suggested being cognizant that a single use such as co-working not dominate an entire block. She noted that the laws of supply and demand need to be recognized; some cities try to regulate the mix of uses through zoning, but it results in vacancies. The important consideration is how uses (whether they be commercial recreation or co-working) activate the window line, and how much window line do they have. Property owners provided further remarks:  It is a challenge to find a tenant for an old-style “bowling alley” storefront that is 35 feet in the front but extends 100 or 150 feet back.  Ability to pay higher rents varies by type of tenant, as well as position of a tenant in their category. For example, Salt & Straw can afford a $16,000 per month lease because it is a leader in the category, and can cover the lease cost with volume.  There is less demand for table service restaurants. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 3 Ms. Taylor added that restaurants can have a hard time expanding in the Bay Area because they cannot hire enough employees. The employees cannot afford the cost of living, and the wages are higher. Counter service lowers labor costs. Subcommittee members inquired about providing housing downtown as a contributor to the commercial environment. There are plans for both market-rate and below-market units in Downtown Burlingame. However it can be hard to have conversations about housing in the community, given concerns over amount of building, parking, etc. The hope is that transit-oriented development can help the commercial environment. Property owner comments:  Development is helpful to the commercial environment. Restaurants need people during the day, as well as at night for dinner and happy hours.  There is a parking issue because there is so much demand from people to be Downtown. In that sense it is a “high class problem,” or otherwise an indicator of success. Parking should not be required for retail uses.  There needs to be speedier review of applications. It costs a lot of money to carry a project over time. Subcommittee members asked those in attendance about their perspectives on the future of brick-and- mortar retail. It is important to Downtown, and in particular with the post office project having a sizab le retail component. CDD Gardiner mentioned that the post office project proposes about 18,000 square feet of retail. Property owner comments:  18,000 square feet of new retail is a lot of space to support. There is a risk of too much retail; they believe it will be a detriment to the project. Ms. Taylor remarked that retail will survive, but only on the best blocks with the best architecture and streetscapes, and on the closest feeder streets. She cautioned against creating tertiary retail, where retail is required at the ground floor regardless of demand. The situation is compounded when floorplates are too large, ceilings are too low, spaces are too deep, and there are no provisions for venting. Attractive brownstones and stoops would be preferable to vacant storefronts. Property owner comments:  Office on the ground floor would also be preferable to vacant retail.  Bay Meadows has had a hard time leasing the retail space, despite all the new housing.  There is 300,000 square feet of office space in downtown Burlingame, which is a relatively small amount to support retail. Ms. Taylor mentioned that there are different types of offices. Some offices are very private and have a fortress quality, but others have more of a presence such as graphics firms, architects, medical, or co- working which allow engagement. If it has to be a private office, it can be situated behind a throat entrance with retail in the front. Property owner comments:  Office on the ground floor has been taboo in Burlingame since the “dotcom,” but office on the ground floor with the kinds of qualities being described would be desirable.  Could consider overnight hotels for animals, or doggie daycare.  There have been a lot of inquiries for commercial childcare. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 4  Should not try to cherry-pick where the market is going. Will always be playing catchup. The City needs to think of the overarching goal, together with flexibility and predictability.  Needs reliable decision-making, focus on the administration of the goal.  The split between service and retail is not productive.  The smaller retail uses benefit from the big retailers bringing in foot traffic. However the small retailers are struggling; they are surviving by putting in their own labor. They cannot provide the same level of service as the big retailers, such as ease of exchanges. Subcommittee members asked for examples of communities that have done a good job of revising regulations. Property owner comments:  San Mateo tried to regulate ground floor office during the “dotcom.” This has been revisited; a property owner believes the requirement is now retail in the first 60 feet, and a percentage of the windowline frontage.  Office on the ground floor still involves people walking.  Ancillary streets such as California Drive are not going to be able to attract retailers. Ms. Taylor mentioned that childcare is a good use since it brings a parent twice a day. It creates repeat traffic that merchants can build upon. She also mentioned that Walnut Creek has created a real downtown with verticality, and residential is in very high demand. People downsize from their large homes and move to Downtown Walnut Creek to be near services. She suggests that Burlingame redevelop some of its parking lots with residential or office, noting that density sustains retail. She also remarked that parking garages are likely to be converted to something else as demand for parking decreases. Property owner comments:  The City needs to reduce parking requirements for residential development.  The hotel parking reduction is an example of allowing something other than unused parking.  Parking will be repurposed over time.  Retailers will always ask for more parking, but that should not drive decisions.  Parking is expensive to build. Does not make sense when it is right next to the train station.  Would not suggest limiting the number of commercial recreation uses. The prior experience with limiting the number of restaurants to 36 allowed a few property owners to control what the restaurant rates were.  There needs to be predictability in the planning approval process.  Water and sewer add to costs, particularly if the tenant is paying for them. CM Goldman asked CDD Gardiner to describe how the zoning ordinance update follows the update of the General Plan. Gardiner commented that the General Plan sets the policy direction and goals, and that the zoning provides the regulations that establish what is allowed and what is not. It will be a complete rewrite of the zoning code, not just tinkering. The new code can have more flexibility as is being discussed. There may also be options for a permit that is less involved than a Conditional Use Permit. It is also an opportunity to revise procedures as well as regulations. CDD Gardiner also said there are nearer-term options to make more limited changes to the existing code, such as adding commercial recreation as an allowed use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial district. CM Goldman suggested the nearer-term items could be presented to the full City Council to provide direction as a work item. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 5 Property owner comments:  Changing the definition of retail may be a faster fix than some of the other concepts being discussed. If things like co-working can be made to fit within current definitions, the City may not be so far behind the curve with these changing types of businesses. CM Goldman suggested to the group that if they have thoughts on what types of changes to make to the definitions, they can be submitted to staff. Staff will then convey the suggestions to the City Council. Subcommittee members mentioned that next spring, there will be a “retail summit” to discuss these issues with the larger community. The subcommittee wanted to talk with property owners in this meeting beforehand to hear their perspectives. The thinking is to follow the “Burlingame Talks Together” format that was utilized for the housing discussions earlier this year. The public, retailers, and property owners will all be invited. Draft Checklist on “How to Maintain Vacant Commercial Spaces” EDS Relihan discussed examples he has collected showing different ways to present and market vacant commercial spaces. The emphasis is on presenting the spaces in a manner that appeals to potential tenants, and is attractive to the surrounding commercial district. EDS Relihan has compiled a list of suggestions to property owners that are intended to help improve the appearance of vacant spaces. They are general strategies to improve the positive “curb appeal” of a property for prospective tenants. CM Goldman said some of the vacant properties on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway are presented well, but others are presented very poorly. Properties are difficult to market when presented poorly, and in turn reflect badly on adjacent properties. The City wants to provide some “helpful hints” for maintaining a property while they are looking for their next tenant. Property owner comments:  Delays in permitting hinder investment in better construction materials. The longer the permitting takes, the fewer resources are available for making improvements. This is particularly difficult for smaller “mom and pop” businesses wanting to come in.  There needs to be collective garbage facilities in the parking lots. It is difficult for the individual older buildings to have room for the bins on their own properties. San Carlos has done a great job with creating shared trash areas that the tenants and landlords pay for.  Appreciates that staff and the City Council are listening to property owners nowadays and engaging in constructive conversations. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda topics suggested. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 6 Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. __________ 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE), CHAPTERS 25.32 AND 25.70 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would allow commercial recreation uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District through approval of a Conditional Use Permit and established criteria; as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapter 25.32.030, as detailed in Exhibit A, attached; WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would add commercial recreation as a use that is exempt from providing off-street parking if such use is located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan; as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.090, as detailed in Exhibit A, attached; WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning code are considered minor alterations to land use limitations, which are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame on November 19, 2018 directed staff to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 25, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it adopt amendments to Title 25 (zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend the BAC District and Off-Street Parking regulations to allow commercial recreation through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson EXHIBIT “A” 2 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 25th day of February, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: _________________________ Secretary EXHIBIT “A” 3 Proposed Amendments 25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District: (a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use; (b) Grocery stores and markets; (c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours only; (d) Above the first floor only: (1) Real estate offices, (2) Health services, (3) Financial institutions; (e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities; (f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; (g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section 25.32.070; (h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet. (i) Commercial recreation use which meets all of the following criteria: (1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the business, measuring at least fifteen (15) feet in depth, shall be provided along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and (2) Storefront windows or doors shall not be obscured and shall provide a clear view into the business. 25.70.090 Vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the Parking Sector Boundaries Map, Figure 3-3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: (a) Retail, personal service, and food establishment, and commercial recreation uses located on the first floor within the parking sector shall be exempt from providing off- street parking. Any other uses on the first floor, and all uses above or below the first floor shall provide off-street parking as required by this chapter. (b) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in the parking sector shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail, personal service or food establishment uses. (c) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the disaster. This parking shall be provided on-site. 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 02.25.19 pc Commercial Recreation as CUP 02/14/2019 Publication Total $51.00 $51.00 Notice Type: Ad Description COPY OF NOTICE 3222809 !A000004984159! 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 amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance,to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC)zone within Downtown Burlin- game.The Planning Commission will review the proposed ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council. The hearing will be held on Monday,February 25,2019 at 7:00 p.m.in the City Hall Council Chambers at 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 at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,Califor- nia.For additional informa- tion,please call (650)558- 7250. To be published by Thurs- day,February 14,2019 2/14/19 NPEN-3222809# EXAMINER -BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER Proposed Amendments 25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District: (a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use; (b) Grocery stores and markets; (c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours only; (d) Above the first floor only: (1) Real estate offices, (2) Health services, (3) Financial institutions; (e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities; (f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; (g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section 25.32.070; (h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet. (i) Commercial recreation use which meets all of the following criteria: (1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the business, measuring at least fifteen (15) feet in depth, shall be provided along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and (2) Storefront windows or doors shall not be obscured and shall provide a clear view into the business. 25.70.090 Vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the Parking Sector Boundaries Map, Figure 3-3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: (a) Retail, personal service, and food establishment, and commercial recreation uses located on the first floor within the parking sector shall be exempt from providing off- street parking. Any other uses on the first floor, and all uses above or below the first floor shall provide off-street parking as required by this chapter. (b) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in the parking sector shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail, personal service or food establishment uses. (c) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the disaster. This parking shall be provided on-site. RESOLUTION NO. __________ 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE), CHAPTERS 25.32 AND 25.70 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would allow commercial recreation uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District through approval of a Conditional Use Permit and established criteria; as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapter 25.32.030, as detailed in Exhibit A, attached; WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would add commercial recreation as a use that is exempt from providing off-street parking if such use is located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan; as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.090, as detailed in Exhibit A, attached; WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning code are considered minor alterations to land use limitations, which are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame on November 19, 2018 directed staff to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 25, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it adopt amendments to Title 25 (zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend the BAC District and Off-Street Parking regulations to allow commercial recreation through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson EXHIBIT “A” 2 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 25th day of February, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: _________________________ Secretary EXHIBIT “A” 3 Proposed Amendments 25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District: (a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use; (b) Grocery stores and markets; (c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours only; (d) Above the first floor only: (1) Real estate offices, (2) Health services, (3) Financial institutions; (e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities; (f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; (g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section 25.32.070; (h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet. (i) Commercial recreation use which meets all of the following criteria: (1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the business, measuring at least fifteen (15) feet in depth, shall be provided along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and (2) Storefront windows or doors shall not be obscured and shall provide a clear view into the business. 25.70.090 Vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the Parking Sector Boundaries Map, Figure 3-3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: (a) Retail, personal service, and food establishment, and commercial recreation uses located on the first floor within the parking sector shall be exempt from providing off- street parking. Any other uses on the first floor, and all uses above or below the first floor shall provide off-street parking as required by this chapter. (b) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in the parking sector shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail, personal service or food establishment uses. (c) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the disaster. This parking shall be provided on-site. PROJECT LOCATION 1629 Howard Avenue Item No. 8c Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1629 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: February 15, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Architect: Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure APN: 028-316-280 Property Owners: Peter and Judith Cittadini TR Lot Area: 5,011 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 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exception. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated April 9, 2018. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Therefore, the proposed project may be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including one-single family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of the project. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story single family dwelling and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached one-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 2,944 SF (0.58 FAR) where 2,944 SF (0.58 FAR) is the maximum allowed. A total of two off-street parking spaces, one of which must covered, are required for the proposed four-bedroom house. The new detached garage will provide one code-compliant covered parking space (10’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue 2 1629 Howard Avenue Lot Area: 5,011 SF Plans date stamped: February 12, 2019 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16'-8½” 20’-7” 15'-0” 20'-0” Side (left): (right): 13'-7¾" 4’-7¼” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 29’-0” 29’-0” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1846 SF 36.8% 2004 SF 40% FAR: 2944 SF 0.58 FAR 2944 SF 1 0.58 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 28’-6” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 5,011 SF) + 1,100 SF + 240 SF = 2,944 SF (0.58 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on January 28, 2019, 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 January 28, 2019 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 and revised plans, date stamped February 12, 2019, to address the Commission’s comments and suggestions. The applicant’s letter provides a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. 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 1629 Howard Avenue 3 Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring wood shingle siding, articulated first and second floor walls, proportional plate heights, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood trim, wood corbels and brackets, composition shingle roofing, stone cladding, and sloping roofs with gable ends is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; 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; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, 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 February 12, 2019, sheets A1 through A7, SU-1, and L-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for 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 effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue 4 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. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that 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. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners Attachments: January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated February 12, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 15, 2019 Aerial Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated April 9, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 28, 2019 b.1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and designer; Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners) (119 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There is a new parking area shown on the site plan where the driveway is being widened in front of the house. Is that allowed? (Keylon: It is allowed for accessory dwelling units. If project does not contain an ADU, it is not allowed unless it's leading to a garage. Would not be allowed in this case since an ADU is not proposed.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have you talked to neighbor on the right on the corner of Howard Avenue and Occidental Avenue? Their back yard backs up against your right side of the property. (Bittle: Their side yard where the garage is really their yard, so we tried to open up also in flipping the garage to the opposite corner; creates an open space that the two properties can share. Have not talked to this neighbor.) >Have you decided on the type of stone cladding? Encourage you to choose something in the vernacular that fits the neighborhood, should not choose river rock. (Bittle: Thinking to use a natural stone, but don't have that detail yet.) >Plans call out aluminum clad windows and doors. Are you familiar with the simulated true divided lite muntins that we look for? Please add note to plans specifying type of muntins. (Bittle: Yes.) >Understand explanation of massing and trying to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. Think there is support for it in looking at the massing of the houses on either side. Plate heights are 10 feet on the first floor and 9 feet on the second floor. House is within the limit allowed. Second floor windows are tall, and there is a lot of freeboard of shingles that makes the second floor feel heavy. Will the second floor ceilings be vaulted and have volume? (Bittle: Yes, there will be sloped ceilings. Did look at lower plate heights on both floors, but it looked out of scale compared to the house on Occidental Avenue. Also used trim on the gable ends to break down the face of the house.) Should revisit reducing the second floor plate height, perhaps bringing it down to 8'-6", would help with scale as you work from freeboard below window sills to the tall windows. (Bittle: Will take a look at it.) >Like style of existing bungalow with low slung roof and wood brackets. >Existing house has tapered front columns, new house has simple square columns that look light for this design. Could you consider tapered columns with a solid base? Would make the front of the house pop. >Are trim boards on gable ends flat against the wall with shingle in between them or pulled out under Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the barge rafter? (Bittle: They are flat against the wall. Probably should transition to a clapboard between something different material.) Could look really nice if the trim was pulled out, would help the design, should consider it to make things jump out more. (Bittle: We're not too deep on the rake as shown, not enough to get the emphasis you're looking for.) >Agree that plate height should be reduced, would help bring back the Craftsman design we are losing in the existing house. >There doesn't appear to be an weather protection over the rear patio doors. Should consider an eave overhang or other detail to protect those doors from weather. (Bittle: With current waterproofing methods, it should work. Looked at adding a trellis, but decided against it because the yard is so small and want to bring light into the house. Can look at recessing it a bit, but not looking to do a full covered roof.) Public Comments: Neighbor on Occidental Avenue (name not provided): Did not review proposed plans until today. Concerned about window placement and privacy on side of house facing my home. Appreciate thoughtfulness of the size of windows and them not being located directly from my office. Would like owner to consider adding privacy hedges between houses. Less worried about first floor windows except at the rear of the house, where my kitchen sink window is located. Concerned with second floor facing daughter's bedroom. More than likely lines up with the stairwell window, which will always produce light at nighttime. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Landscape plan should be developed further. Suggestion to add landscape screening along the driveway would be helpful. >Delineate size of patio in back yard on the site plan, floor plan and landscape plan. >Should check with staff if pull-out area in driveway is allowed by code. >Revisit plate heights, particularly on second floor. Would help with overall scale; adjusting by six inches or so would help with the overall context of this house fitting in with the neighbors. >Revisit front porch columns as discussed. >Indicate size of wood trims, brackets, and corbels on building elevations. >Indicate simulated true divided lite windows on building elevations. >Encourage applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss details of the project, including adding landscape screening along both side yards of the house. >Encourage applicant to meet with neighbor on right to review alignment of the windows. Could consider making stairwell window frosted glass to reduce light impact. >Would be helpful to see alignment of windows with neighboring house to right on plans. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2019 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 proposed and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners, APN: 028-316-280; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 25, 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, 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 25th day of February, 2019 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue Effective March 7, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 12, 2019, sheets A1 through A7, SU-1, and L-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for 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 effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue Effective March 7, 2019 Page 2 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. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that 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. 1629 Howard Avenue 300’ Radius APN #028.316.280 DPR 523A *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page 1 of 15 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 1629 Howard Avenue P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 1629 Howard Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-316-280 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 1629 Howard Avenue is located on a 50-by-100-foot lot on the south side of Howard Avenue between Occidental and Costa Rica avenues in the Burlingame Park neighborhood. Built in 1919-1920, 1629 Howard Avenue is a 1,600-square-foot one-story-over- basement wood-frame residence in the Craftsman style. The rectilinear-plan building, clad in stucco siding, sits on a concrete foundation and features a side gabled roof. A covered entry porch at the northwest corner of the residence features a cross-gabled roof supported by battered columns. The asphalt shingle-clad roof forms include overhanging eaves with wood soffits, decorative knee braces, and exposed purlin tails with elaborated ends. Exposed rafter tails are visible on the north and south facades. The gable ends of the roof forms have a simple wood fascia. The residence contains an interior chimney clad in stucco located at the northeast end of the building. All windows on the main residence are non-original vinyl-sash windows set in narrow vinyl frames. The property includes a detached garage at the rear southwest corner of the lot, accessed by an asphalt and concrete driveway. The original detached wood-frame garage, built at the same time as the residence, was rebuilt in 1960. The current garage has an L-shaped plan with a front-gabled roof, set on a concrete foundation, and clad in horizontal wood channel siding. All doors and windows on the garage are wood with wood framing. (See Continuation Sheet, page 2.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of the primary (north) façade, April 9, 2018. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both 1919-1920 (new construction permit, water tap records) *P7. Owner and Address: Peter & Judith Cittadini 1629 Howard Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 *P9. Date Recorded: 4/9/2018 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) P5a. Photo State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 15 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9, 2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description (continued): The primary façade of 1629 Howard Avenue faces north (Figure 1).1 The primary façade includes typical cladding and overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. At the east end of the primary façade is a fixed, vinyl-sash picture window with a simulated divided-lite transom (Figure 2). Located at the northwest corner of the residence is an entry porch that projects from the primary (north) and west facades. The cross-gabled roof of the entry porch is supported by four battered columns that extend down to the ground level. Wood beams that span the length above the columns have elaborated ends. The area below the gables of porch roof are infilled with stucco cladding and feature decorative wood knee braces. The porch is accessed by a concrete walkway that leads to a set of brick stairs flanked by low, stucco-clad walls with brick caps (Figure 3). A non-original metal railing runs up the middle of the staircase. Two short stucco-clad piers flank the staircase at the porch level. Around the perimeter of the porch, between the piers and battered columns, are simple wood railings. The floor of the porch is clad in tile with a brick edge, and the ceiling is clad in stucco. The primary entrance to the building is located on the primary façade, slightly east of the staircase. The primary entry door is a glazed wood door with true divided lites set in a wood frame with a molded surround (Figure 4). The entry porch wraps around to the west façade (Figure 5). Figure 1. Aerial photograph of 1629 Howard Avenue. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: Google Maps, 2018. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 1 The primary façade of 1629 Howard Avenue faces slightly northwest of true north, but for the purposes of this report the facades will be referred to as primary (north), east, rear (south), and west. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 15 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9, 2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 2. Primary (north) façade, looking south. The window at the east end of the façade is largely obscured by trees. Figure 3. Detail of stairway leading to the entry porch on the primary façade, looking southwest. Figure 4. Primary entry door, located on the primary (north) façade, looking south. Figure 5. Entry porch, which wraps around to the west façade, looking south. The west façade of the residence faces a driveway that leads to the detached rear garage (Figure 6). The west façade contains typical siding and typical overhanging eaves and wood fascia. The entry porch, which is located at the northwest corner of the residence, projects from the west façade (Figure 7). The porch includes typical features found on the primary (north) façade such as stucco-clad battered columns, wood railings spanning columns, infilled sections under the gable ends, and overhanging eaves with decorative knee braces. Leading out from the living room onto the porch on the west façade is a set of original double-doors (Figure 8). The wood doors are glazed with true divided lites and are set in a wood frame with molded surround. Exposed purlin tails with elaborated ends and decorative wood knee braces are located beneath the gable end of the primary roof form on the west façade (Figure 9). The main gable peak also includes decorative detailing with vertical wood boards. South of the porch, the west façade features an angled bay that extends down to the ground level, capped by an asphalt shingle-clad roof with exposed wood rafter tails. The angled bay contains a fixed picture window with a simulated divided-lite transom flanked by double- hung windows. Above the south end of the angled bay is a small wood vent. South (right) of the angled bay is a pair of two double- hung windows and one larger double-hung window. All double-hung windows on the west façade vinyl-sash and include screens. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 15 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9, 2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 6. Partial view of the west façade, looking northeast. Figure 7. Partial view of the porch on the west façade and the driveway leading to the detached rear garage, looking south. Figure 8. Glazed double-doors located on the west façade, leading to the entry porch. Figure 9. Decorative detailing, wood knee braces, and exposed purlin tails with elaborated ends under the gable of the west façade. The rear (south) façade faces a small yard and contains typical cladding and typical overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails (Figure 10). At the west end of the rear façade is a set of glazed, vinyl double-doors set in a wood frame that lead to an elevated wood deck (Figure 11). The wood deck is accessed by wood steps and includes a wood railing with wood balusters and clear plastic panels. The area below the elevated deck is enclosed by wood lattice panels. East of the wood deck is a projecting, partial- height volume capped with an asphalt shingle-clad shed roof with a synthetic slab door leading down to the basement of the residence. Above the basement door is a fixed-over-awning window. At the east end of the rear façade is a projecting bay enclosed by an extension of the primary roof form. The projecting bay contains a set of four casement windows with simulated divided lites. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 5 of 15 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9, 2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 10. Rear (south) façade, looking north. Figure 11. Wood deck at the west end of the rear façade, looking northwest. The east façade faces a very narrow side setback and the adjacent home at 1625 Howard Avenue (Figure 12). The east façade has typical siding, as well as the typical elaborated purlin tails, knee braces, and decorative gable details found on the west façade. From south to north (left to right), the east façade features three double-hung windows and two fixed windows with simulated divided lites. All of the double-hung windows on the east façade include screens. Above the north end of the east façade is an interior chimney clad in stucco (Figure 13). Figure 12. Partial view of east façade, looking south. Subject residence is on the right, and the neighboring home at 1625 Howard Avenue is on the left. Figure 13. Partial view of the north end of the east façade, looking southwest. The detached garage is L-shaped in plan with horizontal wood channel siding and features a front-gabled roof with asphalt shingle cladding (Figure 14). The north façade of the garage contains a retractable garage door with horizontal wood channel siding and a wood Dutch door on the recessed wing. The east façade of the garage includes a fixed divided-lite wood-sash window set in a wood frame and sill (Figure 15). On the north, recessed portion of the east façade of the garage is a fully-glazed wood door with true divided lites (Figure 16). The subject lot contains a grass front lawn with several trees that partially obscure the east side of the primary (north) façade. One Italian cypress tree is located west of the staircase leading to the front porch. The rear yard is enclosed by a wood fence and includes a small grass lawn at the southeast corner (Figure 17). Exposed-aggregate concrete surrounds the rear wood deck at the ground level. The side yard on the east side of the residence, enclosed by a wood gate, is narrow, over-grown, and not readily accessible. At the west side yard, a driveway leads to the detached rear garage located at the southwest corner of the lot. A tall State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 6 of 15 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9, 2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L wood fence extends from the southwest corner of the main residence to the northeast corner of the garage and includes a swinging gate that leads to the rear yard. Figure 14. North façade of the detached garage, looking south. Dutch door partially visible to the left. Figure 15. East façade of the detached garage, looking west. Figure 16. Fully-glazed door on the north end of the east façade of the garage, looking west. Figure 17. View of the rear yard, enclosed by a wood fence, from the elevated wood deck, looking southeast. The surrounding neighborhood of Burlingame Park contains many homes built in Craftsman and revival styles. The neighboring adjacent property to the west is 160 Occidental Avenue, built in 1926, and to the east is 1625 Howard Avenue, built in 1924 (Figure 18). Across the street, at the intersection of Occidental and Howard avenues, is 200 Occidental Avenue, built in 1922 (Figure 19). Figure 18. 1625 Howard Avenue, built in 1926, is located adjacent the subject property to the east, looking south. Figure 19. 200 Occidental Avenue, built in 1922, is located across the street from the subject property, looking north. DPR 523B *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 7 of 15 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # (assigned by recorder) 1629 Howard Avenue B1. Historic name: 1629 Howard Avenue B2. Common name: 1629 Howard Avenue B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Based on a new construction permit application on file at the Burlingame Community Development Department, construction on 1629 Howard Avenue was initiated in late 1919. The building is known to have been connected to the municipal water system in December 1919. Construction on the building was likely completed in 1920, which was the first year that the home was occupied. Based on the footprint of the main residence as illustrated in the 1921 Sanborn map, which dates to just over a year after completion of the subject property, the building retains its original mass and plan. The 1921 and 1946 Sanborn maps illustrate a small, rectangular plan detached garage. A 1960 permit specifies the “rebuilding” of the garage, which based on visual evidence appears to have included an extension on the north façade of the garage to create an L-plan. Permitted work in the 1970s and 1980s included reroofing and minor plumbing repairs. In 1994, the kitchen and two bathrooms were remodeled, and an interior load-bearing wall was removed between an existing bedroom and sunroom to create a larger master bedroom. During the 1994 remodel, all original wood-sash windows on the residence were replaced with vinyl-sash windows. In 1994, new redwood deck was also constructed at the southwest corner of the residence, accessed by a new door on the south façade. A photograph dating to 1962 indicates a screen door on the primary entry door, which may have been original but has since been removed. The projecting entryway and door to the basement on the rear (south) façade also appear to be a later alteration. (For table of building permit applications, see Continuation Sheet, page 8.) *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: None B9a. Architect: Architect unknown b. Builder: L. A. Kern *B10. Significance: Theme: N/A Area Burlingame Park Period of Significance N/A Property Type Single-Family Residential Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given to Cayetano Arena by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. (See Continuation Sheet, page 8.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) None *B12. References: See Continuation Sheet, page 12. B13. Remarks: None *B14. Evaluator: Hannah Simonson, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: April 9, 2017 Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2018. Property highlighted in orange. Modified by Page & Turnbull. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B6. Construction History (continued): Building permit applications on file at the Burlingame Community Development Department reveal the following alterations and updates: Date Permit # Owner Description 10/18/1919 25 New construction permit: 1629 Howard Avenue, south side 50 east of Occidental, Block 8. L. A. Kern. 9/1/1960 933 Fisher Rebuilding garage. 5/16/1979 2722 Zina G. Baskett Remove old roofing asphalt shingles and reroof. 8/27/1980 1987 Zina G. Baskett Plumbing permit. 9/14/1989 8818 Zina G. Baskett Replace hot water heater. 10/18/1994 9404779 Zina G. Baskett Remodel kitchen and two bathrooms with electrical service upgrade and replacement of all windows; remove load-bearing wall between bedroom 2 and sunroom to create master bedroom; new redwood deck; add French doors at breakfast nook to exit on to new deck. 12/8/1994 9405058 Zina G. Baskett Reroof. 12/21/1994 9405128 Zina G. Baskett Revision to approved plans prior to final inspection – new header at bedroom 2/sunroom window. 12/22/1994 9405141 Zina G. Baskett New wood deck, 120 sq. ft. and new doors to deck. *B10. Significance (continued): During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 earthquake and fires had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910, annexed the north adjacent town of Easton. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The subject property was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were part of the San Mateo Rancho. William C. Ralston, having reacquired the property following Burlingame’s death, began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan “centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents.”2 The land was subdivided, and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The residential neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911.3 Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest planned residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about 50 years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and most of the residences within the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Thus, 1629 Howard Avenue, completed in 1920, was among the earlier properties to be constructed in the neighborhood. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. In terms of architecture, most of the homes in the neighborhood are some variation of Craftsman or various revival styles (often altered). 2 Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. 3 Diane Condon-Wirgler, “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park,” (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L 1629 Howard Avenue An original building permit application on file at the City of Burlingame’s Community Development Department for 1629 Howard Street is dated October 18, 1919 and specifies a cost of $5,000 and the name L. A. Kern. Although the permit does not specify whether L. A. Kern is the owner and/or builder of the property, a residential builder by the name of L. A. Kern was active in San Francisco and Marin counties in the early twentieth century, and was likely the builder of 1629 Howard Avenue.4 1629 Howard Avenue was connected to the municipal water system in December 1919 (Figure 20). Originally Block 8 of Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2 featured approximately 50-foot-wide lots fronting Costa Rica and Occidental avenues (Figure 21). In the late 1910s, the two northwestern-most lots were reconfigured to front Howard Avenue; by the early 1920s, the two northeastern-most lots were also reconfigured to front Howard Avenue. Construction on 1629 Howard Avenue appears to have been completed in 1920. The first occupants listed are in the 1920 Burlingame City Directory as Hermon J. Prickett, an insurance salesman, and his wife Elizabeth. The earliest Sanborn map of the property dates to March 1921 and shows the one-story residence with a covered porch at the northwest corner and a detached one-story automobile garage at the rear southwest corner of the property (Figure 22). Based on the footprints of the main residence in the 1921 Sanborn map, which depicts the property just over a year after original construction, the mass and footprint of the house have remained relatively unchanged over time, except for a small projecting bay enclosing a door to the basement on the rear facade. The subject property is also depicted on the 1949 Sanborn map, which shows the same building footprint at 1629 Howard Avenue, and the surrounding neighborhood fully developed (Figure 23). Permits indicate that the garage was “rebuilt” in 1960 in roughly the same location as the original garage structure. The earliest historic photograph of the Craftsman-style residence found during research dates to March 1962 (Figure 24). The photograph shows that the primary entry door once included a screen door and that the original wood-sash windows on the primary façade had a similar configuration to the replacement vinyl-sash windows that are extant today. A photograph dated June 1974 illustrates the rebuilt detached rear garage (Figure 25). In the historic photographs, the front yard contains a grass lawn with bushes along the north façade of the residence. Two Italian cypress trees flanking the stairway to the entry porch, which appear to have been recently planted in the 1962 photograph, are much taller in the later 1974 photograph. Owner and Occupant History Research has identified Hermon J. and Elizabeth T. Prickett as the original occupants of 1629 Howard Avenue. Alfred W. Stickney, a mining engineer, and his wife Harriet, subsequently purchased the subject property in 1925 and resided in the home until 1930, and rented the home out to tenants until 1942. Later owners and occupants typically lived at the subject property for a relatively short period of time – at times as brief as one year. By 1979, the subject property was purchased by Zina G. Baskett. Little information was uncovered about Baskett who appears to have rented out the home to various tenants, including to Karen Baba who applied for a permit to run her floral and gardening business, Plant Decor, out of 1629 Howard Avenue in 1990.5 The current owners of 1629 Howard Avenue purchased the property from Baskett in 2012. The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 1629 Howard Avenue, compiled from Burlingame city directories, Ancestry.com, and City of Burlingame Ownership Cards on file at the Burlingame Historical Society: Years of Ownership/Occupation6 Name(s) of Owners (known owners in bold) and Tenants Occupation (if listed) 1920 – 1924 Hermon J. and Elizabeth Prickett Insurance 1925 – 1942 Alfred W. and Harriet A. Stickney Mining Engineer 1931 Carl W. & Milliard Schmidt El Servitor 1932 Daniel & Edith Harington Salesman 1933 Vacant 1934 J. T. and Katherine Ryan Salesman 1935 Vacant 1936 – 1940 Jacob and Frances Treager Chemical Manufacturing 1941 – 1946 Joseph M. & Nelle Crotty District Credit Manager at Graybar Electric Co. 1947 – 1949 Hamilton H. & Geraldine (Jerry) V. Hatfield Real Estate 4 Building contracts given to L. A. Kern appear in various Bay Area newspapers during the early twentieth century; examples include, “Building Contracts,” San Francisco Call, May 17, 1902; “Building Contracts,” San Francisco Call, May 24, 1913; and “Documents Filed in the Recorder’s Office,” Marin County Toscin, May 6, 1916. 5 Application for Home Occupation dated May 10, 1990, City of Burlingame, Community Development Department, permit files for 1629 Howard Avenue. 6 Years of ownership and occupation are approximate based on Burlingame city directories, public records available through Ancestry.com, and City of Burlingame Ownership Cards on file at the Burlingame Historical Society. These records do not always specify the exact date of purchase or occupation. For the purpose of this table, only the known years of ownership or occupation are included. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 12 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Years of Ownership/Occupation6 Name(s) of Owners (known owners in bold) and Tenants Occupation (if listed) 1950 – 1952 Richard E. & Norma Ruberg Cab Driver 1953 – 1960 Robert V. & Jean Ohlson Farmers Insurance Group 1960 – 1962 Harland R. & Winnie E. Fisher District Manager, Farmers Insurance Group 1962 – 1973 Gerald A. & Yvonne Leever Inspector at United Air Lines, later a Manager at Ultek 1973 – 1974 Lillian R. Ware 1974 – 2012 Zina G. Baskett & Douglas S. Baskett Unknown; World Affairs Council 7 1975 Michael Gibson 1976 – 1980 Meleane Tuitarake Retired 1990 Karen Baba Florist/Gardening 2012 – present Peter & Judith Cittadini Evaluation: The property at 1629 Howard Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties beyond the Downtown Specific Plan Draft Inventory of Historic Resources, on which the subject property is not listed, and therefore the property is not listed locally.8 Criterion A/1 (Events) 1629 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A or in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The residence was constructed in 1919-1920, during a major wave of development of the Burlingame Park subdivision. However, the property does not retain a particularly representative association with this context as an integral property in the neighborhood’s development; it was one of many built during the 1920s in the subdivision. The property may be eligible as a contributor to an historic district, but the evaluation of a potential district is outside the scope of this report. The property does not appear to rise to a level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for the National Register or California Register under Criterion A/1. Criterion B/2 (Persons) 1629 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B or the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The longest owner, Zina G. Baskett, does not appear to have ever resided at the subject property, but is known to have lived at 1124 Bernal Avenue in Burlingame. Zina Baskett’s profession is unknown and her husband, Douglas Sebree Baskett, appears to have worked for the World Affairs Council, a non-profit, non-partisan organization engaged in international affairs. No additional information was found about Zina or Douglass that would indicate significant contributions to the local community or their professions, especially in association with this property. The second longest owner was Alfred W. Stickney, who worked as a mining engineer, and his wife Harriet. The Stickneys owned the subject property at 1629 Howard Avenue from 1925 to 1942, but only occupied the residence for approximately six years. Although Stickney worked in mining engineering for several decades, little additional information was discovered that indicated significant contributions to the local community or broader history of the trade. The property was owned and occupied by a variety of working-class and middle- class residents, many of whom only resided in the home for only a few years. Research does not indicate that any former owners and occupants rose to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. Criterion C/3 (Architecture) 1629 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C or the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The residence retains its original footprint and massing but has been re-clad with asphalt shingle roofing and all original wood-sash windows have been replaced with vinyl-sash replacements. The detached garage has been entirely rebuilt and expanded. The residence features typical Craftsman style elements, including its gable roof with overhanging eaves, front entry porch with battered columns, exposed rafter tails and elaborated purlin tails, and decorative knee braces; however, the 7 “Douglass Baskett,” Radaris, accessed April 30, 2018. https://radaris.com/p/Douglas/Baskett/. 8 Carey & Company, “Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan,” October 6, 2008. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 13 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L residence does not appear to be a particularly strong representation of the Craftsman style, especially in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, such that it would rise to a level of individual significance. The original building permit application includes the name L. A. Kern, who was likely the builder of the 1629 Howard Avenue. Active in modest residential construction around San Francisco and Marin, Kern cannot be said to be a master builder. The property may be eligible as a contributor to an historic district, but the evaluation of a potential district is outside the scope of this report. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. Criterion D/4 (Information Potential) The “potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of California” typically relates to archeological resources, rather than built resources. When National Register Criterion D/California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) does relate to built resources, it is for cases when the building itself is the principal source of important construction-related information. The analysis of the property at 1629 Howard Avenue for eligibility under Criterion D/4 is beyond the scope of this report. As the subject property does not appear to be significant under Criteria A/1, B/2, or C/3, a detailed analysis of its historic integrity is not included. Conclusion The residence at 1629 Howard Avenue was constructed in 1919-1920 within the Burlingame Park neighborhood, which was annexed by the City of Burlingame in 1911. The residence retains its original form, massing, and its modest Craftsman-style decorative details such as elaborated purlin tails and wood knee braces. However, all of the original wood-sash windows have been replaced with vinyl-sash windows and the original detached rear garage has been rebuilt. The building is not a strong representation of the Craftsman architectural style in Burlingame such that it would considered individually significant. No significant events are associated with the property, nor do any owners or occupants appear to be have contributed to history in a significant way. As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation.”9 As mentioned, this conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early-twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park and surroundings neighborhoods as a whole would need to be conducted to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district. 9 California State Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, “Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory” (Sacramento, November 2004), 5. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 14 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B12. References: Ancestry.com. Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Permit Records, 1629 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA. Burlingame City Directories, 1920-1980. Available at the Burlingame Public Library. Burlingame Historical Society, City of Burlingame Ownership Cards. California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation. “Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory.” Sacramento, November 2004. Carey & Company. “Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” October 6, 2008. Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. “Douglass Baskett.” Radaris. Accessed April 30, 2018. https://radaris.com/p/Douglas/Baskett/. Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. Marin County Toscin. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” Reviewed by the Planning Commission. July 26, 1982. San Francisco Call. San Mateo County Assessor Grantor-Grantee Index. San Mateo County Property Maps Portal. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: Dated March 1921 and March 1921 - November 1949. Available at the San Francisco Public Library. Water Tap Record. 1629 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA. December 1919. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 15 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Historic Maps and Drawings: Figure 20. Water tap record for 1629 Howard Avenue. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. Figure 21. 1905 Map of Subdivision No. 2 of Burlingame Park. Subdivided by D. Bromfield in September 1905. Original Lots 29 and 30 of Block 8 were later reconfigured to create two lots fronting Howard Avenue. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Mateo County Property Maps Portal. Edited by Page & Turnbull. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 16 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 22. 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 23. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 17 of 15 Resource Name or # 1629 Howard Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date April 9,2018  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 24. 1629 Howard Avenue, primary façade (March 1962). Source: Burlingame Historical Society. Figure 25. 1629 Howard Avenue, primary façade with detached rear garage visible (June 1974). Source: Burlingame Historical Society. 30'-0" MAX. HEIGHT0'-0"T.O. FIN. FLR.126PAINTED ALUMINUMCLAD WINDOWSWITH TRUE SIMULATEDDIVIDED LIGHTS.PAINTED WOODTRIMCOMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFSTONE CLADDINGSTONE CLADDINGCOMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFPAINTED WOODSHAPED COLUMNEXISTING GRADE-1'-11" (55'-5")AVG. CURB HEIGHT10'-0"T.O. PLATE 11'-2"T.O. FIN. FLR.PAINTED WOODTRIM & 3X12 CORBELS(E) GRADEELEV = 57.38'(E) GRADE ELEV = 55.38'DOWNSPOUTSPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PAINTED WOODSHINGLESPAINTED STEEL CHIMNEY CAPPAINTED WOODSHINGLES11'-11 1/4"T.O. RIDGE 9'-0"T.O. PLATE 0'-0"T.O. SLAB14'-1 3/4" TO SECOND FLOOR 1'-11" 28'-6" TO TOP OF RIDGE 9'-0"SHINGLE SIDINGMITERED AT CORNERSAVG. CURB HEIGHTELEV = 55.41'PAINTED WOODPORCH AND STAIRS+19'-8"T.O. PLATE +26'-7" (83'-11")T.O. RIDGE5 1/2"3 1/2"5 1/2"11 1/4"30' MAXIMUM HEIGHTPROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE0'-0"T.O. FIN. FLR.10'-0"T.O. PLATE 11'-2"T.O. FIN. FLR.+19'-8"T.O. PLATE +26'-7" (83'-11")T.O. RIDGE12'-0"PAINTED WOODDOORPAINTED WOODSECTIONAL GARAGEDOORSTONE CLADDING126PAINTED ALUMINUMCLAD WINDOWS WITHSIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LIGHTSPAINTED WOODTRIMPAINTED WOODSHAPED COLUMNAVERAGE (E) GRADEAT FRONT AND REARPROPERTY LINES FORDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE = 56.40'-1'-11" (55'-5")AVG. CURB HEIGHT30'-0" MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 7'-6"+11'-11 1/4"T.O. RIDGE 9'-0" T.O. PLATE 0'-0"T.O. SLABAVERAGE GRADE AT PROPERTYLINES FOR DECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE = 56.38'12'-0" 7'-6"(E) GRADEELEV = 56.06'(E) GRADE AT PROPERTYLINE = 55.38'PAINTED WOODCORBEL ANDBRACKETSGUTTER ANDDOWNSPOUTPAINTED WOODSHINGLESPAINTED6X12WOODCORBEL28'-6" PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTEGRESSWINDOW7.5 SF3'-0 1/2"2'-6 1/2"EGRESSWINDOW11.3 SF2'-4 1/2"4'-9"EGRESSWINDOW5.8 SF2'-5 1/4"2'-4 1/2"SHINGLE SIDINGMITERED ATCORNERSAVERAGE CURB HEIGHT = 55.41'7'-6"EXTERIOR SHIELDED LIGHTFIXTURE, LIGHT MUST BEFOCUSED DOWNWARD, TYP.STONECLADDINGPAINTED WOODPORCH AND STAIRSPAINTED WOODSHINGLES5 1/2"3 1/2"5 1/2"11 1/4"30' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 0'-0"T.O. FIN. FLR.PAINTED ALUMINUMCLAD WINDOWSWITH TRUE SIMULATEDDIVIDED LIGHTS.PAINTED WOODTRIM126STONE CLADDINGSTONE CLADDINGPAINTED WOODSHINGLESPAINTED ALUMINUMCLAD PATIO DOORSWITH TRUESIMULATEDDIVIDED LIGHTS.AVERAGE EXISTINGGRADE AT PROPERTYLINES10'-0"T.O. PLATE 11'-2"T.O. FIN. FLR.-1'-11" (55'-5")AVG. CURB HT.(E) GRADEELEV = 57.38'(E) GRADEELEV = 56.75'AVERAGE (E) GRADE AT FRONT ANDREAR PROPERTY LINES FOR DECLININGHEIGHT ENVELOPE = 56.38'AVERAGE (E) GRADE ATFRONT AND REAR PROPERTYLINES FOR DECLININGHEIGHT ENVELOPE = 56.40'12'-0"7'-6" 12'-0"7'-6" MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT = 30'-0"PAINTED STEELCHIMNEY CAPGUTTER ANDDOWNSPOUTPAINTED WOODTRIM28'-6" PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTEGRESSWINDOW6.1 SF2'-6 3/8"2'-5"EXTERIOR SHIELDED LIGHTFIXTURE, LIGHT MUST BEFOCUSED DOWNWARD, TYP.SHINGLE SIDINGMITERED AT CORNERSAVERAGE CURB HEIGHT = 55.41'8'-6" LIGHT FIXTURE ABV. LANDING +19'-8"T.O. PLATE +26'-7" (83'-11")T.O. RIDGEPAINTED 6X12WOOD CORBEL5 1/2"3 1/2"5 1/2"11 1/4"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"ELEVATIONSEXTERIOR PROPOSEDA50'1'2'4'8'CITTADINI RESIDENCE 1629 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 028-316-280IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02-12-19DESIGN REVIEW01-15-1918-10 PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION2A5PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION3A5PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION1A5 30'-0" MAXIMUM HEIGHTPROPERTY LINE0'-0"T.O. FIN. FLR.PROPERTY LINE10'-0"T.O. PLATE 11'-2"T.O. FIN. FLR.STONE CLADDINGPAINTED ALUMINUMCLAD WINDOWS WITHTRUE SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTSPAINTED WOODTRIMCOMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFPAINTED ALUMINUMCLAD PATIO DOORSPAINTED WOOD TRIMCOMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF-1'-11" (55'-5")AVG. CURB HEIGHT(E) GRADE+26'-7" (83'-11")T.O. RIDGE11'-11 1/4"T.O. RIDGE 9'-0"T.O. PLATE 0'-0"T.O. SLAB(E) GRADE ELEV = 56.06'(E) GRADEELEV = 56.75'PAINTED WOODSHINGLESDOWNSPOUTPAINTED 6X12WOOD CORBELGUTTER ANDDOWNSPOUTPAINTED WOODSHINGLES1'-11"14'-1 3/4" TO SECOND FLOOR28'-6" TO TOP OF RIDGE 9'-0"SHINGLE SIDINGMITERED AT CORNERSAVERAGE CURB HEIGHT = 55.41'EXTERIOR SHIELDEDLIGHT FIXTURE, LIGHTSHALL BE FOCUSEDDOWNWARD, TYP.7'-6"5 1/2"3 1/2"5 1/2"11 1/4"BEDROOMSTAIRENTRYCOVEREDPORCHPOWDERKITCHENMASTERBEDROOMMASTERDRESSING0'-0" (57'-4")T.O. FIN. FLR.+10'-0" (67'-4")T.O. PLATE 11'-2" (68'-6")T.O. FIN. FLR.+26'-7" (83'-11")T.O. RIDGEDININGLAUNDRYSTAIRWAYBATH0'-0" (57'-4")T.O. FIN. FLR.+10'-0" (67'-4")T.O. PLATE 11'-2" (68'-6")T.O. FIN. FLR.9'-0"+26'-7" (83'-11")T.O. RIDGESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"& SECTIONSELEVATIONSPROPOSEDA60'1'2'4'8'CITTADINI RESIDENCE 1629 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 028-316-280IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02-12-19DESIGN REVIEW01-15-1918-10 PROPOSED SECTION1A6PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION3A6PROPOSED SECTION2A6 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE(E) ADJACENT HOUSE(1625 HOWARD AVE)PROPOSED HOUSE(1629 HOWARD AVE)PROPERTY LINE(E) ADJACENT HOUSE(160 OCCIDENTAL AVE)+82'-6"T.O. RIDGE+82'-11"T.O. RIDGE+27'-1" (84'-5")T.O. RIDGESCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"ELEVATIONSSTREETSCAPEA70'1'2'4'8'CITTADINI RESIDENCE 1629 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 028-316-280IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02-12-19DESIGN REVIEW01-15-1918-10 6:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:12 6:126:12 6:12 6:12 6:126:126:12TYPICAL EAVE AT SLOPED ROOF3"=1'-0" 2A4WD. TRIMRAFTER TAILGUTTERMTL. FLASHINGDOWNSPOUTSHINGLE SIDINGGUTTER DEBRISSCREEN,PER CRC 327.5.4V-GROOVE T&G, FIRE RETARDANTTREATED PER CBC CHAPTER 7A ANDASTM SECTION 202COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING,ATTACH PER APPROVEDMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.12" EXPOSURE LP FLAMEBLOCKFIRE-RATED OSB SHEATHINGMOISTURE BARRIER:(1) FULL LAYER CERTAINTEEDMETALAYMENT HIGH TEMPSELF-ADHESIVE UNDERLAYMENT O/(1) FULL LAYER FR-10 FIRE RATEDBASE SHEETR-21 BATTINSULATION58" TYPE X GYPSUMWALL BOARDR-30 SPRAY FOAMINSULATIONCONTINUOUSBLOCKING0'1'2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"ROOF PLANPROPOSEDA4CITTADINI RESIDENCE 1629 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 028-316-280IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02-12-19DESIGN REVIEW01-15-1918-10 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN1A4SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NORTHTRUENORTHBLDG EXISTING MAIN HOUSETO BE REMOVEDEXISTING DETACHEDGARAGE TO BE REMOVED4'-0"SETBACK4'-0"SETBACKPROPERTY LINE 100.09' PROPERTY LINE 101.22'PROPERTY LINE 49.97'PROPERTY LINE 50.00'(E) CONCRETEDRIVEWAY(E) BRICKPATIO(E) CONCRETEWALKWAY(E) COVEREDBRICK PORCH(E) ASPHALTDRIVEWAYTO BE REMOVED(E) 6" MAYTEN TREETO BE REMOVED(E) 6' TALL WOODENFENCE TO BEREMOVED(E) 6' TALL WOODENFENCE TO BEREMOVED WITHINFRONT SETBACKPROPERTY LINEELEV. 56.06'ELEV. 56.06'ELEV. 56.17'(E) CURB CUT(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK(E) CONCRETEWALKWAY(E) CONCRETE CURBAND GUTTERHOWARD AVENUE(E) JOINT POLEPROPERTY LINEELEV. 55.38'(E) GAS METERTO BE MOVEDELEV. 55.13'TOP OF CURBELEV. 55.66'(E) WATER METERTOP OF CURBELEV. 55.16'(E) STAIRSDOWN(E) ELECTRICALMETER TO BEMOVED(E) STAIRSDOWNPROPERTY LINEELEV. 57.38'PROPERTY LINEELEV. 56.75'ELEV. 56.83'ELEV. 56.67'DISTANCE BETWEEN(E) SIDEWALK ANDPROPERTY LINE2'-4"REAR SETBACKAT FIRST FLOORREAR SETBACKAT SECOND FLOOR15'-0"20'-0"FRONT SETBACKAT FIRST FLOORFRONT SETBACKAT SECOND FLOOR15'-0"20'-0"CENTERLINE OFSTREET3'-5 1/2"TO ADJ.STRUCTURE1'-6 1/2"10'-0 1/2"17'-1"TO ADJACENT STRUCTURE(E) SEWERCLEANOUTTO BE MOVED(E) SEWERCLEANOUT5'-0" X 5'-0" SECONDFLOOR WINDOW2'-0"X 3'-0" SECONDFLOOR WINDOWPROPOSED RESIDENCEPROPOSEDDETACHEDGARAGEFRONT SETBACKAT FIRST FLOORFRONT SETBACKAT SECOND FLOORREAR SETBACKAT FIRST FLOORREAR SETBACKAT SECOND FLOOR4'-0"SETBACK4'-0"SETBACKPROPERTY LINE 100.09'PROPERTY LINE 101.22'PROPERTY LINE 49.97'PROPERTY LINE 50.00'15'-0"20'-0"15'-0"20'-0"NEW TREESPROPOSEDCOVERED PORCHPROPOSED SECONDSTORY SHOWN WITHA SMALL DASHFF = 57'-4"NEW TREE(E) WATER METERTO BE MOVEDNEW 6' TALLWOODEN FENCENEW WOODEN FENCE, 5'TALL MAXIMUM WITHINFRONT SETBACKPROPERTY LINEELEV. 56.06'ELEV. 56.06'ELEV. 56.17'(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK(E) CONCRETECURB AND GUTTER(E) JOINT POLEPROPERTY LINEELEV. 55.38'ELEV. 55.13'TOP OF CURBELEV. 55.66'TOP OF CURBELEV. 55.16'PROPERTY LINEELEV. 57.38'PROPERTY LINEELEV. 56.75'ELEV. 56.83'ELEV. 56.67'GAS METER9'-6"PROPOSED DRIVEWAY(E) CURB CUT TO BE REMOVED,REPLACED WITH SIDEWALK TOMATCH EXISTINGROOF OVERHANGSHOWN DASHEDGARAGE ROOFOVERHANG SHOWNDASHED10'-2 3/4" TO OPENING 2'-4"DISTANCE BETWEEN(E) SIDEWALK ANDPROPERTY LINENEW GATE TO TIEINTO FENCEDN.13'-7 3/4"TO FIRST FLOOR14'-7 3/4"TO SECOND FLOOR7'-7"TO SECOND FLOOR4'-7 1/4"TO FIRSTFLOOR29'-0" TO FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR20'-7" TO SECOND FLOOR16'-8 1/2" TO FIRST FLOOR13'-8 1/4"TO ADJACENT STRUCTURE4'-8 1/2"7'-6"TO ADJ. STRUCTUREHOWARD AVENUECENTERLINE OFSTREETFOAM INSULATIONSHALL BE INSTALLEDTO AVOID EAVEVENTING AND GABLEEND VENTING.25'-4 1/4"PROPERTY LINE TO CENTERLINE OF STREET25'-7 3/4"(E) SEWER CLEANOUTTO BE MOVEDELECTRICAL METERNEW CLEANOUT3'-7"2'-1"3'-2 1/8" 2'-0 1/8"NEW 6' TALLWOODEN FENCEENDS AT ADJACENTRESIDENCE12'-6"PROPOSED CURB CUTNEW 6' TALLWOODEN FENCEPATIO ANDLANDING AREASSHOWN WITH ASMALL DASH5'-0" X 5'-0" SECONDFLOOR WINDOW2'-0"X 3'-0" SECONDFLOOR WINDOWRIDGEPROPOSED SECONDFLOOR STAIR WINDOWSCALE: AS NOTEDSITE PLANSPROPOSEDEXISTING ANDA2CITTADINI RESIDENCE 1629 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 028-316-280IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02-12-19DESIGN REVIEW01-15-1918-10 EXISTING SITE PLAN2A1NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGPROPOSED SITE PLAN1A1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"0'2'4'8'16'NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGSITE PLANSSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"0'2'4'8'16'NOTES:1. ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALKFRONTING THE SITE SHALL BE REMOVED ANDREPLACED.2. ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERALCONNECTIONS SHALL BE PLUGGED AND A NEW 4"LATERAL SHALL BE INSTALLED.3. ALL WATER CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINSFOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINES ARE TO BE INSTALLEDPER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDSPECIFICATIONS.4. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FORANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE CITY'SRIGHT-OF-WAY. NEW 2"-3" CHINESEPISTACHENEW WOODEN FENCE, 5'TALL MAX. WITHINFRONT SETBACK(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALKNEW 6' TALLWOODEN FENCEPROPOSEDCOVEREDPORCHNEW GATE TO MATCHNEW FENCE(2) EXISTINGOVERGROWN SHRUBSTO BE REMOVEDSHOWN DASHEDNEW 2"-3" CHINESETALLOW TREEPAVERS FROM SIDEWALKTO ENTRY PORCHPROPOSED RESIDENCEPROPOSEDDETACHEDGARAGEEXISTINGRESIDENCE TO BEDEMOLISHED,SHOWN DASHEDNEW 2"-3" RAYWOOD ASHTREEPAVED AREAAT DOORLANDINGSLAWN AREAPAVERS AT PATHTO UTILITIESGROUNDCOVER, TBDEXISTING EVERGREENSHRUB TO BE REMOVEDSHOWN DASHEDPROPOSEDPAVEDDRIVEWAYGROUND COVERAND SMALLPERENNIALSAROUND EDGESPERENNIALS ATHOUSE EDGE PERENNIALS (TBD) ATHOUSE EDGELARGER PERENNIALS FOR FOCALPOINT - 10-GALLON OLEA EUROPEA.PERENNIALS ATHOUSE EDGE(E) 6" MAYTEN TREETO BE REMOVEDPAVERS FROMDRIVEWAY TOFRONT ENTRYPORCHPRIVACY HEDGES,5-GALLON PITTOSPORUMTENUIFOLIUM ANDBERBERIS THUNBERGIIPRIVACY HEDGES, 5-GALLONRHAMNUS ALATURNUS ANDFORSYTHIA INTERMEDIAPAVERS ATPATIO AREASMALL EXISTING SHRUBSAT NEIGHBORINGDRIVEWAY5'-0" X 5'-0" SECONDFLOOR WINDOW2'-0"X 3'-0" SECONDFLOOR WINDOWLANDSCAPE TO PROVIDESCREENING AT DRIVEWAY EDGE.INCLUDING 3 GALLONCEANOTHUS AMERICANUS,CORNUS STOLONIFERA, ANDLONICERA NITIDASCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"PLANLANDSCAPEL10'1'2'4'8'CITTADINI RESIDENCE 1629 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 028-316-280IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02-12-19DESIGN REVIEW01-15-1918-10 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN1L1NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"0'2'4'8'16' PROJECT LOCATION 1628 Lassen Way Item No. 8d Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1628 Lassen Way Meeting Date: February 25, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Steve Wu, Master SW U Associates APN: 025-203-220 Property Owner: Jeff Park 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: The existing single story house with an attached one-car garage contains 2,660 SF (0.44 FAR) of floor area. The proposed project includes adding a new front porch, increasing the first floor living space, and adding a new second story. The floor area of the house would increase to 2,946 SF (0.49 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The house 74 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. The existing house has four bedrooms and with this project the number of bedrooms would not change. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The existing garage (16’-5” x 20’-3” clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space. One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20) 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 first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2) (4)). 1628 Lassen Way Lot Size: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 15, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 15’-0” 18’-6” 15’-6” (block average) (2nd flr): Attached garage: n/a 15’-0” 20’-0” no change 20'-0" 25’-0” (for one-car garage) Side (left): (right): 5’-1” 5’-8” no change 8’-3” 6’-0" 6’-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 25’-7” n/a no change 56’-4” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2,660 SF 44.3% ¹ 2,384 SF 39.7% 2,400 SF 40% FAR: 2,660 SF 0.44 FAR 2,946 SF 0.49 FAR 3,020 SF ² 0.51 FAR ¹ Existing nonconforming lot coverage. ² (.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.51 FAR) Item No. 8d Regular Action Item Design Review 1628 Lassen Way 2 1628 Lassen Way Lot Size: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 15, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (16’-5” x 20’-3”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) no change 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 17’-4” 22’-5” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that previous staff report incorrectly stated that the existing house was in compliance with lot coverage requirements. Staff’s calculation failed to include an existing covered patio at the rear of the house, which increases the existing lot coverage to 44.3% (40% maximum allowed). As a result, the existing lot coverage is considered to be nonconforming; the development table on page 1 has been revised accordingly. Regular Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission Regular Action meeting on January 14, 2019 the Commission expressed concern with several issues and continued the item with the direction (see attached January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). Listed below is the direction and suggestions provided by the Commission and how each was addressed with the revised project. The applicant submitted a response letter, dated February 14, 2019, and revised plans, date stamped February 15, 2019, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and direction. In addition, the design review consultant provided an amendment to his original analysis, dated February 15, 2019, in which he notes that “the changes respond well to the Planning Commission’s original and latest comments and suggestions”. The design review consultant recommends approval of the revised submittal. 1. Noted that they could not make the findings for the Lot Coverage Variance, noting that there is nothing unique about the lot or configuration of the house. • The applicant eliminated the previously requested Lot Coverage Variance by reducing the front porch from 124 SF to 53.7 SF and reducing the great room at the rear of the house by 70.3 SF (see revised floor plans). Reducing the size of the great room also increased the right side setback from 6’-0” to 8’-3” (see revised Site Plan). 2. Expressed a concern with the 10’ plate height at the addition at the rear of the house, noting that it is not in proportion with the rest of the house or with neighboring houses. • The plate height at the addition at the rear of the house was reduced from 10’ to 9’ (see revised building elevations). A cathedral ceiling has been incorporated into the design in order to get the volume within the space desired by the property owner (see revised building section). Design Review 1628 Lassen Way 3 3. Encouraged retaining a front porch while eliminating the Lot Coverage Variance. • As noted above, the proposed square footage was reduced enough to eliminate the Lot Coverage Variance. A front porch was retained to focus on the entry area, but reduced in size from 124 SF to 53.7 SF (see revised floor plan and building elevations). 4. Noted that the roof area, where the front porch connects to the garage and upper floor, needs to be resolved. • The applicant resolved the issue of different height eaves at the front of the house by extending the eave around the entire house to 24" to line up the eave height at the garage level (see revised building elevations). Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review study meeting on December 10, 2018, the Commission expressed several concerns with the project design and with the various Variances requested (see attached December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The Commission referred the project to a design review consultant. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped January 4, 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 design review consultant met with the project designer and homeowner to discuss the Planning Commission’s concerns and reviewed the revised plans. The design reviewer has provided a detailed analysis in his letter and recommends approval of the project as proposed (see attached Design Review Analysis, dated December 26, 2018). 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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: The proposed project would maintain the existing one-car garage and respects the garage pattern in the neighborhood. The new house would be craftsman style and would use high-quality materials such as aluminum clad wood windows, stucco siding, composite shingle roof, and a stacked stone base. The new front porch would help in better interfacing with the rest of the properties in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review 1628 Lassen Way 4 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 of approval should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 15, 2019, sheets A00 through A06 and L01; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 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 effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that 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; Design Review 1628 Lassen Way 5 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. 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. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Steve Wu, applicant and designer Jeff Park, property owner Attachments: January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated February 14, 2019 Design Review Consultant’s Amended Analysis, dated February 15, 2019 December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Consultant’s Analysis, dated December 26, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 15, 2019 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 14, 2019 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 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 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 is 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.) Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2019 January 14, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >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 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 10, 2018 a.1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major renovation and first and second story addition, including Front and Side Setback Variances to increase the height of nonconforming walls and Side Setback Variance for the first floor addition . (Master SWU Associates, Steve Wu, applicant and designer; Jeff Leung, property owner ) (139 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >Do we know what the block average is for the front setback? (Keylon: Can review the plans to see if that information is provided. However, the minimum required front setback to a garage is 25 feet.) >The plate heights are being raised throughout the first floor to 10 feet, except at the garage where it's increasing from 8 feet to 9 feet, correct? (Keylon: No, the garage plate height is also being raised to 10 feet.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steve Wu, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The only area where the plate height is increasing from 8 to 10 feet is the great room, but would a variance still be required for increasing the plate heights from 8 to 9 feet? (Keylon: Yes, a variance is required because the plate heights are increasing on nonconforming walls; considered to be an intensification of a nonconforming wall.) >What is the purpose of increasing the plate heights throughout the ground floor? (Wu: Project includes removing most of the existing walls, increasing bedrooms sizes, and modernizing the space, so it's a matter of proportion. Great room at rear of house includes dining room, family room and kitchen. So given its size, felt that increasing the plate height would be in proportion with the space in plan view. Reason for the front setback variance at the garage was to raise the plate height so that it is consistent with the rest of the house along the front facade. Plate height for the existing garage sits 20 inches below what is being proposed.) >In looking at the building section on sheet A 06, you're increasing the plate height to 10 feet, but you're also vaulting the ceiling. Do you still feel you need to increase the plate height to 10 feet even though you're vaulting the ceiling? (Wu: Yes.) >One of the hardest things in justifying a variance is making a finding that there is an exceptional circumstance that is related to the property itself that is different than the surrounding properties. It's unclear from this application what is unique about this property than the neighboring properties. (Wu: Difference is that this property will be improved and have modern spaces, which is why we decided to raise the ceilings to be consistent with the proportions. Larger spaces with an 8 foot ceiling would feel squat . Would point out that the existing living room has a 9 foot ceiling, so property owner has a sense of the difference between 8 and 9 foot ceilings and made the decision to increase the plate height to 9 feet.) >Currently have walkways from the sidewalk and driveway leading to the front door. Proposed landscape Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/7/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes plan shows eliminating the walkway from the sidewalk and changing the walkway from the driveway to the new front door. Will the remaining area in the front yard and along the side of the house really just be grass? Will there be any planting areas? (Wu: Yes, that is correct.) Would encourage you to revist the landscape plan to add more planting areas and softening of the building. >What is meant by "stacked stone" as indicated for the wainscoting on the house? (Wu: Stacked stone is a stone veneer that is attached as a siding material, comes in 4 foot panels.) How thick is the stone veneer? (Wu: It's 5 inches thick.) >Presume that at the new entry, the stone veneer does not turn back towards the door, but rather shears off at the entry towards the north side. At the garage side, is the stone veneer glued on to the front of the garage or does it return down the side of the garage? (Wu: Stone veneer does return along the exterior sides of the house, as well as on the inside wall towards the entry.) >Stone veneer is 5 inches thick, so will it sit proud of the stucco by approximately 4 inches. Will there be a cap on the veneer? (Wu: Yes, there will be a cap on it.) This should be articulated on the plans. >The way the building elevations are drawn, it appears that the stucco is proud of the stone veneer, is that what you intended? (Wu: No, that was not intended. Will revise the building elevations accordingly.) >How do you propose to increase the plate heights? (Wu: To increase plate heights from 8 to 9 feet, would use a 3 1/2 x 11 7/8 psl beam on top of the existing wall. To increase plate to 10 feet, would build a wall on top of the existing wall and shear it with plywood.) >So you wouldn't need to remove the stucco? (Wu: The intent is not to remove the existing stucco.) >Will be doing a lot of work to make the walls taller and the entire existing roof is being removed, so have you thought of moving the walls in to comply with setback requirements and eliminating some of the variance requests? (Wu: Trying to keep costs down, so would be concerned with pouring new foundations for new walls.) >What type of windows are being proposed? (Wu: Aluminum clad are proposed.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >We have on occasion for some variances accepted as a unique circumstance, a building that was built prior to having ordinances and setback requirements. While the existing footprint of the house could be accepted as an exceptional circumstance, could not make the finding that by not granting the variance, the property owner is being denied a property right. There doesn't seem to be a substantial property right that is lost through denial of the variance. Don't see a right to have a 9 or 10 foot plate height as a reasonable property right that if we deny the variance they wouldn't have access to. Can't make the findings for the variance. >While we may consider a 9 or 10 foot plate on a new house, if it complied with all of the development requirements, we may be able to make that consideration. However, can't make that in this case if we have to grant a variance, especially considering that the house doesn't need to have that height. In fact by having that height, it make the first floor look that much taller relative to a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood. For most houses of the same style and character, the eave is just above the garage door, and that is what is typically seen as the character and pattern in the neighborhood. Having a tall first floor and garage hurts the design. Can't make findings for design review based on the proposed design. >Having difficulty with the variance requests. Also concerned with the massing, is front -loaded, which is what we try to avoid. >Concerned with how stacked stone will look like, so would be helpful to see a sample. >This project is a good candidate for a design review consultant. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/7/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Existing plate heights should be kept as they are, would eliminate a lot of problems. >See no justification for the variances, especially in this neighborhood. >There are still a lot of single story bungalows in this neighborhood. The intent of the design guidelines is to minimize second floors, think this design has a long way to go to address our concerns. >9 foot second floor plate height also needs to be looked at. >Applicant should discuss with the design review consultant the landscape plan. Don't need a lot of detail, but needs to be thought through in terms of planting areas and large species as opposed to a simple indication of just lawn. >There are a few large houses in the neighborhood and on that block, would caution the applicant that many of those houses were built prior to design review, so shouldn't look to those as examples to follow. >Should consider adding a front porch, is exempt from floor area ratio and would add to the depth of the house. >To help with keeping a lower profile on the second floor, should consider changing the gables to hip roofs since there is a predominant profile of a hipped roof. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/7/2019 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 proposed and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1, Jeff Park, property owner, APN: 025-203-220; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 25, 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 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, 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 25th day of February, 2019 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1628 Lassen Way Effective March 7, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 15, 2019, sheets A00 through A06 and L01; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 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 effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1628 Lassen Way Effective March 7, 2019 Page 2 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 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; 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. 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. Drawing NumberDATEScaleProject Number12345REVISIONSDATEBYDESCRIPTIONBLUESTEINRESIDENCE1448 DRAKE AVE.BURLINGAME, CA.A82/13/19BLUS01LEFT REAR ISOMETRICLEFT FRONT ISOMETRICPRELIMINARYSTREET LEVEL VEIW MAIN LEVELUPPER LEVELLOWER LEVELMAIN LEVEL CLG.LOWER LEVEL CLG.8' - 1"1' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 0"9' - 0"UPPER LEVEL CLG.EXTERIOR MATERIALS:CLASS B MIN. COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFING CERTAINTEEDLANDMARK OR AS SELECTEDBY OWNERPAINTED CEMENT PLASTERFINISHALUM. CLAD WINDOWSW/ SIM. DIVIDED LTS.& DOORS RECESSEDINSTALLATIONW.I. ORNAM.RAILING/TRIMFXD. WDOS.ONLYPAINTED FASCIAGUTTERS& DOWNSPOUTSCUSTOM ENTRYLIGHT FIXTURETHIS LOCATION3' - 6"F.F. 96.0'W.I. ORNAM. RAILING/TRIMFXD. WDOS. ONLY98.45' AVG. T.O.C.D.H.E. 93.11 = 98.21+88.002W.I. RAILINGPAINTED93.11D.H.E. 94.24 = 98.63 + 89.84294.2498.4530' - 0"30' - 0" MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT12' - 0"7' - 6"4 5 .0 0 °12' - 0"PLPL118.41(E) ADJACENT 2-STORYHOUSE W/ BASEMENT22' - 5" +MAIN LEVELUPPER LEVELLOWER LEVELMAIN LEVEL CLG.LOWER LEVEL CLG.UPPER LEVEL CLG.3' - 7"CLASS B MIN. COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFING CERTAINTEEDLANDMARK OR AS SELECTEDBY OWNERPAINTED CEMENT PLASTERFINISHALUM. CLAD WINDOWS& DOORS RECESSEDINSTALLATIONPAINTED FASCIA GUTTERS& DOWNSPOUTSPLASTER WRAPED HEADER TRIMPAINTED W.I. RAILINGS30' - 0"30' - 0" MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT118.419' - 0"1' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 0"8' - 1"98.45' AVG. T.O.C.LWR. STAIR LDG.BRONZED ALUM. T.FLATGL.SKYLIGHT AS SELECTED22' - 5" +Drawing NumberDATEScaleProject Number12345REVISIONSDATEBYDESCRIPTION 1/4" = 1'-0"BLUESTEINRESIDENCE1448 DRAKE AVE.BURLINGAME, CA.A62/13/19BLUS01FRONT ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATIONPRELIMINARY MAIN LEVELMAIN LEVELUPPER LEVELUPPER LEVELLOWER LEVELMAIN LEVEL CLG.MAIN LEVEL CLG.LOWER LEVEL CLG.UPPER LEVEL CLG.UPPER LEVEL CLG.8' - 1"1' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 0"9' - 0"GARAGE LEVELF.F. 96'94.0093.0091.7990.0098.6298.72APPROXIMATE (E)GRADE5% SLOPE5' - 0" .20' - 8" AT 12% SLOPEPL98.7298.7798.59PROPOSEDGRADE/DRIVEWAY22' - 2" +25' - 10" +1' - 0"95.00118.41MAX. RIDGECLASS B MIN. COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFING CERTAINTEEDLANDMARK OR AS SELECTEDBY OWNERPAINTED CEMENT PLASTERFINISHALUM. CLAD WINDOWS& DOORS RECESSEDINSTALLATIONPAINTED FASCIA GUTTERS& DOWNSPOUTSLIGHT FIXTURE AS SELECTEDTHIS LOCATIONPLASTER WRAPED HEADER TRIM30' - 0"98.45' AVG. T.O.C.2A598.4795.9988.5038' - 0" AT 16.4%BASEMENTSTORAGE/UTILITYMAX.5' - 11"LWR. STAIR LDG.22' - 5" +MAIN LEVELUPPER LEVELLOWER LEVELMAIN LEVEL CLG.LOWER LEVEL CLG.UPPER LEVEL CLG.INTERM. LDG.CLASS B MIN. COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFING CERTAINTEEDLANDMARK OR AS SELECTEDBY OWNERPAINTED CEMENT PLASTERFINISHALUM. CLAD WINDOWS& DOORS RECESSEDINSTALLATIONPAINTED FASCIA GUTTERS& DOWNSPOUTSPLASTER WRAPED HEADER TRIM98.1195.00(E) GRADEPROPOSED GRADE98.668' - 1"1' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 0"9' - 0"F.F.96'94.66118.4130' - 0"98.45' AVG. T.O.C.2A5STORAGE/UTILITYBASEMENTMAX.5' - 11"22' - 5" +Drawing NumberDATEScaleProject Number12345REVISIONSDATEBYDESCRIPTION 1/4" = 1'-0"BLUESTEINRESIDENCE1448 DRAKE AVE.BURLINGAME, CA.A72/13/19BLUS01RIGHT ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATIONPRELIMINARY 10' - 8"1' - 0"1' - 0"20' - 8"1-CAR GARAGENOTE:EXTERIORBEARING WALLS LESSTHAN 5'-0" FROM PROP.LINE SHALL BE 1-HR.CONSTRUCTION TYP.PLPLDS5" / 1'-0"5" / 1'-0"5" / 1'-0"DSDSGARAGE LEVELGARAGE CLG.9' - 0"12' - 0" + RIDGEASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFTO MATCH HOUSEPAINTED G.I. GUTTERS& DS TO MATCH HOUSEDESIGNER GARAGEDOOR STAINEDWOOD AS SELECTEDPAINTED CEMENT PLASTERFINISH TO MATCH HOUSELT. FIXTURE TO MATCHHOUSET.O.C. 88.5'GARAGE LEVELGARAGE CLG.9' - 0"GARAGE LEVELGARAGE CLG.9' - 0"PLGARAGE LEVELGARAGE CLG.9' - 0"Drawing NumberDATEScaleProject Number12345REVISIONSDATEBYDESCRIPTION 1/4" = 1'-0"BLUESTEINRESIDENCE1448 DRAKE AVE.BURLINGAME, CA.A1.32/13/19BLUS01GARAGE - LEVELGARAGE- ROOFGARAGE-FRONTGARAGE REAR GARAGE-LEFTGARAGE-RIGHTPRELIMINARY DN90901 0 ' A L L E YL O T 3 4L O T 3 250.01'50.01'S55°04'00"E250.03'S55°04'00"E50.01'N55°04'00"W50.01'(50')(S34°56'W)(S34°56'W)(120')(120')N05°49'E0.08'TO PIPES34°56'19"W5.00'(50')(50')(50')(50') CONC RET. WALLWOOD & I-BEAM RETAINING WALLCONCRETE RETAINING WALLN55°04'00"W 50.01'N55°04'00"WS34°56'19"W119.98'S34°56'18"W119.98'ADJACENTRESIDENCECONCRETE SIDEWALKAPRONADJACENTRESIDENCEADJACENTBUILDING4'-10"SIDE SETBACK10'-2"SIDE SETBACK33'-1"REAR SETBACK1'-0"LIGHTWELL15'-0"98.2198.16T.O.C.98.6315'-0"88.0015'-0"89.8415'-0"98.75T.O.C.53'-10" (8" WIDE RETAINING WALL)9'-6"DRIVEWAY47'-11" (8" WIDE RETAINING WALL)(N) FENCELAWNLAWNLAWN(N) WOOD DECK(E) WMREPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER,SIDEWALK & DRIVEWAY APRON PERCITY STANDARDS9'-6"DRIVEWAYAPPROACH(N) GM(E) SSCOxxxxxxxxxxxxxx98.45' AVG.T.O.C.EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT TO BE RE-USEDREPAIR OR REPLACE CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALKETC. AS PER CITY STANDARDS(N) DRIVEWAY AND APPROACHAS PER LANDSCAPE PLANSANY DRIVEWAY APPROACHESTO BE REPAIRED ORCONSTRUCTED PER PWDEPARTMENT DETAILSALL WATER CONNECTIONSTO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICEOR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLEDPER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURESAND SPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHERUNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKSWITHIN CITY'S R.O.W.DRAKE AVENUE (50' R.O.W.)(E) 2-STORYRESIDENECEW/ BASEMENTNOTE:ROOF EAVES SHALL NOTPROJECT TOWITHIN 2'-0"OF PROP. LINE.11' - 6" .6' - 10" MAX.MAIN HOUSE1-CAR GARAGETO FACE OF CURB11' - 4" +-PROPOSED MAIN & UPPER FLOOR25' - 9"NOTE:SEE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANS BYOTHERS FOR ALL GRADES ETC.PROPOSED MAIN & UPPER FLOOR23' - 1"Drawing NumberDATEScaleProject Number12345REVISIONSDATEBYDESCRIPTION 1/8" = 1'-0"BLUESTEINRESIDENCE1448 DRAKE AVE.BURLINGAME, CA.A12/13/19BLUS01SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANPLANNING DATALOCATION MAPSITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES7. ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE    BUILDING PERMIT FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW    BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER AND OR    CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN A REVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY    ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE WORK.8. NOTE‐WHEN PLANS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR PLAN REVIEW, A    COMPLETED SUPPLEMENTAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION WILL BE PROVIDED.9. IF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED IT SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC    WORKS.10. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: WEEKDAYS: 8:00 AM‐7:00 PM                                                          SATURDAY: 9:00 AM‐6:00 PM                                                          SUNDAYS & HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED                                                          CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE LIMITED                                                          TO WEEKDAYS AND NON‐CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 5:00 PMSITEPRELIMINARYSCOPE OF WORKBLOCK AVG. CALCSNEW SINGLE FAMILY 2-STORY RESIDENCE WITH DETACHED1 CAR GARAGENEW 2‐STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED 1‐CAR GARAGE Drawing NumberDATEScaleProject Number12345REVISIONSDATEBYDESCRIPTIONBLUESTEINRESIDENCE1448 DRAKE AVE.BURLINGAME, CA.A92/13/19BLUS01123454 - 1444 DRAKE AVE.3 - 1448 DRAKE AVE.2 - 1452 DRAKE AVE.1 - 1456 DRAKE AVE.5 - 1440 DRAKE AVE.LOCATION MAP A-1 SITE PLAN & FLOOR PLAN SITE PLAN Scale: 1" = 20'-0" Conditional Use Permit for a Preschool Care Facility (28 Students) operated by Trinity Lutheran Church HISTORIC REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1611 BOREL PLACE, #230, SAN MATEO, CA 94402 TEL.: (650) 570-6681 FAX.: (650) 570-6540 INTERIOR DESIGN PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ARCHITECTURE WWW.DIAP.COM This drawing is the property of the Architect and may not be reproduced or used without his written permission. Dan Ionescu Architects & Planners ROOM FUNCTION ROOM AREA FLOOR AREA/OCCUPANT # OF OCCUPANTS SUNDAY SCHOOL ROOM 191 sq.ft.35 sq.ft.6 LOUNGE / LIBRARY 150 sq.ft.50 sq.ft.3 CLASSROOM 644 sq.ft.35 sq.ft.19 EDUCATIONAL STORAGE 167 sq.ft.100 sq.ft.2 KITCHENETTE 38 sq.ft.50 sq.ft.1 STORAGE 25 sq.ft.300 sq.ft.1 ENTRY 40 sq.ft. 7 sq.ft.6 CORRIDOR 116 sq.ft.50 sq.ft.3 TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD PER BUILDING 41 1248 BALBOA AVE. EXISTING FLOOR PLAN (NO CHANGES) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" at 1505 Sherman Avenue - Approved on June 21, 2012 1248 BALBOA AVE. EXITING FLOOR PLAN DIAGRAM Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" HISTORIC REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1611 BOREL PLACE, #230, SAN MATEO, CA 94402 TEL.: (650) 570-6681 FAX.: (650) 570-6540 INTERIOR DESIGN PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ARCHITECTURE WWW.DIAP.COM This drawing is the property of the Architect and may not be reproduced or used without his written permission. Dan Ionescu Architects & Planners A-2 TRAFFIC DIAGRAMS