HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.10.22Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, October 22, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Draft September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa.
Draft September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period .
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak "
card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust
the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. STUDY ITEMS
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.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2018
October 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review 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
a.
1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report.pdf
1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments.pdf
1268 Cortez Ave - Plans - 10.22.18.pdf
Attachments:
Adoption of the Update to the Burlingame General Plan and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)
b.
Staff Report
Final EIR (FEIR)
Exhibit A: Responses and suggested actions to Draft General Plan public comments
Exhibit B: Draft General Plan public comments – original correspondence
Exhibit C: Implementation Programs errata/edits
Exhibit D: 75 CNEL Noise Contour errata/edits
Resolution - General Plan
Resolution - EIR
Meeting Minutes and Public Notice
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
- Commission Communications
- City Council regular meeting of October 15, 2018
1411 De Soto Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project
for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling.
a.
1411 De Soto Ave - Memo
1411 De Soto Ave - Attachments
1411 De Soto Ave - Plans
Attachments:
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 October 22, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on November 1, 2018, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be
accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs.
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2018
October 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
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 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2018
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 24, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior
Planner Keylon, and Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.pdfAttachments:
A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to
approve the meeting minutes with corrections previously submitted. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.Community Center - Design Presentation
Staff Report
Community Center Rendering
Attachments:
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Karen Hager, represented the applicant, with project architects Jonathan Hartman and Carolyn Carlbert.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•Do you have an outside bathroom near the playground? (Carlbert: The outside bathroom is located
adjacent to the community center.)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Would the outside bathroom be open at all times? Currently there is a bathroom facility by the
basketball court. (Hager: The bathroom facility recently replaced by the basketball court will remain .
This will be an additional bathroom which will be available to the public even when the community center
will not be open, however it will not be open all of the time due to safety concerns. It will be locked
automatically by a timer when the park is considered to be closed at sunset.)
•In working through the project with the advisory committee, it has been rewarding to see the pavilion
aspects to the design and organization come through.
•The three identifying masses and features of the building are really coming through both with the
organization and functions within the building.
•Indoor/outdoor quality of pavilions, the materials and systems the architects are employing emphasize
the delightful aspect of the flow of the building.
•Richness of materials and the palette will be outstanding.
•It’s starting to feel like a featured building for the community that has the potential to be beloved,
relative to the existing tired community center.
•Heading in the right direction as a people’s place.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
There was no action taken by the Planning Commission as this was an informational presentation only.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1408 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope for new construction (major renovation) of a two and a half
story single family dwelling with the existing detached garage to remain. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Young & Borlik Architects,
applicant and architect; Holli and John Rafferty, property owners) (107 noticed) Staff
contact: Catherine Keylon
1408 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1408 Bernal Ave - Attachments.pdf
1408 Bernal Ave - Plans - 09.24.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve Item 7a
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
b.2515 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope for first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (James Chu, Chu
Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; Alvin Yang, property owner) (137
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2515 Poppy Dr - Staff Report
2515 Poppy Dr - Attachments
2515 Poppy Dr - Plans - 09.24.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve Item 7b
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium
Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Tentative Condominium Map for a
new 4-story, 8-unit residential condominium building (Melinda Kao, applicant; Levy
Design Partners, architect; Accelerate Holdings LLC, property owner) (367 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
Sta1433 Floribunda Ave - Staff Report
1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments
1433 Floribunda Ave - MND Addendum
1433 Floribunda Ave - IS/MND
1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - 09.24.18
1433 Floribunda Ave - Memorandum - Tentative Condominium Map
1433 Floribunda Ave - Tentative Condominium Map
Attachments:
Chair Gaul was recused from this item as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Vice-Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Casey Feeser of Levy Design Partners, architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•Trying to understand new entry form. Like the change that has been made to the turret.
•There is a single door on lower level of wood box element. Door has no glazing, correct? (Feeser: It
would be a perforated metal panel door or a wooded slat door.)
•Do the two windows above the front entry area look into the lobby area? (Feeser: Two punched
openings would be into the double height space with the stairway in it.)
•Regarding entry way form, talked about identifying the entry and providing a shelter from the elements .
Did you consider adding some type of overhang? (Feeser: Entire stair is covered by the third floor deck .
Also added canopy above front entry door; believe it was added after the revised plans were submitted.)
•What does the canopy look like and what material will be used? (Feeser: Canopy will be a metal
frame with glass or perforated metal, something solid.)
Public Comments:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no public comments.
Vice-Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Like changes on west elevation façade, regularizing that façade makes a lot of sense.
•Still concerned with the front entry, it ’s not very inviting and seems closed. Canopy helps, but feels
very solid and not very inviting.
•Stairway in modernist apartment building at corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real has exposed
stairway, is inviting and see pedestrian activity. Entry is threshold between public and private spaces .
This project feels extremely private and shut off from Floribunda Avenue. Should reconsider design of
front entry element.
•Primary entrance is not very inviting and secondary entrance on west side is not identifiable. There is
something wrong with the engagement of the building with the public realm; needs to be looked at again
and opened up somehow.
•Project is greatly improved and has come a long way.
•Entry is uninviting; perhaps widening the planter with double -side glazed doors, needs something to
make lobby an inviting space, especially because it ’s right on the street. Perhaps these changes can
return as an FYI.
•Generally program is supportable, reviewed it from a CEQA standpoint and project needs to move
forward.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application with the following condition:
•that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning
Commission review of a redesigned front entry, with the direction to make the entry and lobby
more open and inviting, which could include elements such as an entrance canopy, a wider
entry landing and double-side glazed entry doors.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
b.212 Howard Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing two -story single family dwelling. The project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Steve Lesley, applicant and architect;
Jason and Anya Sole, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
212 Howard Ave - Staff Report
212 Howard Ave - Attachments
212 Howard Ave - Plans -09.24.18.pdf
Attachments:
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.
There were no questions of staff.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Steven Lesley, project architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•On new front elevation, will the existing living room window be kept? (Lesley: Will not be changing this
window, but all of the existing white vinyl windows, including the living room window, will be painted to
match darker trim. New windows will be a dark fiber glass clad wood window to match trim.)
•Plans need to be corrected to indicate that all new windows will be fiberglass clad wood.
•Based on fenestration patterns and proportion of windows throughout the house, window assembly in
master bedroom facing backyard seems fairly large. Feel that collectively they should be narrower. Can
you consider making them narrower to match other window collections in the house? (Lesley: Client
prefers a larger window opening because they wanted to bring more natural light and visibility into the
room.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Project is improved.
•Reduced plate heights, simplified roofs, unified eave details and added minor details and character
make it a better project; is approvable at this point.
•Still concerned with size of master bedroom and front living room windows, could still be improved.
•Like changes, project has come a long way, is approvable.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Nay:Comaroto1 -
c.2108 Clarice Lane, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing one -story duplex dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jaime Rapadas, AR Design Group applicant and
architect; Janice and Richard Samuelson, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
2108 Clarice Ln - Staff Report
2108 Clarice Ln - Attachments
2108 Clarice Ln - Plans - 09.24.18
Attachments:
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.
There were no questions of staff.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jaime Rapadas, project architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•Plans show that vinyl windows will be used. However, applicant's letter indicates another window type
will be considered. Please explain. (Rapadas: It’s the same vinyl frame, but will be using the same grid
patterns to match existing windows on first floor.)
•Will the windows contain simulated true divided lites or grids between the glass? (Rapadas: Windows
will be simulated true divided lites.)
•Plans should then be corrected to indicate that windows will contain simulated true divided lites.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Like the revisions, particularly on left side elevation. Articulation along that fa çade, with the bump
outs in bathrooms helps with the massing and gives logical location for terminating the vertical siding.
•Add specific condition to project in regards to the simulated true divided lites for clarity.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application with the following condition:
•that the simulated true divided lites for the new windows shall consist of dimensional
muntins on both the interior and exterior surface of the dual glazing with a dividing bar in
between the glazing not muntins in between the glass or on the interior only.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
d.619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Conditional
Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit, and Tentative Condominium Map
and Tentative Parcel Map for a new four -story, 26-Unit live/work development with retail
commercial space on the ground floor. (Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA, applicant and architect;
Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner) (239 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
619-625 California Dr - Staff Report
619-625 California Dr - Attachments
619-625 California Dr - Final ISMND
619-625 California Dr - Draft ISMND
619-625 California Dr - MMRP
619-625 California Dr - Renderings - Color Board - Siding
Specifications
619-625 California Dr - Plans - 09.24.18
619-625 California Dr - Tentative Condominium and Tentative Parcel
Map
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Loftis met with the applicant.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
•Page 4 of staff report indicates that the maximum building height allowed is 75 feet, is that correct?
(Hurin: No, the maximum height allowed is 55 feet, will make correct to staff report.)
•We don’t have a breakdown of the public impact fees, but is the fee stated in the staff report correct?
(Hurin: Yes, it is correctly stated in the staff report.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Ellis Schoichet, project architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•What is the average unit size for the residential units? (Schoichet: Unit sizes vary between 900 and
1,100 square feet; average is approximately 1,000 square feet.)
•Point out CERACLAD "Cannonball" siding on proposed building elevations and materials board .
(Schoichet: CERACLAD "Cannonball" is noted with a different keynote on plans. It is proposed to be
used on panels with a horizontal reveal.)
•Rendering is deceiving because it makes the building very grey and monotone.
•Concerned that the color disappeared and looks monochromatic. (Schoichet: There will be several
stucco colors and a palette of textures, from very smooth to slightly textured. Idea of using CERACLAD
fiber cement panels on fourth floor is to have it be fog like. Horizontal CERACLAD is intended to be in
more highly visible locations at the base and shaft of the building. Porcelain panels in a gray, stone
texture are proposed in and around storefronts on ground floor. Provided examples of similar palette of
materials on building in San Francisco.)
•What is happening with the glazing? (Schoichet: Want to have maximum glazing for light into the units
and also for the aesthetic of the building, but at same time don ’t want people on street looking up into the
units. So a spandrel panel, consisting of fritted glazing, would be used across the bottom of the windows .
Fritted glazing would also be used on some of the storefronts.)
•How deep are fourth floor private terraces? Specifically concerned with the terraces at the rear of the
building. At 12 feet wide by 47 and 49 feet long, they seem large. (Schoichet: Yes, they are large. With
all that roof space, it’s what we’ve decided to do.)
•There is an 8.5 foot wide curb cut on California Drive. Is it just for trash removal? (Schoichet: Yes,
it’s just for the dumpsters.)
•Is curb cut on California Drive reason for removal of the Magnolia street tree? (Schoichet: This is a
13-inch diameter tree and is not in very good shape. Curb cut would require removal of the tree.)
•Have you considered replacing it with another tree? (Schoichet: Believe there is another existing tree
next to it, so did not consider adding a new street tree.)
•Understand traffic study and traffic flow and am familiar with that intersection. Given that westbound
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Oak Grove Avenue is one lane, am concerned about impacts from someone wanting to turn left into site
off Oak Grove Avenue. Has consideration been given to something like painting “keep clear” in the
street, like you would see at an approach to a left hand turn? (Schoichet: Would like to leave it to the
experts, but my understanding is that the Public Works Department doesn ’t want to make a permanent
sign/marker in street.)
•Corner plaza area could turn into natural high school meeting spot before and after school for student
drop off and pick up; could increase amount of traffic at intersection. (Schoichet: Curb will be painted red
at corner to prevent vehicles from stopping there.)
•Red zone will be from project driveway to corner along Oak Grove Avenue? (Schoichet: Currently, red
zone starts at middle of proposed driveway and extends to the corner and will remain. Mitigation measure
from traffic report calls for a red zone from project driveway to west end of property to maximize visibility
from driveway and enhance safety of vehicles exiting the site.)
•Find balance by brown color shown in commercial space on rendering; compliments and offsets cool,
light colors on rest of building. Seems like there should be some counter balance to colors, consider
adding warmth to finishes. (Schoichet: Point is well taken.)
•Design has moved along nicely.
Public Comments:
•Danelle Renks: Longtime resident and live around the corner. What buildings are being demolished
and are they currently occupied? (Schoichet: Two houses on corner and existing auto shop will be
demolished. Corner building is being used as an office, there is a short term tenant in building behind it
and an automobile shop in the commercial building). Concerned that current occupants are being moved
out. Think this is a beautiful building, should use green building materials and greywater system to
irrigate landscaping. Concerned with traffic, Oak Grove Avenue is major thoroughfare to freeway, Carolan
Avenue, California Drive and high school. Would like to see construction vehicle parking moved to
Caltrain parking lot to alleviate traffic jams.
•Sam Jones, Coffee Family Trust: Own apartment building across street. Trying to reconcile results
of the traffic study, see backups of 10-15 cars all the time and area of proposed driveway constantly
blocked with cars. Perhaps studies were done when school was not in session, there is a lot of traffic
generated from parents dropping off and picking up kids. Intersection is a mess, traffic impacts are not
just during peak hours.
•Elma Kim: Lives in neighborhood, in support of project, important that there are live /work opportunities
provided, needed for entrepreneurs coming to this area. Trusting the Commission and community to find
the right solution for the traffic. In morning, experience traffic along Oak Grove Avenue wanting to make a
left or right turn onto California Drive. Question veracity and honesty of traffic study. Vehicles will not be
able to turn left into the project site off Oak Grove Avenue due to vehicles driving towards California Drive .
There is a potential for traffic accidents because cars whip around onto Oak Grove Avenue assuming
there will be no hindrances. Would like to see ingress on California Drive. Don't think there should be a
left hand turn from project driveway.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Concerned with traffic impacts in area, should be looked at a bit closer. Didn’t see in traffic study
where ingress and egress to the site was addressed. See vehicle backup on Oak Grove Avenue
approaching California Drive all the time.
•Green zone along California Drive for pick -up and delivery may or may not work, needs to be
discussed with Public Works Department.
•With 26 live/work units and two commercial spaces, believe there will be deliveries made every day
and am concerned there is no area provided for deliveries. A space for delivery vehicles is critical.
•Uber and Lyft may also have an impact on traffic.
•Is the transportation consultant selected by the applicant or City? (Hurin: After reviewing proposals
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
from environmental consultants, the City selects an environmental consultant who has a subconsultant
prepare the traffic analysis; the City, not the applicant, manages the environmental consultant.)
•Traffic studies often don't match a gut feeling one has about traffic will be impacted by a project .
When analyzing projects, need to use best analytical tools available.
•Like the direction the architecture has gone, this is a good looking building. The zoning is appropriate
for this kind of project in this area.
•Like idea of having retail here. Will tie in really nicely to retail node north of this site.
•Having a hard time with the corner location and how the architecture is treated. Most visible part of
this project is going to be what’s visible from the corner of Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive.
•Downtown Specific Plan talks about corner locations as being important and having special
architectural requirements. Corner is least architecturally inviting part of the building.
•Like direction of architecture, it has an elegant, timeless quality. However, project still needs warmth,
needs to be studied further.
•Regarding traffic, we shouldn't ever rely on gut feel. We have to rely on engineering and calculations,
as required by CEQA. Need to analyze whether or not something rises to the level of impact that causes
any further mitigation relative to CEQA.
•Should look at traffic controls in an out of the driveway, because of its specific location. Many of the
issues of the specific location are relative somewhat to peak periods.
•There is a real intensity in mornings because of the elementary school and high school in the area.
•Could ask Public Works to comment on whether or not there should be traffic controls at project
driveway.
•Overall good project and adds housing units in great location. We have an opportunity to create
housing in an area where we need it.
•Have better potential to serve our downtown area with housing in locations such as this.
•Have questions for traffic consultant if he is available.
Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing.
Gary Black, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, was present answer questions.
•Can you explain how trips are analyzed for live /work developments? Are the morning trips eliminated
because residents are working from their units? (Black: Typically treat live /work units as saying that
those two factors offset each other, so in the traffic study they are treated as typical apartment units in
terms of trip generation.)
•That doesn’t mean that you’ve eliminated people leaving to go to work. (Black: No, we haven’t.)
•Just because this is a live /work building, there is no guarantee that someone won ’t have a job
elsewhere. (Black: There may also be units that have more than one employed person living there .
Traffic study reflects people going to work in the morning.)
•So this trip generation has been accommodated in the traffic study and in the level of service analysis
that’s done for the intersections nearby? (Black: Yes.)
•Has any consideration been given to left hand turns into site and blocking Oak Grove Avenue?
(Black: Yes, it was addressed in the traffic study on page 14. It discusses the average and maximum
queue length at the signal and whether that would extend back to the driveway to create the situation
where a vehicle wants to turn left into the site and the driveway is blocked. Traffic study concludes that it
would happen rarely and project doesn't generate that much traffic. The busiest time on Oak Grove
Avenue heading towards California Drive is in the morning when people are going to school. Generally,
residents from this project would be leaving the site in the morning, not coming in; they tend to come into
the site in the afternoon. There is not as much traffic on Oak Grove Avenue in the afternoon based on
our traffic counts. So the situation you ’re envisioning will be infrequent. The average queue length, even
in the morning, based on our observations and calculations, does not go back as far as the driveway .
Sometimes, when the maximum queue is reached, it does go back to the driveway and past the driveway .
We also have to consider that if we ’re going to have a project, there needs to be a driveway somewhere,
and in our opinion the driveway is in the best location that you could put a driveway. It’s as far away from
California Drive as you can get it; would not recommend a driveway on California Drive. Driveway controls
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
are not necessary, don’t see that there would be left turn conflicts on a regular basis.)
•When preparing a traffic study, you ’re not just using a book and applying the data to the real world,
you’re actually taking counts, correct? (Black: Yes, we counted traffic on Oak Grove Avenue and
California Drive. The am and pm peak hour counts are provided in the traffic study; also make
observations on how traffic operates during these times. The counts were done while school was in
session.)
•Traffic study as part of General Plan updated noted areas of concern. Was this intersection one of
those areas? (Hurin: Believe areas of concern included the intersection at Broadway and the Oak Grove
Avenue/Carolan Avenue intersection.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Continued Discussion:
•Project has come a long way, no longer feels like a cartoon, feels like a real building now. Don’t think
the colors are right yet. However, the materials are much more substantial. Renderings are not helping
because they’re so stark.
•Materials can be fine-tuned, but that shouldn’t stop the project from moving forward.
•Concerned about the large private terraces at rear of building facing the residential neighborhood .
Suggest that roof planters be added to reduce size of usable area; should be substantially reduced .
Could come back for review as an FYI if we move forward with project.
•Like where project is going, appreciate adding more trees in rear yard. Agree that terraces are too
large, concerned with noise from activity on terraces traveling to neighbors, size of terraces need to be
reduced.
•Like design of building, the stepped back fourth floor and dip in roof, takes away from hard edges
around building.
•No matter what is built, traffic will be a problem for people living in area. City has changed over the
years, can’t expect small projects to be built any longer at these locations.
•Unfortunate that at some points during the day traffic will be a problem, will be felt by people living in
area, but reality is that someone living in a house at that corner is gone.
•Live/work in Burlingame is still an experiment, but this building in its high traffic location is proper
place to try live/work to see if it will be successful. Think project will be successful.
•Concerned with stairwell design at corner, is tallest part of building and is stark and blank. Would
like design of stairwell to be looked at again.
•Should look at Section 5.2.5.7 of the Downtown Specific Plan regarding fa çade treatments on corner
parcels.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application with the following condition:
•that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning
Commission review to address the following items: 1) refine the exterior color palette by working
in some warmth and depth; 2) revisit the size of the roof terraces, particularly those at the rear of
the building facing the adjacent neighbor; and 3) revisit the articulation of the stairwell at the
corner of the building, including adding glazing to soften the stairwell.
Commission discussion:
•Broad to say study articulation on the corner, can we say anything more specific? Perhaps
introducing glazing to soften the stairwell, reduce its apparent size and be more interesting.
Would not be as solid and would see more life in that corner.
•Proposed ground level treatment at corner is significant, this is what most people will see.
Pedestrians will experience seating, trees and vegetation. Treatment of stairwell at corner with
the vegetation could be very nice.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Not in support of motion, feel that approval is premature given concerns with the design of
the stairwell at the corner, merits more consideration by the applicant.
•FYI can be brought back for further discussion. Have seen project several times and
applicant has made significant improvements, need to move on and take action.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Nay:Sargent1 -
e.1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R -4 - Application for Amendment to Design Review
and Side Setback Variance for a previously approved new five -story, 27-unit multi-family
residential building with below -grade parking (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc .,
applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (391 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Staff Report
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Attachments
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Addendum to EIR
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Final EIR
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Draft EIR
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - MMRP
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Plans - 09.24.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones and Commissioner Comaroto indicated that they will recuse themselves from the
discussion as they have business relationships with the property owner; they left the City Council
Chambers. Commissioner Terrones noted that he would not be returning for the remainder of the meeting.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Wayne Lin, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•Is the whole building shifting over, or just the wing wall? (Lin: It’s a combination of both; based on the
shared driveway easement along the right side of the property, preserving the existing trees at the front of
the lot and widening the driveway width to the garage as required by code. Architecturally, feel wing wall
should shift to match the driveway width.)
•You’re saying that because of requirement to maintain the shared driveway, a larger setback is
required along the right side of the property than is required by code, correct? (Lin: Yes.)
•By setting back fifth floor further, are balconies getting larger? (Lin: Yes, balconies on fifth floor are
larger, but massing of building is being reduced.)
•Is the building in a different location than it was when it was originally approved? (Lin: No.)
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Variance is for wing wall only, correct? (Lin: Correct.)
Public Comments:
•Alex Mortazavi: Own property immediately adjacent to project site at 1124 Douglas Avenue. Supports
project, as a whole project is improved, is much better project for the residents. Helps us by not having
additional cars using shared driveway, 8-foot wide driveway is narrow. Most impacts have been eliminated .
Was concerned about drainage, but recreation area at rear of site will take a lot of the surface water away .
Will have view of solid wall at the kitchen, two metal doors and one roll -up door, will feel like a commercial
property. Also concerned that recess in building along driveway will invite vehicle parking for furniture
deliveries and catering, any vehicles parked there would disturb ingress and egress to our property .
Would like to see a condition of approval to not allow vehicle access to that side of the building or add
planters between two metal doors to have view of some greenery.
•John Root, 1133 Douglas Avenue: Representing home owner ’s association at 1133 Douglas Avenue.
Generally, changes that have been made are positive. Do want to point out a few things that need to be
emphasized that have already approved in the mitigation monitoring program. They include development
of a plan for providing worker parking off -site and generally off neighborhood streets, designating a
community liaison person, active monitoring and enforcement of tree protection program, and
acknowledging working hours. Suggest that we be given periodic updates of project construction and
inclusion on the advanced notice list for construction noise and vibration.
•Danelle Renks, next door neighbor: Concerned that bedroom wall is on property line, how that will be
addressed during construction. Also concerned about dumpster behind property, not sure if it ’s on
subject property. Agree with concerns raised by previous speakers. Would like existing oak and maple
trees to be protected and retained for privacy along right side property line. Would also like arborist to be
on-site during construction. Concerned about noise from a /c units and lighting and how that will affect us .
Also concerned about the shadow effect of a five story building. Don't want to see any vehicles from this
project using the shared driveway.
•Neighbor (no name provided): Live next door to proposed building, don't want to see delivery vehicles
using the shared driveway and area at rear, is too narrow for large vehicles.
Wayne Lin provide the following responses to public comments: Roll-up gate is for electrical room,
prevents people or vehicles entering that area. Can consider adding more landscaping in recess area to
soften edge and provide something better for neighbors to look at. Off-site parking for workers has been
addressed in the construction documents; everyone will be parked off -site unless there are deliveries
being made, which will be coned off and noticed in advance of the scheduled delivery. A certified arborist
will be on-site during construction of underground garage; monthly reports will be provided regarding the
health and condition of the tree. Will be actively involved in notifying neighbors regarding noise, heavy
machinery or any planned power outages. Noise in building will be controlled according to industry
standards, windows will be double -paned and a/c units will be on rooftop, so there will be minimum noise
coming from units.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•These are all positive changes, building is more articulated, and appears lower than it was.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lofits, to approve the
application.
Commission discussion:
•Think neighbors request for periodic updates and inclusion on advanced notice list is
reasonable. Should this be a condition of approval? (Hurin: Will be included in pre-construction
meeting with the applicant, don’t need to include as specific condition of approval.)
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•In this case there is a unique requirement to maintain the existing shared driveway and
provide a new driveway to the underground garage, therefore can make findings for side
setback variance.
•Previous project concerns have been addressed and eliminated, like that parking has been
brought down underneath the building.
•See neighbor’s concerns about the right side of building being stark, may want to look at
screening this area with landscaping.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 -
Recused:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.229 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second-story addition to a single -family dwelling. (Dale Meyer Associates, Dale Meyer,
applicant and designer; Rob and Kristin Flenniken, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff
contact: Sonal Aggarwal
229 Bloomfiled Rd - Staff Report
229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment
229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 9.24.18
Attachments:
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.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Dale Meyer, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•Appears that there is an error on the Front Elevation, existing upper roof should extend to the edge of
existing second floor window. (Meyer: Will review and correct plans.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Nice, straight forward project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse6 -
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Absent:Terrones1 -
b.1422 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major
renovation (new construction) for a first and second story addition to a single family
dwelling and a new detached garage (RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Kamal and
Pritee Thakarsey, property owners) (163 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1422 Capucino Ave - Staff Report
1422 Capucino Ave - Attachments
1422 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 09.24.18
Attachments:
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.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•Overall this is a nice design.
•There appears to be a lot of stone veneer, will it actually get built? (Wehmeyer: Yes, owner intends to
build it as shown. Combination of stone veneer and cedar shingles will look really nice and add character
to the neighborhood.)
•Wrought iron rail not typically seen on craftsman style house. Have you given any thought to using a
different material? (Wehmeyer: Wrought iron railing allows more natural light in, looks lighter, is not as
heavy and bulky as a wall would be if wood pickets were used. Client would rather see the stonework and
not a picket railing.)
•Don't typically review color because it can be changed. However, on a metal roof the color will remain
for a long time. What color were you think of using on the metal roof? (Wehmeyer: Have discussed using
a darker roof color, don't want a reflective quality off roof).
•When project returns, provide something that is more definitive on metal roof color, want to avoid
bright color.
•Why are there two different roof types (Wehmeyer: Looked at different layouts and designs, client
prefers metal roof on lower roof and shingles on upper roof, in line with other two story houses in
neighborhood.)
•Chimney cap on East Elevation looks small for size of chimney, make more proportional and bigger.
•Consider using cable rail system instead of wrought iron, would work better with the metal roof.
•Add note on plans to place pipe inside wall and recess electrical panel; location could be problematic
on driveway side and aesthetically it would look better. (Wehmeyer: Preference is to keep it hidden, but
there were a lot of PG&E issues encountered on that block. Preference is to bring main service into
garage, then underground from garage to house.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Would like to see the general range of the intended roof color, including a sample or picture of the
proposed metal roof.
•Wrought iron railing doesn't seem appropriate for this house, not sure about the cable rail system
because this is not a contemporary design. The right material for this craftsman style house would be
wood.
•Cable rail would match the metal roof better.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Commission Discussion:
As previously noted, we typically don't specify roof color, but this is one area where we have
asked for specifications before. I think in this case the plans should specify the roof color.
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
At their meeting on September 17, 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the City ’s
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations and adopted an ordinance regulating cannabis on a permanent
basis. The Council also introduced an ordinance amending the hotel /motel parking requirement to allow a
reduction in required parking to be requested through a Conditional Use Permit; the Council is scheduled
to adopt the ordinance at its next meeting on October 1st.
a.815 Maple Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
815 Maple Ave - Memo
815 Maple Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
Accepted.
b.823 Edgehill Drive - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review
project.
823 Edgehill Dr - FYI - Memo
823 Edgehill Dr - FYI - Attachments
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on September 24, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 4, 2018, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be
accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs.
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
8/28/2019 18-816 - 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans - 10.22.18.pdf
chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/3
18-816 - 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans - 10.22.18.pdf /51
8/28/2019 18-816 - 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans - 10.22.18.pdf
chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/3
18-816 - 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans - 10.22.18.pdf /51
8/28/2019 18-816 - 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans - 10.22.18.pdf
chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/3
18-816 - 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans - 10.22.18.pdf /51
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ACTION ITEM (Public Hearing): Public Hearing to Consider
Adoption of the Update to the Burlingame General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
MEETING DATE: October 22, 2018
AGENDA ITEM NO: 8b
BACKGROUND
In March 2015, the City of Burlingame initiated a multi-year process focused on a community-led effort to
update the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, called “Envision Burlingame.” The General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance are the City’s two documents that regulate all land use, environmental and
transportation decisions made by City leaders.
The Envision Burlingame process will result in goals and strategies for desired change in the City by
answering the question: “How do we want Burlingame to look, function and feel 25 years from now?” To
answer this question, residents, business owners and other community members have been engaged in
a comprehensive discussion regarding mobility, urban design, recreation and parks, health, natural
resources, and economic development opportunities.
Envision Burlingame has three broad objectives:
1. Develop a vision for Burlingame, with particular attention paid to the topics of stability and
opportunities for desired change.
2. Update policies and regulations to ensure they address current regional, state and federal
requirements.
3. Create an updated and fully digital General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that are easily accessed,
understood and applied by the community, property and business owners, and decision makers.
Below is a summary of the overall project schedule based on major project phases, each of which
includes a variety of community outreach and public engagement activities and events.
Phase Status
1. Existing Conditions and Opportunities ........................................... Completed Fall 2015
2. Vision and Transformative Strategies Framework .................... Completed Spring 2016
3. Concept Alternatives ................................................................ Completed Spring 2016
4. Draft General Plan ................................................................ Completed Summer 2017
5. Environmental Review ............................................................................ Summer 2018
6. General Plan Hearings and Adoption ............................................. Summer - Fall 2018
7. Zoning Ordinance Update ................................................ Spring 2018 – Summer 2019
8. Specific Plan Technical Updates ........................................... Fall 2018 – Summer 2019
October 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
2
The Public Review Draft of the General Plan was released in August 2017. The draft plan is available on
the Envision Burlingame website at www.envisionburlingame.org, and on the City of Burlingame website
at www.burlingame.org/generalplan.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released on June 28, 2018. The Draft EIR analyzes
the potential impacts related to the implementation of the General Plan at a "programmatic" level, as
authorized by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR is intended to serve as an
informational document for use by Planning Commission, City Council, other public agencies, and the
community in their consideration of the proposed General Plan.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared with responses to comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The City published a Notice of Availability and circulated the
DEIR for public review and comment from July 3, 2018 through Aug ust 20, 2018. The FEIR provides
responses to comments received during the public review and comment period.
The Draft and Final EIR is available on the Envision Burlingame website at www.envisionburlingame.org,
and on the City of Burlingame website at www.burlingame.org/generalplan.
Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission has reviewed the General Plan at various
key intervals through the process, including:
Review of Draft Concept Alternatives as part of the annual joint meeting with the City Council on
March 19, 2016;
Review of the preliminary Land Use Plan at a study session on July 13, 2016; and
Project updates as part of the annual joint meetings with the City Council on April 15, 2017 and
May 2, 2018.
Most recently, On July 11, 2018, the Planning Commission held a special meeting to receive an overview
of both the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. In the meeting the Planning Commission was able to ask
questions and provide comments on the draft plan and EIR, and receive public input (July 11, 2018
meeting minutes attached).
On August 10, 2018, the Planning Commission meeting included an item providing follow-up to questions
and comments regarding the approach to historic resources presented in the Draft General Plan (August
10, 2018 meeting minutes attached).
Community Advisory Committee (CAC). A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was established by
the City Council early in the process to advise the project team throughout the development of the
updated General Plan. Members included representatives from a variety of organizations and
perspectives, including neighborhood groups, business groups, transportation and housing advocacy
groups, and environmental organizations, as well as residents representing a range of perspectives,
including youth, renters and seniors. The role of the CAC has been to connect with the various
communities and stakeholders of Burlingame for the purpose of advising and making recommendations
October 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
3
to the Planning Commission and City Council. The CAC held a total of 18 meetings between July 22,
2015, and August 30, 2017.
Community Engagement. The General Plan Update has included a range of community engagement
activities including four City Council study sessions, three community workshops, numerous stakeholder
interviews and intercept surveys, focus groups, an online survey, and collaborations with students from
Burlingame High School and local universities.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of the
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. In its recommendation, the commission should consider
public testimony at the public hearing, as well as input provided in letters and emails received since the
Public Review Draft was released in August 2017. Suggestions for any changes to the Draft General
Plan will be advisory to the City Council.
Draft General Plan Public Comments. To date, the City has received 23 comment letters and emails
on the draft plan. To facilitate review by the Planning Commission review, staff and the consultant team
have prepared responses and suggestions for follow-up action for the commission to consider.
Suggested actions range from text edits, to inclusion of additional new policies.
A summary of each correspondence and suggested follow-up action is provided in Exhibit A, followed by
the original correspondence provided in Exhibit B. As such, staff suggests commissioners approach the
review of the correspondence and suggested follow-up actions in the manner of a consent calendar;
commissioners should pull items wanting further discussion, but may waive further discussion of items in
which there is agreement with the suggested follow-up action.
Draft General Plan Errata/Edits. Staff and the consultant team have identified two items in the Public
Review Draft needing to be corrected or further clarified:
Implementation Programs. Chapter XI (Implementation Programs) in the Public Review Draft
inadvertently omitted text for programs IP-51, IP-52, IP-59, IP-60, IP-61, and IP-62. Exhibit C
provides Chapter XI in its entirety, with the omitted text indicated with tracked changes.
75 CNEL Noise Contour. Figure CS-2 in Chapter VIII (Community Safety Element) indicates
residential uses in the noise contour 75 CNEL or greater to be “Clearly Unacceptable.” However,
Figures 15-2 (Existing (2017) Transportation Noise Contours) and Figure 15-3 (Future (2040)
Transportation Noise Contours) in the Draft EIR indicate existing and proposed residential uses
within the 75 CNEL noise contours aligning with Highway 101 and Interstate 280. Existing
residential uses within the 75 CNEL contour include multifamily and single family uses in the
vicinity of Rollins Road from Cadillac Way to Larkspur Drive, and multifamily and single family
October 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
4
uses in the vicinity of Interstate 280. Proposed residential uses within the 75 CNEL contour
include a portion of the proposed Live/Work land use area at the north end of Rollins Road.
Policy CS-4.2 (Residential Noise Standards) addresses residential uses within the 70 CNEL
noise and greater noise contours with requirements that new residential units shall have a
maximum acceptable interior noise level of 45 dB with windows closed. Furthermore, for project
locations that are primarily exposed to noise from transportation operations, the maximum
instantaneous noise level in bedrooms shall not exceed 50dB(A) at night (10:00 P.M. to 7:00
A.M.) and 55 dB(A) during the day with windows closed. These standards can be achieved by
incorporating buffers and noise control features into a development project such as setbacks,
landscaping, building transitions, site design/building orientation, and building construction
approaches.
Exhibit D outlines suggested edits to the General Plan and EIR to address this matter, consistent
with the performance standards in Policy CS-4.2.
Final EIR. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for a 45-day public review and
comment period beginning July 3, 2018 and ending August 20, 2018. The City published a Notice of
Availability and circulated a DEIR for public review and comment from July 3, 2018 through August 20,
2018.
Ten comment letters were submitted to the City during the review period, including seven letters from
public agencies and three letters from individuals. The Final EIR provides responses to each comment.
Responses include a summary to identify if the response will introduce “new significant information”
under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq. of the CEQA Guidelines or if it does
not introduce “new significant information.”
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should review the Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report,
conduct a public hearing, and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission
should take action on a recommendation to the City Council with regards to the Draft General Plan and
EIR.
For the public hearing, staff suggests the following order of events:
1. Staff and consultant team presentation
2. Planning Commission questions to staff and the consultant team
3. Public Hearing – receive comments from the public
4. Planning Commission addresses public comments received in the hearing, and in written
correspondence.
5. Planning Commission forms recommendation to City Council, including any recommended
changes to the General Plan.
October 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8b
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
5
Prepared by:
Kevin Gardiner
Community Development Director
Exhibits:
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
Exhibit A: Responses and suggested actions to Draft General Plan public comments
Exhibit B: Draft General Plan public comments – original correspondence
Exhibit C: Implementation Programs errata/edits
Exhibit D: 75 CNEL Noise Contour errata/edits
July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Published October 11, 2018
City of Burlingame
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments
SCH No. 2017082018
October 2018
Lead Agency:
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 Responses to Comments ............................................................................................... 3
Agencies .......................................................................................................................... 4
Response A-1 – San Francisco International Airport ........................................................ 4
Response A-2 – Airport Land Use Commission ............................................................. 4
Response A-3 – Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) ................................. 4
Response A-4 – Town of Hillsborough ...................................................................... 4
Response A-5 – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ......................................... 5
Response A-6 – Peninsula Health Care District ............................................................. 6
Response A-7 – City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ............................. 6
Individuals ....................................................................................................................... 7
Response I-1 – Otto Miller .................................................................................. 7
Response I-2 – Jeff DeMartini .............................................................................. 7
Response I-3 – John Kevranian ............................................................................. 8
Oral Comments 9
3 Errata ...............................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2 Summary ...................................................................................... 10
Chapters 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 Environmental Impact Analysis ............................................... 10
Chapter 21 Alternatives ................................................................................... 11
4 Comment Letters …………………………………………………………………. after page 14
List of Tables
Table 1 DEIR Comments ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction 1
Final Environmental Impact Report ii
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
Final Environmental Impact Report 1
1 Introduction
Section 1: Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared to comply with Sections 15089 and 15132 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. As noted in §15089 (b) of the Guidelines, the focus of a FEIR
should be on responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Accordingly, this document
incorporates the City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan DEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2017082018) by reference in
its entirety. The DEIR is available for review at the City of Burlingame, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California and
on the City’s web site (www.envisionbburlingame.com). This FEIR includes the following four sections.
Section 2: Responses to Comments
The City published a Notice of Availability and circulated a DEIR for public review and comment from July 3, 2018
through August 20, 2018. Ten comment letters were submitted to the City during the review period, including seven
letters from public agencies and three letters from individuals. This section includes a list of all correspondence
submitted to the City of Burlingame, each identified by a letter for later reference, together with the authors and the
dates the letters were issued. All comment letters are presented in Section 4, with numbered brackets to highlight
specific comments responded to in Section 2. This section also addresses oral comments on the DEIR delivered at the
July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting.
Review of Environmental Documents
Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance to the public in reviewing CEQA documents. This section
is designed not to limit the scope of comments that can be submitted by the public but to focus comments on issues
that are substantive to the environmental analysis. Commenting entities should focus on the adequacy of the document
in identifying and analyzing impacts to the environment and identify any areas they believe to be inadequate. The
guidance indicates that comments should be submitted in a manner that:
▪ Identifies a specific environmental effect
▪ Supports the effect and its significance with substantial evidence
Comments should include alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce identified, specific environmental
effects. This section reiterates that the lead agency is bound by “reasonableness” and “good faith” in its analysis and
that the lead agency is not required to respond to comments in the FEIR that do not identify significant environmental
issues.
Each response provided herein is coded to correspond to the individual comment/author and each of the bracketed
comments in that letter. A summary table is included with each response to identify if the response introduces “new
significant information” under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq. of the CEQA Guidelines.
Evaluation of Comments
Section 15088 et seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on the evaluation and response to comments
received during circulation of the DEIR. To summarize:
▪ The lead agency must evaluate all comments received during the public review period and prepare a written
response to comments on significant environmental issues.
▪ The lead agency must provide the response to the commenting entity at least ten days prior to certification of
the EIR.
▪ The response must:
Introduction 1
Final Environmental Impact Report 2
Identify any significant environmental issues raised in the comment;
Explain, if necessary, why any recommendations provided in the comment were not accepted; and
Be supported by reasoned analysis.
▪ Responses may be provided as direct revisions to the DEIR or as a separate section of the FEIR with marginal
notes in the DEIR text indicating that it was subsequently revised.
A lead agency is required to recirculate the DEIR if “significant new information” is introduced during the public comment
period. “Significant new information” includes:
1. New significant impacts
2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts
3. Feasible alternatives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts
4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis
Recirculation is not required when new information is not significant; this includes:
▪ Revisions that clarify or amplify an adequate analysis
▪ Insignificant modifications (such as spelling and grammar corrections)
Section 3: Errata
This section identifies revisions to the DEIR to incorporate clarifications developed in response to comments on the
DEIR. Additions to the text are underlined and deletions have been stricken through. No substantial revisions were
made to the DEIR and recirculation of the document is not required pursuant to CEQA.
Section 4: Comment Letters
This section contains the public comment letters.
Environmental Impact Report 3
2 Responses to Written Comments
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period
beginning July 3, 2018 and ending August 20, 2018. The correspondence listed in Table 1 (Draft EIR Comments
Received) was submitted to the City of Burlingame concerning the DEIR. Written responses to each comment are
subsequently provided. The following responses to comments include a summary to identify if the response will
introduce “new significant information” under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq. of the CEQA
Guidelines or if it does not introduce “new significant information.” The four general categories are:
1. New significant impacts
2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts
3. Feasible alternatives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts
4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis
Table 1
Draft EIR Comments Received
ID Commenting Agency Date
A-1 San Francisco International Airport 8/13/2018
A-2 Airport Land Use Commission 8/16/2018
A-3 Bay Conservation and Development Commission 8/16/2018
A-4 Town of Hillsborough 8/17/2018
A-5 California Department of Transportation 8/20/2018
A-6 Peninsula Health Care District 8/20/2018
A-7 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 8/20/2018
Commenting Individual
I-1 Otto Miller 8/13/2018
I-2 Jeff DeMartini 8/20/2018
1-3 John Kevranian 8/14/2018
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 4
Agencies
Response A-1 – San Francisco International Airport
A-1.1. This commenter clarifies that instead of stating “portions of the planning area are located within Area B of the
AIA boundaries,” the correct statement is that “all of the planning area is located within Area B of the AIA boundaries.”
The City hereby acknowledges that the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will exercise its statutory duties to review
all land use policy actions and land development proposals within the City that lie within airport-influence areas. The
City further acknowledges that all areas of the incorporated City of Burlingame are contained within AIA Area A, which
requires real estate agents or others offering subdivided property for sale or lease to disclose the presence of all
existing and planned airports within two miles of the property. The response provides a revision that clarifies an
adequate analysis.
A-1.2. This commenter identified a mistake on page 15-6 of the Draft EIR and acknowledges that the correct description
of the 65 CNEL area is provided on page 15-15. The commenter also pointed out that while nearly all of the incorporated
City of Burlingame is located outside the 65 CNEL noise contour, any new residential or overnight uses nearby may
experience some noise disturbance from aircraft departures. Any proposed residential uses therefore should meet the
interior noise requirements of the 2016 California Building Code. The EIR text has been revised accordingly; this
response provides a revision that clarifies an adequate analysis.
Response A-2 – Airport Land Use Commission
A-2.1. Please refer to response A-1.1 for a discussion about the need for real estate disclosure requirements. The
response provides a revision that clarifies an adequate analysis.
A-2.2. Please refer to response A-1.1 for a discussion of the need for review of projects by the ALUC. An application
for review by the C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee and C/CAG for a determination of consistency with the SFO
ALUP has been submitted to C/CAG. The response provides a revision that clarifies an adequate analysis.
Response A-3 – Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
A-3.1. The BCDC commended the City of Burlingame for including a discussion of s ea level rise in the Draft 2040
General Plan. However, BCDC noted that the State’s sea level rise projections have recently been updated (in March
2018) and suggest that prior to finalizing the 2040 General Plan the City should consider incorporating the new
projections into the sea level rise discussion. When and if specific development proposals are proposed in areas
potentially subject to sea level rise, as recommended by BCDC, the City would utilize the most current science-based
and regionally specific projections for future sea level rise. The 2040 General Plan Community Safety Element includes
policies related to sea level rise which require the City to use up-to-date sea level planning information and appropriate
setback and building elevation requirements in low-lying areas of the City, and to coordinate with San Mateo County
on the county-wide Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. The language in the General Plan sufficiently addresses
the comment; no changes or additional analysis is required in the EIR.
Response A-4 – Town of Hillsborough
A-4.1. The Town of Hillsborough proposes language to be added to the General Plan that would have the City of
Burlingame work with neighboring jurisdictions, including the Town of Hillsborough, to assess drainage, water, and
sewer treatment constraints, capacities, needs, and capital projects, and to partner where appropriate. Hillsborough
also suggests that the jurisdictions work together to proactively manage project specific and cumulative traffic impacts
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 5
associated with schools, increased density, construction, and route changes. The City acknowledges this comment.
The suggestions will be considered during the public hearing process. The comment refers to suggested changes in
the 2040 General Plan but does not require changes or additional analysis in the EIR.
Response A-5 – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
A-5.1. The commenter requests receipt of the traffic analysis worksheets for intersections and State highway ramps.
The City has provided additional information to the commenter. This comment does not identify any new information
that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
A-5.2. The commenter requests that descriptions of current conditions and proposed projects described in the Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) be corrected. For instance, the description of the improvement mentioned on page 4 of the TIA
report “US 101 northbound auxiliary land from Peninsula to Broadway” is incorrect; this project has been completed.
The comment is correct regarding the US 101 northbound auxiliary lane. The TIA inadvertently mentioned this
improvement, which has been already completed. Regarding the US 101 express lane project, the Plan Bay Area 2040
indicated that this project is not fully funded (only $350 out of $534 million is covered in the Plan perio d) and is thus
not included for evaluation. This comment does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in
the EIR.
A-5.3. Please clarify how the tables on Page 17 of the TIA were developed. Hexagon used the citywide travel demand
forecast model to generate the VMT numbers. The daily VMT numbers accounted for all trips generated by Burlingame
land uses. The residential VMT and employment VMT were generated following SB 743 guidelines. This comment
does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
A-5.4. The commenter requests adding the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) to Table 18-1: Relevant Plans and
Policies Related to Transportations Systems. The District 4 Bike Plan includes multiple projects fully or partially within
Burlingame, including intersection improvement projects for SR 82 intersections and several separated crossing
projects for US 101. This information has been included in the errata. This response does not identify any new
information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
A-5.5. Caltrans encourages Burlingame to adopt Alternative 2: Higher Development Density and Intensity in North
Burlingame (120 Dwelling Units/Acre), which will provide more housing units, placing them near the Millbrae
BART/Caltrain Station, which could encourage transit use, further address the housing/jobs imbalance in Burlingame,
and conform with State and regional policies. Noted for clarification that the Higher Density and Intensity in North
Burlingame Alternative proposes a residential density of 140 Dwelling Units/Acre, compared to 120 Dwelling Units/Acre
in the Proposed 2040 General Plan. This is a policy decision for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider
in the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis
in the EIR.
A-5.6. Caltrans provides clarification that the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row is within the planning area and is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row is also a State-
owned historical resource within Caltrans’ right-of-way (ROW). As such, all projects proposed within the boundaries of
the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row are required to comply with the January 2015 Memorandum of
Understanding Between the California Department of Transportation and the California State Historic Preservation
Office Regarding Compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5024 and Governor’s Executive Order W-26-92
(hereafter the PRC 5024 MOU; found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/5024mou_15.pdf). This is a standard
requirement to be applied to future development projects. This response does not identify any new information that has
a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
Caltrans further clarifies that before a Caltrans encroachment permit can be issued, applicants must demonstrate that
the proposed work is in compliance with the PRC 5024 MOU and the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 6
(SER) Chapter 2 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/vol2.htm). Per the PRC 5024 MOU and the SER, all cultural resource
technical studies regarding the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row must be reviewed and approved by the Caltrans
District 4 Office of Cultural Resource Studies (OCRS). The City of Burlingame acknowledges these comments and will
reflect these clarifications in the 2040 General Plan.
A-5.7. Caltrans encourages the City of Burlingame to sufficiently allocate fair-share contributions toward multimodal
and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. Caltrans also strongly
supports measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT. Caltrans states that it welcomes the
opportunity to work with the City and local partners to secure the funding for needed mitigation. The City acknowledges
these comments. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
A-5.8. The commenter states: “As the Lead Agency, the City of Burlingame is responsible for all project mitigation,
including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network. The project’s fair-share contribution,
financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all
proposed mitigation measures.”
The DEIR includes a mitigation measure for the impact of a decline in LOS at the intersection of California Drive and
Broadway. The DEIR states that “under the 2040 General Plan the proposed 2040 GP would worsen the intersection
level of service to unacceptable LOS F and add more than 5 seconds of average delay during both the AM and PM
peak hours”. The mitigation is to have the City “coordinate with Caltrain and Caltrans to design and construct a grade-
separated intersection at Broadway and the rail tracks.” It is assumed and the City’s intent that the proposed grade
separation project would restore intersection LOS at California Drive and Broadway to acceptable conditions. This
mitigation measure, along with others in the DEIR, will be subject to a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)
which the City will implement. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis
in the EIR.
A-5.9. The commenter advises the City of Burlingame that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State
right-of-way requires an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans. The City acknowledges this comment, as this is
standard practice. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
Response A-6 – Peninsula Health Care District
A-6.1. The Peninsula Health Care District requests that the North Burlingame Mixed-Use Overlay be established and
applied to the District Property and School District Property before the General Plan is finalized and adopted. This
would ensure that the future use of the site by the District would be consistent with the General Plan, and by having an
overlay rather than a designation the City would maintain the Public/Institutional land use designation. This is a policy
decision for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider in the public hearing process. This response does
not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
Response A-7 – City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
A-7.1. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County requests that the City place conditions on
each future development project to reduce the project pro rata share of cumulative CMP traffic impacts. The agency
further recommends that the City follow the “Guidelines for Implementing the Land Use Component of the Congestion
Management Program,” which requires trip reduction for projects that generate a net 100 or more peak-hour period trip
on the CMP roadway network. The 2040 General Plan includes policies that support these recommendations, including
Goal Mobility 5, which stresses implementation of TDM strategies that reduce overall vehicle trips and encourage the
use of transportation modes that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition,
Mobility policy 9-2 stresses the establishment of a transportation impact fee for new development that generates funds
for improving all modes of transportation. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on
the analysis in the EIR.
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 7
Individuals
Response I-1 – Otto Miller
I-1.1. Mr. Miller supports the higher density in the North Burlingame alternative. This is a policy decision for the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider in the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new
information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
I-1.2. Mr. Miller cautioned the City that if the higher density alternative moves forward, the City should address parking
problems that could result from allowing higher densities. The City notes that all new development is required to provide
parking consistent with Municipal Code standards. This response does not identify any new information that has a
bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
Response I-2 – Jeff DeMartini
I-2.1. The commenter noted that no school enrollment was included in the EIR and is concerned that in the future
school aged children will not be able to attend a school in their neighborhood. The commenter is correct in that no
school enrollment data were included in the EIR. The EIR did not include enrollment because it is too speculative to
identify where new school facilities would be needed. The EIR does state that “new housing would be constructed over
the long term as population growth occurs pursuant to new land use policy. New homes would be occupied by a variety
of households, including those with school-aged children. Both the Burlingame School District and San Mateo Union
High School District would monitor growth in Burlingame and update their facilities plans as needed to identify new
facility needs, including locations, timing, and funding for expanded or new classrooms and related facilities.” The
comment does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
I-2.2. The commenter noted that during the CAC process, the Planning Commission was given information that
concluded in writing that the North Rollins area was not appropriate for future residential development, yet the EIR now
states that these impacts are less than significant. This statement is not correct. During the CAC process, information
was provided regarding potential constraints, such as noise, but at that time technical analysis had not been conducted.
The DEIR provides that technical analysis. The comment does not identify any new information that has a bearing on
the analysis in the EIR.
I-2.3. The commenter noted that there is no mention of a location for a Burlingame ferry service in the EIR. This is
because while the General Plan includes discussion and a goal relating to ferry service (Goal CC-6), it does not include
a specific ferry service proposal that could be evaluated in the EIR. The comment suggests transportation policy
changes in the 2040 General Plan that may be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council during the
public hearing process. The comment does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the
EIR.
I-2.4. The commenter noted that there is not discussion of large format retailers with frontage along Highway 101 in
the General Plan and EIR. This is because proposed land use policy does not specifically support such uses along
the frontage. The Innovation Industrial (I/I) land use would allow commercial and light industrial uses, creative
industry businesses, design businesses, limited indoor sports and recreation, and wholesale uses, but large format
retailers are not specified. The comment refers to suggested land use policy changes in the 2040 General Plan that
may be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council during the public hearing process. The comment
does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR.
I-2.5. The commenter wanted to know the timing of the Broadway grade separation, especially considering that City
staff had previously stated that an elevated track was not a good option for Burlingame. According to the DEIR, “the
draft 2040 GP identifies a policy (M-12.2) to coordinate with Caltrain and Caltrans to design and construct a grade-
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 8
separated intersection at Broadway and the rail tracks.” The City Council has indicated preference for a split
configuration with the rail tracks partially elevated above a partially-submerged roadway. The timing of this project is
not known at this time. Thus, the DEIR reflects this circumstance. This response does not identify any new information
relevant to the EIR.
I-2.6. The commenter asks that the traffic consultant provide a summary of each project that has been assumed in the
analysis. Refer to comment and response A-5.2 above. This response does not identify any new information relevant
to the EIR.
I-2.7. The commenter requests that if any financial impact analyses were conducted by the City, they should be made
public. No fiscal impact analysis was performed. The comment does not identify any new information relevant to the
EIR.
Response I-3 – John Kevranian
I-3.1. The commenter noted that there is no mention of a location for a Burlingame ferry service in the EIR. This is
because while the General Plan includes discussion and a goal relating to ferry service (Goal CC-6), it does not include
a specific ferry service proposal that could be evaluated in the EIR. The comment suggests transportation policy
changes in the 2040 General Plan that may be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council during the
public hearing process. The comment does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the
EIR.
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 9
Oral Comments
Commissioner Questions/Comments
The following comments were delivered at the July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. Many comments pertained
specifically to the General Plan; the following are those that addressed the DEIR.
EIR page 210 indicates two alternatives, not three. That is a typo, there are three alternatives. It is acknowledged in
the Errata below.
Commenter recalled in previous discussions that environmental justice is an emerging element for General Plans. The
Legislature has passed legislation to require General Plans to address environmental justice. If there were census
tracts that were identified as disadvantaged it would need to be addressed, but Burlingame does not have any of those
areas that would be considered impacted due to income or exposure to environmental hazards. As such there is not
an explicit addressing of environmental justice in terms of complying with State Law, unless the Commission or Council
sees an issue that requires policy to be to be addressed in the General Plan. As for the EIR, CEQA Regulations do
not yet require the assessment of environmental justice.
On page 17-7 of the DEIR Burlingame School District should be abbreviated as "BSD" not "BUSD." This change is
acknowledged in the Errata below.
Regarding wastewater collection and treatment, are the cumulative effects of growth in the Town of Hillsborough
included? The City’s wastewater treatment plant is operated under contract by private company Veolia Water. In
addition to serving the City, the plant serves the Town of Hillsborough (Hillsborough) and the San Mateo County
Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District (Burlingame Hills). Hillsborough and Burlingame Hills are “satellite
collection systems” to the City. These systems discharge directly to the Burlingame system, with each managing their
own collection systems. According to the DEIR “no immediate changes to the system are needed to meet the demands
of immediate growth, as the water and wastewater master plans anticipate growth consistent with the General Plan.
Plan. To accommodate the level of long-term development allowed by the General Plan, the City will continue to assess
demand and to update water and wastewater master plans as needed” (page 20-6). Given that the treatment plant
serves the Town of Hillsborough, updating the wastewater master plan would consider any changes in growth
anticipated in the Town of Hillsborough and the Burlingame Hills.
Page 21-11 of the EIR mentions a noise impact on Broadway between El Camino Real and Bernal Avenue, and
attributes it to new residential units in the hillside neighborhood west of the road segment. Is that really the reason, the
right description? Or is it better described as hillside residents accessing Broadway and the Broadway interchange?
The noise impact is caused by hillside residents accessing Broadway and the Broadway interchange and other regional
traffic on that segment of the roadway.
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 10
3 Errata
This section identifies revisions to the DEIR to incorporate clarifications developed in response to comments on the
DEIR. Additions to the text are underlined and deletions have been stricken through. No significant revisions were
made to the DEIR, and recirculation of the document is not required pursuant to CEQA.
Chapter 2 Summary
2.4.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Page 2-10, Section 2.4.1, Identified Alternatives, first sentence is corrected as follows “Pursuant to these
CEQA sections, Chapter 20 identifies and evaluates the following two three alternatives to the project:”
Page 2-11, Section 2.4.2, Environmentally Superior Alternative, second paragraph is corrected as follows:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant, unavo idable noise impact on Broadway between El
Camino Real and Bernal Avenue.
Chapters 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 Environmental Impact Analysis
Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Page 11-2 (b) Airport Hazards. First bulleted paragraph is corrected as follows:
Portions All of the planning area are is located within Area B of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary
zones of San Francisco International Airport. Further since all of A IA Area B falls under AIA Area A, real
estate disclosures (Section 11010 (b) (13) of the Business and Professions Code) are required for people
offering subdivided property for sale or lease to disclose the presence of all existing and planned airports
within two miles of the property.
Chapter 12, Historic and Cultural Resources.
Page 12-2, Section 12.1.1, Environmental Setting, after second bullet. The following clarifies the status of
the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows.
The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row is a State-owned historical resource within Caltrans’ right-of-way.
As such, all projects proposed within the boundaries of the Howard -Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row are
required to comply with the January 2015 Memorandum of Understanding Between the California
Department of Transportation and the California State Historic Preservation Office Regarding Compliance
with Public Resources Code Section 5024 and Governor’s Executive Order W -26-92 (hereafter the PRC
5024 MOU; found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/5024mou_15.pdf).
Chapter 15, Noise.
On page 15-6, second bullet, the sentence is corrected as follows:
Burlingame is located within two miles of San Francisco International Airport. According to the Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, a small part of the City’s industrial
area located east west of Rollins Road and northwest of Mitten Road is within the 65 CNEL contour associated with
airport operations.
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 11
Chapter 17. Public Services. Section 17.2.3 Environmental Impacts. c) School Services. Both the BUSD
BSD and SMUHSD monitor growth in Burlingame and updates its facilities plans as needed to identify new
facility needs, including locations, timing, and funding for expanded or new classrooms and related facilities.
BUSD will continue to collect development impact fees as provided for in State law to fund expanded facilities.
Chapter 18. Transportation and Circulation, Section 18.1.2. Regulatory Setting
Table 18-1 has been revised as follows to incorporate reference to the recently adopted Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan.
Chapter 21 Alternatives
21.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Page 21-11, Section 21.4, Environmentally Superior Alternative, second paragraph is corrected as follows:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant, unavoidable noise impact on Broadway between El
Camino Real and Bernal Avenue.
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 12
Table 18-1 Relevant Plans and Policies Related to Transportation Systems
Plan, Year Overview Relevant Plans and Policies
County and State Plans
Caltrans District 4
Bike Plan (2018)
This Plan builds on the
California State Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, known as
“Towards an Active California.”
It adopts the overall vision,
goals, objectives, and
strategies of Toward an Active
California and represents an
important implementing action
from the statewide plan.
San Mateo Top Tier Projects identified for
Millbrae/Burlingame: Provide new separated
crossing on E. Millbrae Avenue.
Separated crossings include overcrossings
and undercrossings, and adding a bikeway
under an elevated freeway, completely
separating bicycle and pedestrian travel from
automobiles.
San Mateo County
Congestion
Management
Program, Final
2013
The purpose of the CMP is to
identify strategies to respond
to future transportation needs,
develop procedures to
alleviate and control
congestion, and promote
countywide solutions. The
CMP is required to be
consistent with the
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) planning
process that includes regional
goals, policies, and projects
for the Regional
Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP). The 2013
CMP, which is developed to
be consistent with MTC‟s Plan
Bay Area, provides updated
program information and
performance monitoring
results for the CMP roadway
system.
Due to their potential safety and delay impacts,
14 signalized intersections have been
preliminarily identified as key Burlingame
intersections for analysis in the General Plan
process, which includes one CMP intersection
in Burlingame. Two additional CMP
intersections adjacent to Burlingame are also
included, as they are considered important in
determining the overall capacity of the City’s
street system. The three CMP intersections
are:
▪ El Camino Real and Broadway in
Burlingame
▪ El Camino Real and Peninsula Avenue in
San Mateo
▪ El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue in
Millbrae
San Mateo County
Comprehensive
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan,
2011
Outlines recommendations
and design guidelines for
“safe, convenient, and
universally accessible” bicycle
and pedestrian facilities
throughout the county
Funded by the City/County
Association of Governments of
San Mateo County and the
San Mateo County
Transportation Authority
The plan examines:
▪ Existing bicycle and pedestrian conditions
▪ Connections to transit
▪ Areas with high incidents of collisions
▪ Areas with high demand for more or better
facilities.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Focus Areas are
highlighted to prioritize funding in areas with
high demand or need, including roadways with
high occurrences of bicycle and pedestrian
injuries, and the El Camino Real corridor.
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 13
Table 18-1 Relevant Plans and Policies Related to Transportation Systems
Plan, Year Overview Relevant Plans and Policies
San Mateo County
Transportation
Authority Short-
Range Highway
Plan, 2011-2021
Outlines how funding has
been and will be allocated to
highway improvement projects
throughout San Mateo County
Burlingame area projects include:
▪ Reconstruction of Broadway at Highway
101 interchange
▪ Modification of the interchange at
Peninsula Avenue and Highway 101
The plan also identifies the existing funding
gap that limits completion of all desired
highway improvements and ranks the
proposed and completed projects by funding
priority.
San Mateo County
Transportation Plan
for Low-Income
Populations, 2012
Examines mobility needs in
transportation-disadvantaged
communities in San Mateo
County and develops
strategies to bridge gaps in
service delivery
Transportation strategies to
address the divide in service
include education, free
services to low-income
persons and auto loan and
repair assistance programs
Recommends reinstating emergency
transportation assistance through a
partnership between San Mateo County Health
Services Agency and Burlingame Yellow Cab
San Mateo County
Transportation
Authority Draft
Strategic Plan
2015-2019, 2014
Policy, investment and service
plan to improve bus service
and expand ridership
throughout the SamTrans
service area
Identifies five-year goals of
increase weekday fixed-route
ridership and farebox revenue,
reduce debt service, improve
organizational performance,
and manage workforce
change
Outlines trends and forecasts for regional
transit:
▪ 35% of all system boardings are on El
Camino Real
▪ 50% of boardings are in the morning and
evening commute peaks
▪ Metropolitan Transportation Commission
projects an increasing shift in growth
toward El Camino Real that will lead to
opportunities for cost-effective increases in
service
Focused on service and investment strategies
to support and expand a transit culture in San
Mateo County
Response to Comments 2
Final Environmental Impact Report 14
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
A-1.1
Agency A-1
Section 4: Comment Letters
A-1.1
A-1.2
C/CAG
CITVCoUNTy AssocrATtoN oF GoVERNMENTS
OF SAN M.A.TEO CoUN"IY
Athetton'Belmont'Brisbane - B ingane. Colma, Dal_y City. East Palo Alto. Foster CiE. Half Moon Bav. Hilkborough. Menlo Park. Millbrae
.Pacilicd.PortolaVallq.RednoodCity.SatBruno.SanCarlos,SanMateo.SanMateoCourut*.SouthSanFrdnci.\co.Woodside
August 16, 2018
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community Development Departrnent
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Burlingame 2040 General Plan Draft EIR
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
C/CAG Airport Land Use Commission staffhas reviewed the above referenced document and finds that the
Draft EIR adequately addresses the relevant airport land use compatibility issues related to noise, safety and
airspace protection contained in the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs
of San Francisco lntemational Airport (SFO AIUCP). However, the document does not address the real estate
disclosure requirements ofstate law [Business and Professions Code Section 11010(b) (13)], and pursuant to
Policy IP-l of the SFO ALUCP, that apply 1o all properties within Burlingame. Therefore, it is recommended
that additional discussion be added to address this issue.
Further, as noted in the DEIR, this General Plan update, as well as any subsequent zoning ordinance or specific
plan amendments, rezonings, and applicable individual development proposals, will require formal review by
the C/GAG Airport Land Use Committee and c/cAG, acting as the Airport Land Use commission, for a
determination ofconsistency with the SFO ALUCP prior to local agency action on the project. The application
is available online at httD://ccas .ca.qo u.o-content/uoloa ds/2018/01/Apn I ication-Land-Use-Consistencv-
Determination.pdf
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this Draft EIR. If you have any questions, please
contact me at 650 599-1467 or kkalkin@smcgov.org.
Sincerely,EY D
Susy AIUC Staff
Sandy Wong, CCAG Executive DirectorCC
555 County Center, 5d Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 pHor.{E: 650.599.1406
wn-\,r,. ccag. ca_ go\.
A-2.1
A-2.2
Agency A-2
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
455 colden Gate Avenue, Suite 10600, San Francisco, California 94102 tel 415 352 3600 fax 415 352 3606
August 16, 2018
Kevin Gardiner
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
SUBJECT:City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental lmpact Report,
scH#2017082018
Dear Mr. Gardiner:
Thank you the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environment lmpact Report (DEIR) for
the City of Burlingome 2040 Generol Plon, received in our office on July 9, 2018.
Although the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) itself
has not reviewed the DEIR, the staffcomments discussed below are based on the Commission's
law, the McAteer-Petris Act, the Commission's San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan), the
Commission's federally-approved management plan for the San Francisco Bay, and the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
Sea Level Rise. BCDC has adopted findings and policies on rising sea level into its Bay Plan.
The Bay Plan findings on climate change state, in part, that:
"The Commission, along with other agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, cities, counties, and flood control districts, is responsible for protecting the public
and the Bay ecosystem from flood hazards. This can be best achieved by using a range of
scientifically based scenarios, including projections, which correspond to higher rates ofsea
level rise. ln planning and designing projects forthe Bay shoreline, it is prudent to rely on the
most current science-based ond regionolly specific projections offuture seo level rise, [emphasis
addedl develop strategies and policies that can accommodate sea level rise over a specific
planning horizon (i.e., adaptive management strategies), and thoroughly analyze new
development to determine whether it can be adapted to sea level rise."
While we commend the City of Burlingame for including sea level rise in the Draft General
PIan, the state's recommended projections have been updated since the City's General PIan
update process began. ln March 2018, the Ocean Protection Council approved an update to the
State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance, which provides (1) a synthesis ofthe best available
into@bcdc.ca,gov I www.bcdc.ca.gov
State ot Califomia I Edmund G. Brown - Governor g
A-3.1
Agency A-3
Mr. Kevin Gardiner
City of Burlingame
August 16, 2018
Page 2
science on sea-level rise projections and rates for California; (2) a step-by-step approach for
state agencies and local governments to evaluate those projections and related hazard
information in decision making; and (3) preferred coastal adaptation approaches. We suggest
that the City consider the updated rising sea level projections in the final General Plan update.
For your information, on November 15, 2018, BCDC and the Ocean Protection Council will be
hosting a workshop for local governments on the implementation ofthe recently updated
guidance at the Bay Area Metro Center, located at 375 Beale Street in San Francisco from 9am
to 12pm.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR for the City o/
Burlingome 2(M0 Generol Plon.lf you have any questions, please contact me directly at (415)
352-3665.
Sincerely,
vL"_W
SHANNON FIALA
Planning Manager
A-3.1
1
CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
From:Elizabeth Cullinan <ECullinan@HILLSBOROUGH.NET>
Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 4:21 PM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:Burlingame General Plan Draft EIR
Greetings Kevin and thank you for the opportunity to review the above.
As a neighboring jurisdiction we have always appreciated the collegial approach to jurisdictional
operations we share with Burlingame. With the strong economic growth, housing needs and resource
constraints, we thought it important to convey our interest in working together on impacts to
infrastructure and propose the following language within the General Plan to further enhance your
existing efforts to reduce environmental impacts:
The City of Burlingame shall work in partnership with neighboring jurisdictions, including the
Town of Hillsborough, to assess drainage, water and sewer treatment constraints, capacities,
needs and capital projects, and partner where appropriate. While the DEIR does not conclude
that respective impacts are significant, periodic monitoring of conditions should be implemented
and findings and solutions reevaluated as appropriate. (Growth rates could occur at a more
expeditious rate than projected, as experienced in several jurisdictions within San Mateo
County).
The City of Burlingame shall work in partnership with neighboring jurisdictions, including the
Town of Hillsborough to proactively manage project specific and cumulative traffic impacts
associated with schools, increased density, construction and route changes. While the DEIR
does not conclude that respective impacts are significant, periodic monitoring of conditions
should be implemented and findings and solutions reevaluated as appropriate.
We would be pleased to work with you on the best approach to incorporate our comments into your
environmental and advanced planning documents.
Thank you.
Elizabeth S.R. Cullinan AICP
Director of Building and Planning
Town of Hillsborough
Phone: (650) 375‐7416
Fax: (650) 375‐7415
ecullinan@hillsborough.net
www.hillsborough.net
Download Mobile App on Google Play Store or Apple iTunes Store
Subscribe to Town News and Alerts: http://www.hillsborough.net/list.aspx
A-4.1
Agency A-4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5528
FAX (510) 286-5559
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
August 20, 2018
Mr. Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
SCH # 2017082018
GTS # 04-SM-2017-00191
GTS ID: 7407
PM: SM – 101 - VAR
2040 General Plan (Envision Burlingame) – Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Mr. Gardiner:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the 2040 General Plan (Envision Burlingame). In tandem with
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS),
Caltrans’ mission signals a modernization of our approach to evaluate and mitigate impacts to
the State Transportation Network (STN). Caltrans’ Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 aims
to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in part, by tripling bicycle and doubling both
pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. Our comments are based on the June 28, 2018 DEIR.
Project Understanding
The City of Burlingame is comprehensively updating its General Plan and revising the zoning
ordinance (title 25 of the Municipal Code) and the Bayfront, North Burlingame/Rollins Road and
Downtown Specific Plans to ensure consistency with the updated General Plan. The General
Plan update involves all mandatory elements except the Housing Element, as well as optional
elements and element components addressing economic development, public health, historic
preservation and scenic resources. The proposed project involves adoption of these updated
policy and regulatory documents. The DEIR environmental topic chapters (aesthetics, biological
resources, traffic, noise, etc.) will include the General Plan policies relevant to the topic.
Regional access to the City of Burlingame includes State Route (SR) 82, SR 35, and US Route
(US) 101. Interstate (I-) 280 runs adjacent to the southwestern border of the city and is accessible
via ramps at Trousdale Drive. The City includes a planned Priority Development Area (PDA),
known as the Burlingame El Camino Real PDA, which has the future place type of Transit Town
Center.
Travel Demand Analysis and Mitigation
Please provide traffic analysis software worksheets for intersections and state highway ramps A-5.1
Agency A-5
Mr. Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager, City of Burlingame
August 20, 2018
Page 2
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
listed below for our review:
• US 101 NB ramps and Millbrae Avenue,
• US 101 SB ramps and Millbrae Avenue,
• SR 82 (El Camino Real) & Millbrae Avenue,
• SR 82 (El Camino Real) & Trousdale Drive,
• SR 82 (El Camino Real) & Hillsdale Drive,
• SR 82 (El Camino Real) & Broadway,
• US 101 SB ramps & Broadway,
• SR 82 (El Camino Real) & Burlingame Avenue,
• SR 82 (El Camino Real) & Peninsula Avenue.
Please ensure that all descriptions of current conditions and proposed projects described in the
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) are correct and up to date. For example, the description of the
improvement mentioned on page 4 of the Hexagon TIA report, “US 101 northbound auxiliary
lane from Peninsula to Broadway," is incorrect as this auxiliary lane already exists; there is a
project in the area to provide an express lane, and the TIA should be updated accordingly to
reflect this.
Caltrans commends the Lead Agency for including a VMT analysis. Please clarify how the
tables on page 17 of the TIA were developed. Caltrans encourages the City to consider
mitigating VMT from projects in accordance with this updated General Plan.
Multimodal Planning
The City of Burlingame is well served by transit. The Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain
Stations are located within the City, whereas the Millbrae Caltrain and BART station is located
just to the north of the City. Multiple SamTrans buses also serve the City, including Route ECR,
which provides high frequency service along El Camino Real.
Please add the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) to Table 18-1: Relevant Plans and Policies
Related to Transportations Systems. The District 4 Bike Plan includes multiple projects fully or
partially within Burlingame, including intersection improvement projects for SR 82 intersections
and several separated crossing projects for US 101. The General Plan’s primary and secondary
effects on pedestrians, bicyclists, travelers with disabilities, and transit users should be evaluated,
including countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases. Access for
pedestrians and bicyclists to transit facilities must be maintained. These smart growth approaches
are consistent with MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan/SCS and would help meet Caltrans
Strategic Management targets.
Vehicle Trip Reduction
From Caltrans’ Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, the project site is
identified as Place Type 2a: Close in Centers where location efficiency factors, such as
community design, are moderate and regional accessibility is strong. As previously stated,
Caltrans encourages policies and programs related to Land Use, Circulation, and Housing that
A-5.1
A-5.2
A-5.3
A-5.4
A-5.5
Mr. Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager, City of Burlingame
August 20, 2018
Page 3
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
increase density, improve regional accessibility, and reduce VMT. For that reason, Caltrans
strongly encourages the Lead Agency to adopt Alternative 2: Higher Development Density and
Intensity in North Burlingame (120 Dwelling Units/Acre), which will provide more housing
units, placing them near the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station, which could encourage transit use,
further address the housing/jobs imbalance in Burlingame, and conform with state and regional
policies. The measures listed below will promote smart mobility and reduce regional VMT.
• Project design to encourage walking, bicycling and transit access;
• Transit and trip planning resources such as a commute information kiosk;
• Real-time transit information system;
• Transit subsidies on an ongoing basis;
• Ten percent vehicle parking reductions;
• Charging stations and designated parking spaces for electric vehicles;
• Carpool and clean-fuel parking spaces;
• Designated parking spaces for a car share program;
• Unbundled parking;
• Showers, changing rooms and clothing lockers for employees that commute via active
transportation;
• Emergency Ride Home program;
• Employee transportation coordinator;
• Secured bicycle storage facilities;
• Fix-it bicycle repair station(s);
• Bicycle route mapping resources;
• Participation/Formation in/of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) in
partnership with other developments in the area; and
• Aggressive trip reduction targets with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement.
For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating
Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8).
The reference is available online at:
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf.
Cultural Resources
Section 12. Historical and Cultural Resources cites that the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree
Row is within the planning area and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
This section must also include that the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row is a State-owned
historical resource within Caltrans’ right-of-way (ROW). As such, all projects proposed within
the boundaries of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row are required to comply with the
January 2015 Memorandum of Understanding Between the California Department of
Transportation and the California State Historic Preservation Office Regarding Compliance with
Public Resources Code Section 5024 and Governor’s Executive Order W-26-92 (hereafter the
PRC 5024 MOU; found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/5024mou_15.pdf).
A-5.5
A-5.6
Mr. Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager, City of Burlingame
August 20, 2018
Page 4
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Before a Caltrans encroachment permit can be issued, applicants must demonstrate that the
proposed work is in compliance with the PRC 5024 MOU and the Caltrans Standard
Environmental Reference (SER) Chapter 2 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/vol2.htm). Per the
PRC 5024 MOU and the SER, all cultural resource technical studies regarding the Howard-
Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row must be reviewed and approved by the Caltrans District 4 Office
of Cultural Resource Studies (OCRS).
We highly recommend that the City of Burlingame coordinate with the OCRS in revising the
DEIR to ensure that the regulatory requirements for State-owned historical resources are
accurately and adequately captured.
Transportation Impact Fees
We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multimodal and regional
transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also
strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT. Caltrans
welcomes the opportunity to work with the City and local partners to secure the funding for
needed mitigation. Traffic mitigation- or cooperative agreements are examples of such measures.
Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Burlingame is responsible for all project mitigation, including
any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing,
scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully
discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.
Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state ROW requires an
encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit
application, environmental documentation, and six (6) sets of plans clearly indicating state ROW
must be submitted to: Office of Permits, California DOT, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland,
CA 94623-0660. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the
construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the website link below for more
information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/.
A-5.6
A-5.7
A-5.8
A-5.9
Mr. Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager, City of Burlingame
August 20, 2018
Page 5
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental re view process. Should you have
any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jake Freedman at 510-286-5518 or
jake.freedman@ dot.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
{\ ,..--PATRICIA MAURICE
~ District Branch Chief
Local Development -Intergov ernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse
"'Provide a safe. sustainable, integrated and efficien t transportalion
system to enhance California ·s economy and livability"
A-6.1Agency A-6
A-6.1
Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • Hillsborough • Menlo Park
Millbrae • Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County • South San Francisco • Woodside
555 COUNTY CENTER 5TH FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 PHONE: 650.599.1406 FAX: 650.361.8227
August 20, 2018
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame
Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Burlingame General Plan EIR
Mr. Gardiner:
Thank you for offering C/CAG the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the
Burlingame Draft General Plan (also known as "Envision Burlingame”) dated August 2018.
C/CAG staff reviewed the document for compliance with the “Policy on Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) To
Determine Traffic Impacts on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Roadway Network Resulting
From Roadway Changes, General Plan Updates, and Land Use Development Projects” and found that while
the traffic impact analysis meets the requirements of the policy, the cumulative impacts from the Draft General
Plan will have potential traffic impacts on the CMP roadway network. More specifically, the study CMP
intersection of El Camino Real and Broadway will go from performing at LOS “B” in the Existing Conditions
to LOS “E” in the 2040 Project Conditions scenario. The LOS standard at this intersection is LOS “E”.
We recommend the city to place conditions on each future development projects to reduce the project pro rata
share of the cumulative CMP traffic impacts. The C/CAG “Guidelines for Implementing the Land Use
Component of The Congestion Management Program” requires trip reduction for projects that generate a net
100 or more peak hour period trips on the CMP roadway network. Potential mitigation strategies are
documented in the Land Use Guidelines policy and include, but are not limited to, reducing project scope,
building roadway and/or transit improvements, collecting traffic mitigation fees, and requiring project
sponsors to implement transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Please refer to the policy here,
which is included as Appendix I of the 2017 CMP: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-Final-
Draft-CMP-Appendix-1.pdf
We appreciate the efforts of City of Burlingame and the development of this update and encourage you to keep
us informed of ongoing monitoring efforts.
If you have any questions, please contact me at jlacap@smcgov.org or 650-599-1455.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Lacap
Transportation Programs Specialist
Agency A-7
A-7.1
8/13/2018
Dear Kevin Gardiner,
After having carefully reviewed the environmental impact report for the Burlingame
general plan, I would like to be put on record for being in favor of the higher density (140 units
per acre). With such a high demand for housing in the Bay Area and especia lly in Burlingame,
higher density would make more sense. For example, my property located at 1875 California
Drive, which is .35 of an acre would go from 42 units (120 units per acre) to 49 units (140 units
per acre), that’s 7 more units for individuals and families to be able to be a part of this great
community. By going with the higher density, which has similar environmental impact as the
120 units per acre allows for many more opportunities, it provides relief from this housing crisis
we are faced with and lets this project reach its goal of “maintaining a balance of ownership and
rental housing, with opportunities for people of all income ranges to live in Burlinga me”. The
one potential issue I would like to mention is parking. With my property and others in the area
being located in the transportation corridor—BART, Caltrains, & SamTrans; I feel that parking
requirements could be counterproductive to higher density. If you approve the higher density but
don’t take the parking in to consideration, it might not be feasible to build the higher unit count.
With such close proximity to public transportation and car ownership seeing a downward trend
due to the popularity of Uber and Lyft, I think it would be wise to give alternatives such as
bicycle parking as they do in San Francisco. I am in full support of the higher density alternative
and look forward to Council approval.
Sincerely,
Otto Miller
I-1.1
I-1.2
Individual I-1
August 19, 2018
Mr. Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
kgardiner@burlingame.org
Dear Kevin:
Below, please find my comments related to the EIR for the General Plan Update:
1) Schools - I didn’t see any of the school enrollment data, which was analyzed during the
General Plan CAC period, included in the EIR. It seemed clear that due to the proposed
large increase in Burlingame’s future population that a significant number of Burlingame
children would no longer be able to go to school in their individual neighborhood due to
overcapacity at a handful of schools.
While this loss of community is a big concern, another issue is simply where these
children will go if another public elementary school needs to be built/expanded and/or the
public middle school needs to expand. I’m not aware of funds to handle this expansion
and development fees would not come close to covering this significant and rising cost.
MIG’s General Plan team leader said that it could not be assumed in the EIR that schools
would simply be able to handle this growth or that future ballot measures may be able to
provide the needed funding. I think a handful of communities throughout the Bay Area
had this same thought process years ago and are now dealing with overcrowded schools
and the impact that has had on the education of their youth, quality of life for their
existing residents and the desirability of their city to potential future residents.
As the Planning Commission representative to the General Plan CAC and a community
representative to the BSD Master Plan, I do not believe that the BSD Master Plan took
into account the large population increase contemplated in the General Plan Update. The
BSD Master Plan I reviewed assumed a flat enrollment/no-growth scenario with
“capacity” increased solely based on a small number of portable classrooms being
replaced by similarly sized permanent classrooms.
On a separate note still related to schools, I’m also concerned how children along North
Rollins will travel to their “neighborhood” school if a new school is not built. I currently
don’t see a safe or efficient route unless the City of Millbrae is willing to build this out
for us.
2) Alternative Location for Residential - During the CAC process, we were given
information that concluded in writing that the North Rollins area was not appropriate for
future residential development, yet the EIR now states that these impacts are less-than-
significant.
I-2.1
I-2.2
Individual I-2
Since the CAC discussed the positive and negative impacts of development on Rollins
Road, the big question seemed to be whether the future residential development would be
better suited on North Rollins or closer to Broadway. I am confused why this wasn’t
used as an alternative in the EIR. It seems critical to analyze this scenario. The
combination of weekday Caltrain service at Broadway, the potential ferry service at the
foot of Broadway (the preferred location in the CAC), the residential being walking
distance to our downtown rather than another community’s new retail hub, the probable
leasing of the entire Burlingame Point office project at higher efficiency levels, the
approval of other large commercial and residential projects in the immediate area around
Broadway, the City’s previous conclusion that North Rollins was not appropriate for
residential development, seem to provide a wide variety of reasons why this alternate
location should have been studied.
3) Ferry Service - The CAC spent a considerable amount of time working on a location for a
Burlingame ferry service. In fact, I believe that was the first discussion we had as a CAC
as the ferry would have a dramatic impact on land use scenarios. Three locations,
including in front of Burlingame Point, were discussed, with the committee concluding
that the foot of Broadway would be ideal. As I recall, the only opposition to the idea was
from one member of the public who said that the ferry service would be too expensive
(although perhaps only one-tenth the cost of the Broadway grade separation) and it
shouldn’t be explored because of that. Since that time, numerous cities in the Bay Area
have started or expanded ferry service. In addition, the company which has recently
announced that they may soon become Burlingame’s largest employer, piloted ferry
service nearly five years ago. It seems critical to include this in the plan, especially as a
location near Broadway would have a huge impact on future land planning in our city and
would instantly solve so many of the issues we were trying to resolve via the Broadway
Summit. As commute times continue to increase dramatically throughout the Bay Area,
it seems that ferry service is an ideal solution that must be included in our future plans.
4) Parcels with Highway Frontage - The previous Community Development Director said
that the General Plan and EIR process would tackle the discussion of large format
retailers with frontage along Highway 101. Planning Commission was made aware of
this in 2014 as there was a potential project in the pipeline. However, I don’t see this
analysis or discussion.
5) Broadway Grade Separation - I’m curious on the timing of the Broadway grade
separation, especially considering that staff had previously stated that an elevated track
was not a good option for Burlingame. It appears that the traffic analysis already assumes
the grade separation is complete. Are we moving forward with residential development
which impacts LOS prior to the completion of the grade separation?
6) Traffic - now that the Broadway Interchange has been completed, it doesn’t seem
appropriate to include old traffic studies in the analysis. I’d also be surprised if our
proposed North Rollins growth and the significant amount of development planned
around the Millbrae Intermodal Terminal will not impact the traffic at Millbrae X Rollins
which is already at a LOS D. Could your consultant please provide a summary of each
I-2.2
I-2.3
I-2.4
I-2.5
I-2.6
project that has been assumed in their analysis? I’m assuming Millbrae is engaged in our
process so we don’t have the reverse of the Peninsula Avenue Interchange on our hands.
7) Financial Analysis - As Burlingame works to pay down unfunded liabilities that exceed
$100,000,000, I’m assuming an analysis of financial impacts, including lost retail sales,
increased property tax base, the loss of permanent jobs, possible impacts on home prices
due to overcrowded schools, etc. has been studied for the various scenarios. I’m hoping
that can be made public.
Kevin, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my comments. It appears, per
the EIR, the future water allocation issue was resolved. I hope that the remainder of the impacts
from this significant amount of planned growth in our great city can be truly mitigated without
compromising the quality of life we all currently enjoy.
Sincerely,
Jeff DeMartini
I-2.7
1
CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
From:John Kevranian <jkevran@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 14, 2018 1:04 PM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:Comment Letter to the General Plan Draft EIR
Hi Kevin,
Chapter 18. Transportation and Circulation in part: "Burlingame aims to develop a complete multimodal transportation
network...to encourage people to use non‐automobile modes for as many trips as possible...to move people with less
delay, cost and environmental impacts."
While various Alternative Modes of local and regional transportation are stated therein, somehow Ferry Service is
omitted, which with Burlingame's adjacency to SFO and proximity to Millbrae Station provides Burlingame the complete
multimodal transportation network the General Plan calls for.
Best,
John Kevranian
650‐676‐7301
Sent from my iPhone
Individual I-3
I-3.1
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersWednesday, July 11, 2018
General Plan Study Session
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner and Planning Manager Ruben Hurin.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and TsePresent5 -
Kelly, and GaulAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Overview
Staff Report
Exhibits A and B: Comments Logs
Draft General Plan - August 2017
Draft EIR - June 2018
Attachments:
Community Development Director Gardiner introduced the consultant team: Dan Amsden, Laura Stetson,
and Lillian Jacobsen of MIG.
Dan Amsden and Laura Stetson made a presentation to the commission.
Commission questions/comments:
>In the General Plan list of figures in the Table of Contents the figures noted under Community
Character (CC-63, CC-64, CC-65) are mislabled.
>CC-17 "Badlands" should be "Baylands."
>CC-46 discusses Broadway mix of uses but the diagram shows downtown. Should show the Broadway
diagram.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>EIR inconsistency with 2017 Clean Air Plan and 2017 Scoping Plan is noted, with updated Climate
Action Plan underway. Does the Significant Unavoidable Impact need to go to Council? (Stetson: It is a
process issue. The Climate Action Plan is not finished but it will be finished by the time the plan goes to
public hearing. The mitigation is to do a Climate Action Plan, so the impacts will no longer be significant
and unavoidable.)
>EIR page 210 indicates two alternatives, not three. (Stetson: That is a typo.)
>Recalled in previous discussions that environmental justice is an emerging element. Where is it
referenced? (Stetson: The Legislature has passed legislation to require General Plans to address
environmental justice. If there were census tracts that were identified as disadvantaged it would need to be
addressed, but Burlingame does not have any of those ares that would be considered impacted due to
income or exposure to environmental hazards. As such there is not an explicit addressing of
environmental justice in terms of complying with State Law, unless the Commission or Council sees an
issue that requires policy to be to be addressed.) It is addressed under Community Character in the plan,
so is there something that should clarify in the EIR why it is not included? (Amsden: It is a clarification
that can be made in the Final EIR.)
>The amount of land designated for Institutional development is being reduced because of
redesignation. What does that mean? Particularly since the Existing Land Use Map does not have an
Institutional designation. (Jacobsen: It relates to whether the Mercy property should be designated as
Institutional or Residential. Ultimately it was decided to designate it Residential, which would provide them
with more flexibility. The base line is what is on the ground, not what is shown in the previous General
Plan.)
>Would Institutional uses be allowed in those neighborhoods with a Conditional Use Permit? (Gardiner:
Yes. There were discussions whether or not to designate an Institutional use with the underlying land use .
The decision was made to retain the underlying land use to allow more flexibility in the future.)
>Table 12-81 on page 12-8 mentions Policy CC-3.1 - comprehensive historic surveys should indicate
policy CC-3.2. (Stetson: Will fix that.)
>Page 17-7 Burlingame School District should be abbreviated as "BSD" not "BUSD."
>Regarding wastewater collection and treatment, are the cumulative effects of growth in the Town of
Hillsborough included? (Stetson: Will need to check. Does not anticipate Hillsborough will have significant
growth.)
>Page 21-11 of the EIR mentions noise impact on Broadway between El Camino Real and Bernal
Avenue, and attributes it to new residential units in the hillside neighborhood west of the road segment. Is
that really the reason, the right description? Or is it better described as hillside residents accessing
Broadway and the Broadway interchange? (Stetson: Correct, it is the latter. It is due to regional traffic.)
>Does Policy CC-3.1 indeed require historic resource evaluation of any project that significantly alters a
building that is more than 50 years old? Is it really intended to be that broad? (Stetson: CC-3.1 addresses
the City initiating surveys for historic districts to get a baseline for evaluating projects rather than
continuing to do things on a case by case basis. The aim is to have a more rigorous assessment of
projects for buildings that have been designated as potentially significant.)
> If the requirement is to evaluate every building over 50 years old that would significantly effect
everything that is done in the city. It would be a waste of money and time. (Stetson: The commission can
provide guidance on this if it is not clear or providing the desired direction. Can tie the two historic
measures together.)
>How would traffic be reduced through the bicycle network? (Stetson: The idea is to make it easier for
people to do a mode shift. If someone is hesitant to ride a bike, the bicycle master plan and the
associated improvements to the network might encourage them to make more trips on bikes.)
>What would be the potential impact to circulation with shifting to more bikes? (Ollie Zhou, Hexagon
Transportation Consultants: The traffic model analysis assumes bike mode share would remain 2 percent
of the total. Traffic is projected to increase overall, and the bike share would increase proportionally and
remain at 2 percent.)(Stetson: The potential could be greater, but the analysis is conservative.)
>Not clear what the Rollins /Road mixed use live/work zone would be comprised of, and how successful
it has been in other areas? (Stetson: There are emerging examples of live /work. The district would not
need to be fully mixed use buildings, but the district itself could have a mix of uses. For example a small
office or commercial building with a residential building adjacent. Or it could be where there is a work
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
space on the ground floor and a residence above, with the same owner of tenant using both. It has been
shown to work in urban areas .)(Amsden: The proximity to the BART station would allow the area to
become more urbanized, with a live/work mix. There could be either horizontal or vertical mixed use.)
>Would it just be a change to the land use designation in Rollins Road, but it would be up to the land
owner to make the application for the development project? Or would the City do anything to encourage
that change? (Stetson: It is up to the property owner. The City could be proactive in education if it wanted
to move it along, but could not force anything. An example is the "funk zone" in Santa Barbara, which is
an older industrial district that is changing fairly quickly. There is re -use of industrial buildings, as well as
new buildings. There are wineries, restaurants, and maker spaces mixed in with residential uses .)
(Amsden: Fourth Street in Berkeley, and the west side of Santa Cruz are other examples.)
>Could a use such as an artist studios, cabinet shop, and furniture shop go into one of the spaces, but
also have an apartment associated with it? (Gardiner: The approach would acknowledge the existing
industrial uses and allow those uses to stay if the property owners choose. However multiple uses could
coexist, so the environment would be different than a more conventional residential neighborhood which
would expect industrial uses to be phased out. In this instance the expectation is the residential and
live/work uses understand they are moving into an area with eclectic mix of uses. It could evolve over time
organically, or could be more defined though the zoning and possibly a specific plan.)
>The San Francisco design area is slowly seeing tenants being pushed out by new housing and
commercial buildings. If there was a design center like that here, there would be a number of gallery
spaces and design spaces to support the showrooms. Would the FAR be sufficient to support that type of
development? (Stetson: The FAR may not be as high as in San Francisco, but we can re -evaluate it to
make sure it could accommodate the concept.)
>Ferry service is mentioned. Is it being considered as a transportation option for the Bayfront?
(Stetson: It is not excluding the possibility, but because of the dredging that would be considered it would
be a fairly complex undertaking. It could be considered in the future but the implementation would be a
challenge.)
>Rollins Road has high -power lines requiring development to stay away from power lines. How far does
development need to be from the power lines to accommodate housing? (Stetson: Can bring a more
detailed response back in the public hearing.)
>Could the threshold for historic review be 100 years, not 50? There were so many homes built in the
1950s and 1920s. (Gardiner: There is the CEQA threshold, versus a city policy threshold. A 100-year
threshold would be a city policy choice .)(Stetson: 50 years is a standard threshold used throughout the
country.)
>Would be difficult to have a 50-year historic evaluation threshold since most homes in Burlingame are
more that 50 years old. (Stetson: Some communities have begun designating mid -century homes such as
Eichlers as representative of certain eras. While 50 years is a standard practice, a community could
decide to have a two -tiered system.)(Gardiner: The framework in the plan intentionally emphasizes historic
preservation. This was the direction of the Community Advisory Committee, to have a higher, more
rigorous level of evaluation than exists currently.)
>There is a difference between historic and nostalgic. Believes it would be hard to make the case that
many of the buildings that are more than 50 years old are actually historic. In the Burlingame Park
neighborhood, most of the evaluations have come back as not being eligible. If this practice is applied
citywide, it would have an impact that would unnecessarily constrain the city.
>Believes the intent is have a more comprehensive analysis of the city. Right now there is a limbo that
there was an historical evaluation survey of Downtown, and then Burlingame Park has a status where each
individual project has to prepare its own evaluation. The goal here would be to have a more comprehensive
evaluation, sponsored by the City, which would remove the burden from the individual property owner.
>Earlier the modest 2 bedroom/1 bath houses were the ones being torn down and replaced, but those
are all gone now. Now those being torn down include some very nice houses. The potential tear -downs now
include more substantial houses that could be potentially historic, but there is no recourse to ask for
something other than allowing it to be torn down, or to consider incentives for the homeowner to preserve
and add on instead and do something through the Mills Act.
>Even the properties that have been determined to have historic merit have been allowed to do
substantial projects, while maintaining their historic nature. Historic designation does not mean that
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
something cannot be done to a house.
>Would prefer to look at the historic issue more holistically. Concern with the existing practice of
individual evaluations; does not feel like there is a lot of return, and it is a burden. Only a handful end up
being deemed significant.
>The focus should be on the character.
>Has anyone looked at the typical lot sizes of lots in Rollins Road for the types of projects being
intended? Should make sure the FAR being proposed is going to work for the types of projects
envisioned. (Stetson: There is no typical lot size in the area, but the FAR would likely apply only to the
non-residential development.)
>Given the water table in the area, underground parking may be difficult in the Rollins Road area. Not
convinced 1.0 FAR will be sufficient to encourage change.
Public Comments:
>Florence Wong: Is on the School Board for the Burlingame School District. Demographers project for
every 100 new single family units there will be 20 more students, with 7% middle school students. If by
2040 there would be 3,000 new housing units, that would be 600 new students. Even with the new school
recently added, all elementary schools are at capacity except for Franklin. BIS already has 1,100
students. Is not opposed to adding housing units, but in the future will need some help from the city to
identify land for a new school, a big school. There are rules for where schools can be located, minimum
distance from highways. Could not build a school in the North Rollins area. Needs to be able to have the
funding and be able to identify land for future schools.
>Kamran Ehsanipour: Owns land at corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real. Property was originally
zoned R-3, and surrounding area is R -3. Property was used as a commercial use as a grandfathered use .
In 1984 the zoning changed to C -1. At that time mixed use was allowed in C -1, but not allowed now .
Wants to be able to develop mixed use. Mixed use can add to quality of life and beauty to city. Opinion is
C-1 should be considered to allow mixed use. Would like the North Burlingame Mixed Use designation for
this property.
>Cynthia Cornell, Housing for All Burlingame: Concerned with 3,000 units. Burlingame Point will bring
4,000 new jobs. The old Hyatt movie theater redevelopment would add more jobs, as well as possibly two
new hotels and Top Golf. Jobs will be low income. Burlingame continues to develop commercial properties
without housing. Needs to consider where people will live in the future, and will need another school .
Renters are at risk of losing their housing once Burlingame Point opens.
>Jennifer Pfaff: Concern with not having a height limit on the northern end, concerned how the city
intends to handle design. How to get good design with overreach from the State, which does not allow
design standards to be imposed on projects? Not understanding how the two pieces will go together .
Historic preservation was a concern of the Community Advisory Committee given how much is being torn
down and the character changing; Burlingame Park was treated in a certain way from its characteristics .
Different areas of the city are treated in different ways, which is not equitable. There are older areas of the
city besides Burlingame Park, but they are not being treated the same. In Burlingame Park while most of
the surveys have shown the building to not have significance, there were more than a couple that were
designated as special. There were also some that were considered contributors to a district, but we do not
consider districts. Would like to look at what other cities do; some of it is legal. Should be equitable but
not be a nuisance to owners and developers.
>Tim Donnelly: Impressed with the plan: it is comprehensive and well thought out. A lot of effort has
gone into it. Don't let it get watered down.
>Leslie McQuaide: Has lived in Burlingame for 41 years, and was on the Community Advisory
Committee. Has fear of the city losing its character. People redevelop houses but then move on .
Concerned with traffic; there is a line of cars on Broadway heading to the freeway. Needs another way to
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
get to the freeway. Rollins Road will add more traffic. SFGate had an article quality of life, with South San
Francisco and San Carlos featured as being concerned with changing quality of life.
Community Development Director Gardiner noted that there will be meetings in the future to provide further
input and discussion.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
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 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
1
EXHIBIT A
Responses to Comments on the Draft General Plan
1. Kris Cannon (August 30, 2017)
Ms. Cannon suggests minor changes to Education and Lifelong Learning chapter. The
following revisions to the Implementation Plan are recommended in response to her comments
(not all suggestions for revisions are included):
IP-72 Library as an Education and Lifelong Learning Resource
The Library will continue to serve as an education and lifelong learning resource to promote
and provide access to local and web-based educational resources, literacy programs, and
services for parents, students, and adults.
Ms. Cannon notes a correction to Implementation Program 73 (IP073), indicating it should
reference “Burlingame School District,” not Burlingame Unified School District. This revision will
be made.
2. Holly Daley (August 29, 2017)
Ms. Daley compliments the treatment of resiliency in Chapter XIII and asks that more
information be provided regarding responsibilities for implementation. The Implementation Plan
(Chapter XI) indicates responsibilities, funding sources, and time frames.
3. Justin Moresco (August 29, 2017)
In the Community Safety chapter, Mr. Moresco notes that Policy CS-7.2 references “current
building codes,” which may not necessarily address all life safety issues, and could also include
other items not specifically related to life safety such as plumbing and electrical provisions.
Also, the target date of 2020 for completion of a soft-story building assessment is unclear. Staff
suggests this policy be reworded as follows, with the target date removed to provide flexibility in
implementation:
CS-7.2: Residential Upgrades
Require that any residential facility that is being increased more than 50 percent assessed
value or physical size conform to all provisions of the current building code throughout the
entire structure. Encourage owners of residential buildings with known structural defects
such as unreinforced garage openings, “soft story” construction, unbolted foundations, and
inadequate sheer walls to take steps to remedy the problem by retrofitting buildings to meet
current, “life-safety” engineering standards and bring buildings up to the current building
code. Form an ad hoc committee to investigate, before the end of 2020, and describe the
seismic risk posed by pre-1980 wood frame “soft story” buildings in Burlingame and to
2
evaluate the costs and benefits of potential actions that could be pursued by the City. The
ad hoc committee shall report its findings to the City Council before the end of 2020. [DR]
4. Kris Cannon (August 30, 2017)
Ms. Cannon notes a correction to Implementation Program 73 (IP073), indicating it should
reference “Burlingame School District,” not Burlingame Unified School District. This revision will
be made.
5. Jennifer Pfaff (September 4, 2017)
Ms. Pfaff submitted a series of corrections and clarifications to the Community Context (Chapter
II), Community Character (Chapter IV), Healthy People and Healthy Places (Chapter IX),
Engagement and Enrichment (Chapter X), and Implementation (Chapter XI). Staff recommends
the corrections and edits to be made as submitted.
Ms. Pfaff also makes some suggestions on content. In Chapter IX, she suggests omission of
Policy HP-5.8 (Invasive Plant Species), citing concerns the policy could be overreaching. Staff
notes that Bob Disco, City Arborist, cited similar concerns in his letter dated December 29,
2017. Staff suggests the edits proposed by Mr. Disco be incorporated to balance the concerns.
6. Jean Hastie, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas (September 25, 2017)
Ms. Hastie asks that reference to Mercy Center Burlingame (page INT-11) be changed to
Sisters of Mercy. This revision will be made.
7-8. Terry Nagel (October 15, 2017)
Ms. Nagel asks that discussion in the Engagement and Enrichment chapter regarding civic
engagement be expanded to more fully describe “The Burlingame Way.” This discussion will be
expanded per the suggestions in her letter.
In the Community Safety chapter, she suggests mentioning efforts to include school children in
safety preparedness programs. Policies CS-2.2 and CS-3.4 as written cover all residents,
including school children.
She suggests that Policy CS-2.9 be broadened to include all alleys. Staff suggests this policy be
reworded as follows:
CS-2.9: Alley and Emergency Access Ensure access to City alleys in the downtown area,
and maintain rear building exits to be clear and unobstructed in accordance with the
American with Disabilities Act. Ensure that alleys citywide that provide rear egress from rear
exists provide clear and unobstructed access all the way to a public way.
She heartily supports the inclusion of Policy CS-3.5 regarding CERT programs.
3
Regarding liquefaction zones shown on Figure CS-6, she suggests a policy of notifying people
of increased hazards during earthquakes in such zones. Policy CS-3.3 addresses public
education regarding all hazards.
9. Jennifer Lee, City of Burlingame Environmental Regulatory Compliance Coordinator
(October 26, 2017)
Most of Ms. Lee’s comments related to document formatting fixes. These edits will be made as
indicated.
Ms. Lee requests that an implementation program be added to Chapter XI indicating that the
City will adopt a Green Infrastructure Plan in accordance with the Municipal Regional
Stormwater NPDES Permit. As a Green Infrastructure Plan is a mandate, it should be reflected
in the implementation programs and will be added as submitted.
10. Danelle Rienks (October 29, 2018)
Ms. Rienks comments on the scarcity of affordable housing opportunities in Burlingame and
neighboring communities. Staff notes that the General Plan Update does not include an update
of the Housing Element, which was most recently updated in 2015. The Housing Element
includes a number of goals, policies, and programs intended to address housing matters for a
range of households and income groups. Implementation actions of the Housing Element
include the City’s adoption of commercial linkage fees to fund housing resource, involvement in
an affordable workforce and senior housing project on City-owned land in Downtown
Burlingame, and the inclusion of affordable units in projects that utilize the City’s Density Bonus
regulations.
11. Timothy Hooker (November 22, 2017)
Mr. Hooker notes that future decisions will be driven by vast volumes of data collected and that
Burlingame will need to have the technology infrastructure in place to facilitate this decision-
making. This issue is addressed in Chapter XII: Infrastructure under the topic of
Telecommunications.
12. Bob Disco, City Arborist (December 29, 2017)
The City arborist suggests revising Policy HP-5.8 as follows:
HP-5.8: Invasive Plant Species Prohibit the use of any invasive plant species in
landscaped or natural areas. Work with the California Invasive Plant Council to identify
invasive plant species within Burlingame, and Where species have already invaded,
establish plans for removal. Ensure that new development obtains appropriate permits and
approvals related to invasive species from the Army Corps of Engineers and other relevant
agencies.
4
13. Laurie Graham (no date)
Ms. Graham suggests including policy for bird-safe windows in new development. Staff is
familiar with bird-friendly design features and believes they could be practical in new
development. While consideration could be deferred to development review, staff suggests the
following policy be added to the Bayfront section of the Community Character Chapter:
CC-6.8: Bird-Friendly Design
To minimize adverse effects on native and migratory birds, incorporate design measures to
promote bird safety as part of development review. [DR]
14. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) (January 5, 2018)
The SFPUC raises objection to any land use designation change that affects its properties,
noting its intergovernmental immunity (that is, ability to regulate its own property no matter the
General Plan designation or zoning). The SFPUC also notes that any future use of properties
owned by the agency will be subject to the SFPUC’s Project Review Process.
The Parks and Recreation and Rail Corridor designations applied via the General Plan update
do not preclude SFPUC’s use of these properties for public utility purposes, particularly given
the statutory authority of SFPUC to regulate how the properties are used and developed.
With regard to any planned redesign of California Drive, at the time such occurs, SFPUC will be
consulted to the extent its properties are affected.
With regard to the Francard Eucalyptus Grove, any action by the City or SFPUC affecting the
grove could be subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) given the grove’s protected status. Regarding tree
preservation along California Drive, Policy HP-7.3 promotes such “wherever possible.”
15. Sierra Club Loma Prieta et al (January 9, 2018)
The letter addresses a proposed project at 1300 Bayshore Highway with regard to bird-friendly
design. However in the last paragraph of the letter, there is a request that the Envision
Burlingame General Plan include a bird-friendly design policy for all projects along the Bay.
Staff is familiar with bird-friendly design features and believes they could be practical in new
development. While consideration could be deferred to development review, staff suggests the
following policy be added to the Bayfront section of the Community Character Chapter:
CC-6.8: Bird-Friendly Design
Incorporate design measures to promote bird safety as part of development review to
minimize adverse effects on native and migratory birds. [DR]
5
16. John A. Matthews, Jr. (February 6, 2018)
Mr. Matthews requests that the property at 1764 Marco Polo Way, which is part of the proposed
Peninsula Wellness Community but is not owned by the Peninsula Health Care District, be
designated for multi-family use rather than Public/Institutional. The Draft General Plan had
anticipated that land use and zoning designations would be determined by the master plan.
However in consideration of the ongoing nature of the Peninsula Wellness Community and
uncertainty regarding which properties may ultimately be included, staff suggests that properties
not currently designated as “Unclassified” (the current General Plan and Zoning designation
applied to institutional sites) retain land use designations more consistent with current land use
and zoning designations as determined by the current North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific
Plan and Trousdale West (TW) Zoning, respectively.
Meanwhile, in an EIR comment letter (August 20, 2018), the Peninsula Health Care District has
indicated interest in a mixed-use land use designation more consistent with its plans for a mix of
senior residential, support services, office, and community uses, and has suggested that a
“North Burlingame Mixed Use Overlay” be designated for its properties.
Given these requests, staff suggests the following designations for the respective properties
rather than the Public/Institutional land use:
Address
Current
North Burlingame/Rollins
Road Land Use and Zoning
Designations
Proposed
General Plan Update
Designation
Properties fronting Trousdale Drive
1609 Trousdale Drive
1819 Trousdale Drive
1825 Trousdale Drive
1875 Trousdale Drive
Current Land Use: Mixed-
Use Office Residential
Current Zoning: Trousdale
West (TW)
Recommendation: North
Burlingame Mixed Use
Properties fronting Marco Polo Way
1720 Marco Polo Way
1730 Marco Polo Way
1740 Marco Polo Way
1764 Marco Polo Way
Current Land Use:
Residential – Medium-High
Density
Current Zoning: Trousdale
West (TW)
Recommendation: High
Density Residential
Alternatives: North
Burlingame Mixed Use; or
Medium-High Density
Residential
Peninsula Health Care District Properties
1801 Trousdale Drive
1811 Trousdale Drive
Land Use: Institutional
Zoning: Unclassified
Recommendation:
Public/Institutional with “North
Burlingame Mixed Use Overlay”
17. Greg Holtmann (March 28, 2018)
Mr. Holtmann suggests that a new hotel on the Bayfront on the State-owned property would
benefit Burlingame and that more intense housing and parking development be permitted in the
Broadway/California Drive area. Staff notes that the State Lands Commission is responsible for
determining which land use or mix of uses is proposed for its property, but that the land use
policy proposed in the General Plan would allow this development choice. Furthermore, the land
use policy proposed in the General Plan would allow for increased housing density in the
Broadway/California Drive area.
6
18. Jennifer Pfaff (July 5, 2018)
Ms. Pfaff questions whether Figure CC-3 shows the full extent of the historic El Camino Real
zone. The referenced figure is not intended to show the historic zone but instead the general
boundaries of particular land use study areas. For clarification, the historic tree grove extends
from Ray Drive to Peninsula Avenue, which in the referenced study area diagram corresponds
to both the El Camino Real and Downtowns study areas.
19. Kamran Ehsanipour, AIA (July 11, 2018)
Mr. Ehsanipour requests that the proposed land use designation for the property at 1501 El
Camino Real be changed from General Commercial to North Burlingame Mixed Use. Staff
supports an alternative land use designation to allow mixed use but recommends Broadway
Mixed Use, as the development scale is more appropriate and ground-floor commercial would
be required.
20. John Kevranian (August 14, 2018)
Mr. Kevranian requests that ferry service be addressed in the Mobility chapter. The General
Plan Community Character Chapter includes discussion, goals, and a policy relating to ferry
service:
Goal CC-5: Maintain and promote the Bayfront Area as a premier destination along San
Francisco Bay for land- and water-based recreation, hospitality uses, creative industries,
logistics support, water-based transit service, and local businesses that benefit from
proximity to San Francisco International Airport.
Goal CC-6: Establish a cohesive design character for the Bayfront Area that protects views
to the waterfront, encourages walking and biking, accommodates water-based recreation
and ferry service, and addresses sea level rise.
Policy CC-6.6: Water-based Activities – Accommodate access to the Bay for water-based
recreation and transit uses.
However, a specific ferry service proposal is not presented in the General Plan. While ferry
service was discussed during development of the General Plan, it was not included as a policy
matter in absence of a proposal. Nevertheless, Goal CC-6 could allow consideration of a ferry
proposal to be consistent with the General Plan should one be presented.
21. Joseph Baylock (August 30, 2018)
While Mr. Baylock’s letter comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the
letter was received after the conclusion of the EIR comment period on August 20, 2018. The
comments may be received and responded to as comments on the Draft General Plan, but
cannot be included in the Final EIR (FEIR).
7
Mr. Baylock’s letter addresses two areas of concern: water supply and project density.
Regarding water supply, the General Plan is obligated to plan for and evaluate water supply
within the context of the municipal and water service boundaries; however, overall water
availability is a regional concern. The Infrastructure Chapter (Chapter VII) of the Draft General
Plan includes a goal to ensure the long-term availability of water through conservation methods
and regular maintenance and improvements to the overall water supply delivery system.
Policies include maintaining and implementing the Urban Water Management Plan—which
outlines water conservation strategies and programs, as required by the State’s Water
Management Planning Act—and preparing and implementing a Water Shortage Allocation Plan
that for periods of system-wide shortage.
Regarding project density, Mr. Baylock suggests that the density of the high-density residential
land use (shown as “North Burlingame Mixed Use” on the Land Use Plan/Figure CC-1) should
be reduced to 100 du/acre, rather than increased to 140 du/ac as evaluated as an alternative in
the EIR. The Draft General Plan specifies 120 du/ac as the maximum for the North Burlingame
Mixed Use, with an alternative evaluated in the EIR to allow up to 140 du/ac. This is a policy
decision for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider in the public hearing
process. The evaluation of a density up 140 du/ac in the EIR would not preclude the Planning
Commission and City Council from specifying a lower density, whether 120 du/ac as specified in
the Draft General Plan, or a lower density.
22. Bryan Miranda, Public Storage (August 31, 2018)
Mr. Miranda indicates an interest by Public Storage to maintain and possibly expand its facilities
located within the proposed Rollins Road Live/Work area. As such, he has requested that self-
storage uses continue to be allowed under the Live/Work land use designation and its
respective zoning, and that a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than the 1.0 maximum proposed
for the Live/Work land use designation be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. He suggests
that self-storage uses have substantially less impacts than other commercial uses would have
(in terms of traffic, water supply, public services), and proposes that a FAR of 1.25 to 1.5 be
allowed with a Conditional Use Permit on a case-by-case basis.
Staff notes that the Live/Work land use description in the Draft General Plan allows long-
established industrial buildings and uses may remain, provided any new use proposed in an
existing industrial building is deemed compatible with live/work uses. Light industrial and
warehouse uses are mentioned as allowed uses.
Staff suggests that provisions for increased FAR for less-impactful land uses such as self-
storage be considered as a provision in the zoning regulations. Provided the provision
incorporates performance standards accounting for the reduced impact of the use, such a
provision could be consistent with the assumptions of land use intensity and impacts evaluated
in the General Plan EIR.
8
23. John Bergener, San Francisco International Airport (October 16, 2018)
Mr. Bergener notes three policies in the Community Safety Element of the Draft General Plan
that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the
Environs of San Francisco International Airport.
First, he notes that the Airport recommends that Policy CS-4-9 be revised to be consistent with
the Airport Influence Area (AlA) IP-1 Airport Influence Area A- Real Estate Disclosure Area, of
the CALUCP, to read:
Require that all new development, the real estate disclosure requirements of state law
apply. Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code requires people offering
subdivided property for sale or lease to disclose the presence of all existing and planned
airports within two miles of the property (Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code Section 11010(b)(13).
The law requires that, ifthe property is within an "airport influence area" designated by the
airport land use commission, the following statement must be included in the notice of
intention to offer the property for sale:
Notice of Airport in Vicinity
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an
airport influence areas. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the
annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example:
noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person
to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with
the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable
to you.
Staff suggests that Policy CS-9 be revised as proposed.
Second, he identifies a conflict with Policy CS-5.4, which proposes identifying setback areas
and parklands suitable for a wetland buffer. He notes that locating new wetlands in close
proximity to the Airport poses wildlife hazards to arriving and departing aircraft, and that a policy
recommending creation of wetlands would be inconsistent with the CALUCP, AP-4 Other Flight
Hazards are Incompatible, which states, " ... (f) Any use that creates an increased attraction for
wildlife, particularly large flocks of birds, that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations,
including, but not limited to, FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airpor ts,
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, and
any successor or replacement orders or advisory circulars.
Staff suggests deleting Policy CS-5.4 as requested. The remaining policies under Goal CS-5
(Protect vulnerable areas and infrastructure from flooding related to rising sea levels in the San
Francisco Bay) can address rising sea levels without creating hazards for airport operations.
Third, he recommends that Policy CS-8.3 be revised to clearly state that the Airport Land Use
Commission review is to determine whether the proposed action is consistent or not consistent
with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), with the Airport Land Use Commission
(C/CAG Board) Consistency Determination Process. Staff suggests Policy CS-8.3 be revised to
read:
9
Policy CS-8.3: Airport Land Use Commission Review
Ensure all applicable plans, ordinances, and development applications are reviewed by the
City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County's Airport Land Use
Commission as required by State law to determine whether the proposed action is
consistent or not consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), with the
Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board) Consistency Determination Process.
EXHIBIT B
General Plan Update
Public Review Draft
Public Comments
1
From:Kris Cannon
Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:51 AM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:Re: CAC Meeting #18 Agenda - tomorrow
Hi Kevin,
Sorry to miss the meeting tonight. I have just reread the draft and think it is a very good document.
Lots and lots of good work here.
The Implementation Program chapter is very impressive. Sorry I can't hear the comments from the
group.
I do have a few recommendations for additions under EE, realizing that this is a late time to add
things. But I feel that the absence of acknowledgement of the library’s importance in our future should
be reinforced.
In reality the library, its programs and resources, are a major contribution to the good life in
Burlingame. More people use the library, as a meeting and resource place, than any other institution.
It is a magnet for ALL kinds of Burlingame citizens.
Somewhere we need to say, the library is our community’s resource for information.
The changes and technological advances will come, the library will include them and give people the
information no matter what medium.
Should be a mention that there are two public libraries in Burlingame, both Main Library and
Easton Branch (perhaps in descriptions of the two neighborhoods?).
Both are historic buildings.
Under Education and Life Long Learning
EE – 1.10 Library facilities (meeting rooms for small and large group, students and public) are
available for public use.
“research technology improvements as available” and as needed.
EE – 1.12 Increase access to literacy programs for all age groups. (this means reading and getting
information, no matter in what medium)
EE-1.13 . pEE4. Include support for existing foundation (Burlingame Library Foundation – which has
been a large growing annual financial support for the library since 1995) . Surely the existing
foundation should be mentioned if we are mentioning things like fees.
Thanks for the opportunity for input.
Kris Cannon
(in Paris)
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:06 PM, CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner <kgardiner@burlingame.org> wrote:
2
Hello Community Advisory Committee Members:
Attached is the agenda for our final CAC meeting, tomorrow night August 30th at 7:00 at the
recreation center. We’re having the meeting in the “Art Room” at the far end of the corridor since that
seemed to work nicely last time. We’ll have signs posted to help find the way.
Tomorrow night we’ll be discussing the Public Review Draft of the General Plan and the upcoming
community workshop in October. In particular, we’ll be discussing the Implementation Programs
chapter (Chapter XI) since this is new. As you review the draft, please take an extra moment to
review the programs in this chapter and come prepared with your questions and comments.
We’ll also be demonstrating an example of the “ePlan” which will be a fully web-based version of the
General Plan. This will allow users to easy navigate between topics, policies, programs, and cross
references. It creates a dynamic, user-friendly experience so that it’s truly a “living plan” that people
can use every day.
The Public Review Draft can be downloaded from the documents page on the Envision Burlingame
website:
http://www.envisionburlingame.org/app_pages/view/17
We know some people like to review documents on their screens, and others prefer hard copies. If
you’d like to have us print you a hard copy, please let me know and I’ll arrange to have for you to pick
up at City Hall, or we’ll bring it for you to the meeting. But please let me know ahead of time, as we’re
just printing copies as they are requested.
Please let me know if you have any questions before tomorrow night’s meeting, or if you’d like to
obtain a hard copy of the draft.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division
501 Primrose Road | Burlingame, CA 94010
Tel. 650.558.7253 | Fax 650.696.3790 | kgardiner@burlingame.org
From:hhdaley
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Cc:Justin Moresco;Terry Nagel;kmschmidt
Subject:Comments: General Plan, Chapter 8 - Emergency Prep, DR, Community Resilience
Date:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:27:16 PM
Hello Kevin,
Knowing how busy you are, I also thank you (along with Justin Moresco) for the opportunity to provide General
Plan comments to you via email.
It is very exciting and encouraging to see resiliency and safety featured in our City's core plan. I am an original
member of the Burlingame Neighborhood Network board, and my professional background is in corporate risk
management.
Highlighted in yellow are points of particular interest. My questions/comments are in blue. These are specific
to Chapter 8 (below).
Essentially:
Chapter 8 does a terrific job defining the What.
Suggest defining the owners/Who would be helpful to clarify accountability and promote achievement.
Thank you, Kevin.
Regards,
Holly Daley
BNN
2117 Poppy Drive
Burlingame
Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Response and
Community Resilience
Burlingame—like all cities in the Bay Area—is exposed to a variety of natural and
human-caused hazards that require consideration in emergency response planning.
The environmental features that contribute to Burlingame’s scenic qualities and great
places to enjoy nature have been created by earthquake faults, steep slopes, wooded
hillsides, and San Francisco Bay, all of which pose potential hazards. Catastrophic
earthquakes, landslides, flooding, wildland and urban fires, and liquefaction
represent natural hazards that must be addressed in any planning process. Human-
caused hazards include energy instability and threats of terrorism.
Preparing for potential disasters and having adequate response strategies in place are
not solely the responsibility of our government, although we place a high degree of
reliance upon local, regional, statewide, and national agencies and systems. We
anticipate that proper emergency preparedness and disaster response from
government agencies means that they will have the necessary equipment and
resources to respond to a disaster and to maintain public health and welfare without
regular services (such as water and electricity) during the following recovery period.
We also recognize that having a resilient community enables a city to recover more
quickly from a disaster and that private businesses, individual citizens and volunteer
organizations and associations play a critical role. In the event of a major disaster
city emergency responders and city resources will be focused on the major incidents
and infrastructure and residents will need to be able to support each other from 24 up
to 72 or more hours.
This goal and supporting policies are designed to prepare residents and businesses
for disasters, and to ensure that the City of Burlingame and other government
agencies are ready to respond to protect lives and property in the event of an
emergency, and to build a more resilient community.
CS-3.1: Emergency Management Plan
HD question: Is this plan 'owned' by CCFD or City Manager or Planning Manager?
Maintain a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that outlines the City’s
responsibilities and procedures in an emergency. Ensure the plan integrates needed
coordination between the City and neighborhoods, schools, churches, businesses, and
hotels.
CS-3.2: Emergency Drills
HD question: Not sure who is coordinating, i.e. is City or CCFD working with
schools to assure annual student ShakeOut drills, or is City or CCFD conducting
training with any businesses/Rotary/Chamber groups, is this part of City or CCFD's
mandate (v. an objective)? Is City Manager evaluating said testing results of the ER
plan? Is there a specific frequency, i.e. annually? Assume this is in addition to the
citywide exercise BNN has been coordinating with residential blocks which, Kevin,
we would love to invite you to join (90-minutes on 10/14).
Coordinate with partner agencies—such as neighboring cities, schools and colleges,
businesses, and community organizations—and residents and neighborhoods to
conduct emergency and disaster preparedness exercises that test emergency response
plans.
CS-3.3: Public Education
HD comment: As a community group which helps provide this public education,
BNN has been appreciative of City funding in recent years which helps offset our
personal expenses. Thank you.
Provide public education for individuals, schools, and community groups to promote
citizen awareness and preparedness for self-action in case of a major disaster or
emergency. [PI]
CS-3.4: Emergency Preparedness Kits
HD comment: Thank you for recognizing and supporting the pursuit of funding for
such supplies.
Encourage all residents and businesses to prepare and maintain emergency kits with
enough supplies to be self-sufficient for three to seven days. Support establishing
emergency caches at the neighborhood and business level by partnering with
community organizations pursuing funding. [PI]
CS-3.5: Community Emergency Response Training
HD question: This seems CERT specific, thus, owned by CCFD, and accountable to
whom - the City? Who owns this neighborhood communication plan? Would Rik,
BNN or HAMs receive resources if expected to develop this (rather help CCFD
develop it)? This sounds like Rik and Suzanne's show!
Maintain a volunteer-based Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) and
related emergency response training programs, and ongoing refresher exercises.
Establish and maintain a communication and deployment plan for CERTs during a
disaster and align the plan with neighborhood communication plans. [SO/FB/PI]
CS-3.6: Energy Assurance Plan
Develop, maintain, and implement a citywide Energy Assurance Plan that documents
the energy needs of critical City and community facilities and functions, establishes
goals and actions to increase energy resiliency during disasters, and prioritizes the
use of renewable energy or other sustainable technologies to reduce dependency on
the grid during power outages. [SO/MP]
CS-3.7: Mutual Aid Agreements
Participate in mutual aid agreements to ensure adequate resources, facilities, and
other support for emergency response. [AC]
CS-3.8: Rail Agency Coordination
Coordinate with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and the
California High Speed Rail Authority to ensure that new train services, including
electrification and higher speeds, do not result in overburdened safety risks to the
community both in terms of infrastructure and access (e.g., rail street crossing
closures). [AC]
CS-3.9: Mass Communications Device
Obtain, maintain, and regularly upgrade a mass communications system to
effectively notify people during disasters and emergencies by using current
communication technologies. [PI]
CS-3.10: Community Resiliency Officer
HD question: Hooray! Especially in the wake of Houston. Would this be full-time;
reporting to City Manager v. CCFD?
Create a Community Resiliency Officer position at the City that would be
responsible for:
Leading community engagement and education about safety, disaster
preparation and resilience;
Bringing resources together, such as HAMS, CERT, BNA, CCFD, BFD,
City Manager, and City Council;
Bringing best regional, state and national practices to Burlingame; and
Developing recommendations to mitigate identified risks. [SO] CS-3.11:
Emergency Preparedness Activities and Communications
Publish and promote emergency preparedness activities and drills. Use the
City social media, and the website to provide safety tips that may include
identifying and correcting household hazards, knowing how and when to turn
off utilities, helping family members protect themselves during and after an
earthquake, recommending neighborhood preparation activities, and advising
residents to maintain an emergency supply kit containing first-aid supplies,
food, drinking water and battery operated radios and flashlights. [PI]
CS-3.12: Neighborhood Response Groups
HD question: Again, is this a City Manager commitment of resources (v. CCFD)?
Participate in Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training and consider
training neighborhood groups to care for themselves during disasters. To this end,
actively assist in neighborhood drills and safety exercises to increase participation
and build community support. [FB/PI]
CS-3.13: Dependent Populations
Coordinate with State agencies that oversee facilities for persons with disabilities,
and those with access and functional needs, to ensure that such facilities conform to
all health and safety requirements, including emergency planning, training, exercises
and employee education. [AC]
CS-3.14: Foreign Language Emergency Information
Obtain translated emergency preparedness materials and make them available to
appropriate foreign language populations. [PI]
From:Justin Moresco
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Cc:Terry Nagel; Kathy Schmidt; Holly Daley
Subject:Recommended edits to draft General Plan
Date:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 7:42:26 AM
Hello Kevin,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the draft General Plan. Unfortunately, I
can't make this Wednesday's meeting, so I'm sending my feedback via email.
You and I have exchanged emails about the draft plan before. To provide a bit of context, I'm
a structural engineer, so I've focused my comments on the residential upgrades section of the
plan. I was also a Burlingame Neighborhood Network board member for three years.
CS-7.2 Residential Upgrades
Require that any residential facility that is being increased more than 50 percent assessed value or physical
size conform to all provisions of the current building code throughout the entire structure. Encourage owners
of residential buildings with known structural defects such as unreinforced garage openings, “soft story”
construction, unbolted foundations, and inadequate sheer walls to take steps to remedy the problem by
retrofitting buildings to meet current, “life-safety” engineering standards. and bring buildings up to the
current building code. Form an ad hoc committee to investigate, before the end of 2020, and describe the
seismic risk posed by pre-1980 wood frame “soft story” buildings in Burlingame and to evaluate the costs
and benefits of potential actions that could be pursued by the City. The ad hoc committee shall report its
findings to the City Council before the end of 2020.
I suggest removing "current building codes" in the second sentence because this would include all sorts of things,
like plumbing and electrical provisions, unrelated to safety. The "life-safety" standard is what we're after and is
widely recognized within the engineering community. There are engineering standards that could be referenced and
used by the city. You could extend this argument to the first sentence, too. But in this case, since it's in the context
of a major upgrade, it perhaps makes more sense to require meeting the current building code. I'd be curious to
know what the current Burlingame Building Code requires as I'm sure there is some reference in there about large
upgrades triggering improvements elsewhere in the building. Again, if our intent is safety, it might make sense to
dial this requirement back a bit. As it stands -- depending on what the current building code requires -- this could
have a significant effect on many projects across the city, which in turn might garner a lot of pushback from the real
estate industry. A compromise here might be to say that the entire structure must meet current, life-safety standards,
similar to the second sentence, but in this case it becomes a requirement rather than an encouragement.
I suggest a change in the language at the end just to make it clear that the entire study described would need to be
completed by 2020. In the current language, one could interpret the 2020 target to not include the costs and benefits
portion.
Thank you,
Justin
1
From:Kris Cannon
Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 2:26 PM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:Re: CAC Meeting #18 Agenda - tomorrow
Hi Kevin,
Small correction
IP 73
It's Burlingame School District
not unified - that indicates a K-12 district.
Kris Cannon
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:06 PM, CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner <kgardiner@burlingame.org> wrote:
Hello Community Advisory Committee Members:
Attached is the agenda for our final CAC meeting, tomorrow night August 30th at 7:00 at the
recreation center. We’re having the meeting in the “Art Room” at the far end of the corridor since that
seemed to work nicely last time. We’ll have signs posted to help find the way.
Tomorrow night we’ll be discussing the Public Review Draft of the General Plan and the upcoming
community workshop in October. In particular, we’ll be discussing the Implementation Programs
chapter (Chapter XI) since this is new. As you review the draft, please take an extra moment to
review the programs in this chapter and come prepared with your questions and comments.
We’ll also be demonstrating an example of the “ePlan” which will be a fully web-based version of the
General Plan. This will allow users to easy navigate between topics, policies, programs, and cross
references. It creates a dynamic, user-friendly experience so that it’s truly a “living plan” that people
can use every day.
The Public Review Draft can be downloaded from the documents page on the Envision Burlingame
website:
http://www.envisionburlingame.org/app_pages/view/17
2
We know some people like to review documents on their screens, and others prefer hard copies. If
you’d like to have us print you a hard copy, please let me know and I’ll arrange to have for you to pick
up at City Hall, or we’ll bring it for you to the meeting. But please let me know ahead of time, as we’re
just printing copies as they are requested.
Please let me know if you have any questions before tomorrow night’s meeting, or if you’d like to
obtain a hard copy of the draft.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division
501 Primrose Road | Burlingame, CA 94010
Tel. 650.558.7253 | Fax 650.696.3790 | kgardiner@burlingame.org
Commented [JP1]:
Commented [JP2]:
ANZA EXPEDITION CAMP - The Anza Expedition of 1776, on its way up the peninsula to locate sites for
the Presidio and Mission of San Francisco, camped here on March 26 at a dry watercourse a short league
beyond Arroyo de San Mateo. Historical Location: El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue.
1
THIS SECTION IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO EDIT IN WORD!! PLEASE SEE STICKY FOR CORRECTION LINE 6:
Commented [JP1]: Line 6 edit: “’stations built
between 1890s and 1920s established…..(REPLACES
incorrect “in the”)
5
▪
▪
Commented [JP2]: 904 Bayswater (condos) only has
6 units, so the photo belongs in the Medium density,
rather than the medium/high.
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt
11
▪
▪
Commented [JP3]: CANNOT EDIT PARAGRAPH
FOLLOWING< BUT THERE ARE NO DENSITIES SET
FOR IN DSP. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE, SO, THIS
EITHER SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, OR THERE
NEEDS TO BE POLICIES OF DENSITY TO GO
ALONG WITH THIS.
25
CC- 2.4
n
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
▪
This section CC-26 and CC-27 has a number of errors in it and this chapter will not allow me to edit. SEE
FOLLOWING SUGGESTED EDITED SECTION IN ITALICS:
Burlingame has a rich history as one of the earliest complete communities on the
Peninsula. San Francisco residents of the late 1800s wishing to escape the city’s cold, foggy
summers built grand estates in Burlingame where they enjoyed sunny weather and beautiful
wooded landscapes. Development of the town proceeded slowly in the 1890s with the
27
establishment of the Burlingame Country Club, and the construction of a train station in
1893-4 on a route that extended from San Francisco to San Jose. The station was the first
permanent structure in the United States built in the Mission Revival architectural style. By
the turn of the century, the area featured many estates owned by families drawn by the
proximity of San Francisco and the Burlingame Country Club. The first residential
subdivision of the area, “Town of Burlingame,” was completed in 1896, consisting of
hundreds of parcels generally 50 feet wide and 150 deep. The settlement grew slowly until
1906 when the San Francisco earthquake and fires forced many people to leave San
Francisco in search of new homes. By then, a handful of modest businesses had been
established in close vicinity to the station, in what became known as known as Burlingame
Square, clearly defining the center of this growing community. By 1908, over a dozen
additional subdivisions had been recorded in Burlingame.
27
FIGURE CC-2: IDENTIFIES THE FIVE (not four)……..
Commented [JP6]: Line 4, remove “and” after El
Camino Real, replace with COMMA, put Comma after
Severn Lodge Dairy and ADD “ANZA EXPEDITION
CAMP SITE”
Commented [JP1]:
Commented [JP2]:
Commented [JP3]:
1
From:Jean Hastie
Sent:Monday, September 25, 2017 8:34 AM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:A Request
I’ve read through the Draft General Plan posted on the web site. Kudos on an incredible document and representation of
so much thought, research, and planning.
If possible, I would like to request that the reference to Mercy Center on page INT-11 be changed from Mercy Center
Burlingame to Sisters of Mercy. Mercy Center is a program entity within the Sisters of Mercy organization. There could
be some sensitivity around reference to Mercy Center rather than the acdtual organization, i.e. Sisters of Mercy. Thanks
for understanding.
Jean
Jean Hastie
WMW Special Projects Administrator
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, West Midwest Community
Office: 650.340.7441
Sun, Oct 15th 2017, 08:30
Name:
Terry Nagel
Email:
Subject:
Civic engagement, safety, environmental progress
Comment:
Civic Engagement (EE-3) I was surprised at the brevity of the "Civic Engagement" section of
the draft GP. Burlingame is known for involving community members in all major decisions. We
have a method that some have dubbed "The Burlingame Way" which involves inviting
representatives from key stakeholder groups (one rep and one backup from each) in a 12- or
18-month Working Group to map out solutions or plans. In order for the meetings to go forward,
one rep or alternate must be present from every group. We used that method for resolving the
Safeway roadblock, creating our Downtown Plan, designing the Burlingame Avenue train
station and other projects. I believe you even used it for drafting the GP and the city currently
has a group like this working on a long-term plan for El Camino Real in Burlingame. I suggest
emphasizing our city's commitment to civic engagement through Working Groups, surveys,
focus groups, presentations to community groups, workshops and public forums. I would add
language about the channels we use for outreach, which include our city newsletter, messages
included with water bills, snail mail, the city's website and social media. I would like to see the
group establish a goal of reviving the free, 9-month Burlingame Citizens' Academy, which
featured a different department head explaining how the city works. It created a lot of goodwill
and "ambassadors" for our city who helped educate their neighbors about city issues. Safety
Under CS-2.2, Fire Prevention Education, I would add schoolchildren as one of the groups that
CCFD educates about fire safety. I believe CCFD works with elementary-age children to plot
safe exits in their homes. CS-2.9 - Shouldn't the rule about ensuring access to city alleys also
include alleys in residential neighborhoods? CS-3.4 - Again, schoolchildren should be included
because I believe CCFD invites children to inventory their family preparedness kits. (At least
they used to!) It is the incentive that gets many people to build emergency kits. The goal of
establishing emergency caches is an excellent one. CS-3.5 - CERT - An excellent goal. At the
present time, volunteers are providing CERT refresher courses, meetings and newsletters, not
the city or CCFD.c Environmental Progress I haven't read the entire GP yet, but I want to make
sure there is something in the GP about specific deadlines for updating the Climate Action
Plan, annual reports to the City Council and public about progress on CAP objectives, and a
commitment to renewable energy for all city operations. Thank you!
Sun, Oct 15th 2017, 08:51
Name:
Terry Nagel
Email:
Subject:
Liquefaction map
Comment:
Figure CS-6, showing liquefaction zones, is a real surprise to me. The red zones extend farther
than I thought and the orange zones (moderate liquefaction risk) penetrate pretty far inland. I
think the city should add a goal of notifying people who live in these zones of the increased
danger during earthquakes. Thanks again!
1
CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
From:CY/Yard-Jennifer Lee
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:17 AM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:General Plan Comments
Hi Kevin,
I have just reviewed the latest draft of the General Plan and it looks fantastic! I have some comments on the document
and I was wondering if you could relay them to your consultant. There are 23 comments in there which should be
viewable on the comment toolbar. Hopefully these should be easy edits to incorporate, about half are formatting‐
related.
One major addition that I would like to get added is the Green Infrastructure Plan in the Implementation Programs
section at the end. Since this section already lists a number of Plans and documents, I think it would be fitting to also
include the GI Plan.
L:\Stormwater\Burlingame_Public_Draft_August2017_ALL‐searchable_JLcomments.pdf
Please let me know if you have any comments. Thanks!
Jennifer Lee
Environmental Regulatory Compliance Coordinator
City of Burlingame
1361 N. Carolan Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 558‐7381 | jlee@burlingame.org
Sign up for eNews
I. INTRODUCTION
INT-2 | CITY OF BURLINGAME
The types of housing available in the community
Use and protection of natural resources
The provision of public safety services and protection against
natural and human-caused hazards (including noise) in the city
Preparation of a general plan is also subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which means that local jurisdictions
must analyze and mitigate (where necessary) the plan’s significant
environmental impacts.
About Envision Burlingame
Envision Burlingame is the community-led planning process that guided
development of the Burlingame General Plan. When the City initiated the
Envision Burlingame process in 2015, it had not comprehensively updated
the General Plan in over 30 years. Envision Burlingame presented the
unique opportunity to engage the entire Burlingame community and ask:
“How do we want Burlingame to look, function, and feel 25 years from
now?” The process had three broad objectives:
1. DDevelop a v isio n fo r Burl in game, with particular attention paid
to the topics of stability and opportunities for desired change.
2. UUpdate polici es and regulations to ensure they address all
applicable regional, State, and federal requirements.
3. CCr e a te an updat ed a n d di git a l Ge ner a l Plan that is easily
accessed, understood, and applied by residents, property and
business owners, and decision makers.
Envision Burlingame was a robust community-driven process that
included multiple community workshops and surveys, a Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) that met 18 times over the two-plus-year
process, and extensive input from the Burlingame Planning Commission
and City Council. The effort also made a priority of engaging the “next
generation” with involvement from local Burlingame high school
students, as well as students from area universities. A summary of the 1
Summary of Comments on
Burlingame_Public_Draft_August2017_ALL-
searchable_JLcomments.pdf
Page: 1
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/25/2017 1:58:22 PM
attending nearby
ENVISION BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | INT-5
Plan Chapters
Community Character
The Community Character chapter fulfills State requirements for the Land
Use Element, and identifies policies to focus growth in targeted areas to
preserve Burlingame’s historic and single-family neighborhoods, the
character of El Camino Real, the jobs base along the Bayfront and Rollins
Road, and commercial districts of Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. This
chapter is organized around areas of stability and areas of change,
highlighting the unique characteristics, land uses, and design aesthetics
of each Burlingame district.
Economic Development
The Economic Development chapter addresses a topic emphasized by
community members, but is not required by law. This chapter provides
policies to diversify the economic base and expand employment
opportunities by attracting new and retaining existing businesses.
Mobility
The Mobility chapter fulfills State requirements for the Circulation
Element, and outlines policies to improve all modes of travel throughout
Burlingame, with an increased emphasis on improvement for cyclists and
pedestrians. Particular attention is focused on California Drive, with the
aim of better accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists. Attention is also
given to the importance of better connections across Highway 101 for all
travel modes.
Infrastructure
The Infrastructure chapter addresses topics required for the Circulation
Element: water supply storage and delivery, wastewater collection and
treatment, flood control, solid waste management, and
telecommunications.
Community Safety
The Community Safety chapter meets State requirements for the Safety
and Noise Elements. This chapter establishes goals and policies
1
Page: 2
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/25/2017 2:01:03 PM
stormwater management,
ENVISION BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | CX-3
dates to 1917, when the Hillsborough-based Severn Lodge Dairy opened
a distribution plant at 220 California Drive. The wall was restored by the
Burlingame Historical Society and listed a point of interest on the
California Register in 2004.
In addition to specifically designated historic sites, Burlingame is home to
entire neighborhoods that provide a cohesive historic fabric that is
important to preserve. The Burlingame General Plan includes policies to
preserve and enhance designated historic sites, and to identify additional
buildings, landscapes, and districts to be includes as designated
resources.
Context and Community Profile
Geographic Context
The City of Burlingame is located on the San Francisco Peninsula, about
10 miles south of San Francisco. The corporate city limits encompass
approximately 5.8 square miles, of which 76 percent (4.4 square miles)
consists of developable land and the remaining 24 percent waters of San
Francisco Bay (approximately 1.3 square miles) and the Mills Canyon
Preserve (0.15 square miles). See FFigure CX-1.
Sphere of Influence
A city’s sphere of influence refers to adjacent unincorporated areas that
receive or may in the future receive services from the city and may
become part of the city. The San Mateo County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) identifies the unincorporated residential
neighborhood of Burlingame Hills as within Burlingame’s sphere of
influence (see Figure CX-2 ).
Burlingame Planning Area
A general plan, pursuant to State law, must address all areas within the
jurisdiction’s planning area. The planning area for the Burlingame
General Plan includes all properties within the incorporated city limits and
1
Page: 3
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/25/2017 2:12:41 PM
are
VII. INFRASTRUCTURE
IIF-4 | CITY OF BURLINGAME
community. In 2004, the City prepared a Water System Master Plan that
identified deficiencies within the water system and prioritized
improvement projects to ensure the long-term integrity of the water
system. Due to aging water system infrastructure, long-term projections
for completion of improvements and annual upkeep and replacement of
the system are constant necessities.
Given California’s history of severe droughts and projected increases in
the Bay Area population through 2040 and beyond, water conservation is
critical for ensuring that future demands can be met sustainability. Prior to
the drought of 2011-2016, Burlingame water users consumed
approximately 3.0 to 5.5 million gallons per day of potable water. As of
July 2015, that level had dropped significantly, to approximately 2.4 to 4.6
million gallons per day. The conservation achievement was spurred both
by a statewide mandate imposed by Governor Jerry Brown and collective
voluntary water conservation efforts by community members. However,
water use in the city is projected to rise to approximately 5.22 million
gallons per day by 2040(accounting for both residential and
nonresidential users). As of 2016, the City had a water supply assurance
agreement from the SFPUC to receive an allotment of 5.23 million gallons
per day on an annual average. While the allotments are negotiated on a
scheduled basis, with Burlingame having the ability to request an
increased supply, rising water costs and the almost finite water supply
means that increased future conservation measures will be needed to
ensure supplies remain available.
The following goal and policies aim to improve the overall function and
reliability of the water system and to encourage water conservation by all
users.
2040(accounting
forts
dto
1
2
Page: 4
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/25/2017 4:50:14 PM
missing space
Number: 2 Author: jlee Subject: Highlight Date: 10/25/2017 4:50:03 PM
ENVISION BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | IIF-9
Burlingame/Ralston, Sanchez/Terrace, Mills and El Portal/Trousdale.
Annual storm drain fees assessed to all properties fund the $39 million in
bonds sold to finance identified improvements through 2039 (see F igure
I F -3). The improvement program is specifically designed to help increase
storm drainage capacity, replace aging pipes and pumps, improve public
safety, and reduce local flooding.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
agency responsible for preparing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs),
Burlingame is located primarily within Zone X 0.2, which means there is a
0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard (referred to as a 500-year storm
event), and partially within Zone X - Area of Minimal Flood Hazard.
Properties along certain creeks and on the Bayside of Highway 101 lie
within Zone A, Zone AE, Zone AH, and Zone VE, all of which have
mandatory flood insurance requirements. Figure IF-4 shows the flood
zones in Burlingame.
Due to the age of the regional system, many of the storm drain systems
have a 10-year design storm capacity, not the standard 30-year capacity
for regional facilities. Some local storm drain systems also have less than
a two-year design storm capacity, where the standard is also 10 years. In
addition to these flood concerns, the City will be subject to flooding over
time due to sea level rise, as outlined in the Safety Element. Flood
protection improvements represent critical infrastructure investments
needed to protect life and property and encourage continued private
economic investment throughout Burlingame.
Goal I F -4:Protect people and property from the adverse effects
of flooding through a stormwater system that adequately moves
runoff from existing and future development, prevents property
damage due to flooding, and improves environmental quality.
I F -4.1: St or m D rai n Infrast ruc tu re M a intenance
Ensure that local storm drain infrastructure is sufficiently maintained to
minimize flood hazards. [MP, SO]
1 2
3
Page: 5
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/25/2017 4:58:39 PM
As a requirement of our stormwater permit, the City needs to develop and implement a Green Infrastructure Plan that will describe how we
will shift our impervious surfaces and storm drain infrastructure from gray (or traditional storm drains, culverts, and pipes) where runoff flows
directly into storm drain and then to receiving waters, to green (a more resilient, sustainable system that slows runoff by dispersing it to
vegetated areas).
As such, our goal should reflect that we are moving away from creating new storm drains and pipes as the default for moving stormwater, but
instead use vegetation to capture and harvest the rainwater as a resource.
Number: 2 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/25/2017 4:53:27 PM
captures and treats
Number: 3 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/25/2017 4:53:37 PM
water
ENVISION BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | IIF-11
I F -4.7: D iv e rsio n
Require new development to be designed to prevent the diversion of
stormwater onto neighboring parcels. [DR, SO]
I F -4.8: R a inw a ter Har ves ting
Encourage the use of rainwater harvesting facilities, techniques, and
improvements where appropriate, cost effective, safe, and
environmentally sustainable as a way to reduce urban runoff and
stormwater flows into the storm drain system. [DR, PI]
I F -4.9: P ol lut ion P reventi on
Prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system by managing
point and non-point pollution sources through public and private
facilities, local regulations, and education.
Solid Waste and Recycling
Burlingame contracts with a private vendor for solid waste and recycling
services. Under California law, the vendor, working in concert with the
City, is required to divert waste from landfills (recycle and reduce) to
achieve State waste reduction and pollution prevention goals.
Burlingame residents, businesses, and local institutions have shown a
clear commitment to reducing the waste stream, having achieved a 60
percent waste diversion rate as of 2016. The City has led by example
through its Environmental Purchasing Policy and sponsorship of zero
waste City events. Even with the tremendous success the City has
achieved, additional waste reduction will be attained through increased
recycling opportunities, new goals and programs for businesses and
institutions, more home composting, and sustainable purchasing
practices that extend to residents and businesses.
For additional policies related to solid waste reduction and recycling,
refer to the Healthy People and Healthy Places Element.
12
Page: 6
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/26/2017 9:45:31 AM
Add program categories
Number: 2 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/26/2017 9:45:10 AM
[DR, SO, PI]
ENVISION BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | CS-13
future noise contours for Burlingame and key areas were noise is
anticipated to be an issue currently or in the future.
Vibration concerns are like noise concerns because excessive or
prolonged exposure to vibration can result in adverse health impacts. In
Burlingame, train operations produce vibrations that affect properties
along the rail line.
The following goal and policies aim to minimize human exposure to
excessive noise by evaluating noise exposure risks, planning placement of
new land uses in consideration of the noise environment, and
incorporating appropriate mitigation measures on a project-by-project
basis.
GGoal CS-4: Protect residents and visitors to Burlingame from
excessive noise
and disruptive ground vibration.
CS-4 .1 : Loc a ti n g Noi se-sen si ti ve Uses
Locate noise-sensitive uses such as homes, schools, hospitals, libraries,
religious institutions and convalescent homes away from major sources of
noise. [DR]
CS-4 .2: Resid ent ial No is e S tan dard s
Require the design of new residential development to comply with the
following noise standards:
The maximum acceptable interior noise level for all new
residential units (single-family, duplex, mobile home, multi-family,
and mixed use units) shall be an Ldn of 45 dB with windows
closed.
For project locations that are primarily exposed to noise from
aircraft, Caltrain, and BART operations, the maximum
instantaneous noise level in bedrooms shall not exceed 50dB(A) at
night (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.), and the maximum instantaneous
1
Page: 7
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/26/2017 8:55:07 AM
move phrase "and disruptive ground vibration." up one line
ENVISION BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | HP-11
HHP -3.12: C onst ruc tio n Best Pr act ices
Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s Best Practices for Construction to reduce pollution
from dust and exhaust as feasible.
Parks, Open Space, and Recreation
Parks and recreation facilities provide places where people can be
physically active, gather as a community, recreate, learn and participate in
the greater community. Active park spaces include sports fields, game
courts and playgrounds. Open spaces and natural areas support
biodiversity, allow for the management of water and other natural
resources, and offer opportunities for residents to be in and learn about
nature. Burlingame has a diversity of open spaces, with most
neighborhoods having relatively easy access to a neighborhood park or
playground or the Mills Canyon Wildlife Area. Along the Bayfront, the
Bayside fields, community garden, Bayside Dog Exercise Park, golf
driving range, and Bay Trail offer places that attract not just Burlingame
residents but visitors from other communities. And while the Bayfront
amenities are separated from the rest of Burlingame by Highway 101, the
policies in the Mobility Element include initiatives to improve pedestrian
and bicycle access across the freeway.
F igure H P-1 identifies neighborhoods where residents are not within
one-quarter or one-half mile from a park, distances considered to be
walkable and bikeable. The Easton Addition neighborhood lacks ready
access to park space, with the exception of fields at Roosevelt Elementary
School. Open space in Downtown, where land use policy will allow for
construction of up to1,200 new units (from baseline year 2016), is limited
to a small playground on Primrose Road within Downtown itself;
otherwise, the nearest park is Washington Park to the east. With the
addition of residences at the north end of town—on El Camino Real and
Rollins Road—additional open space amenities will be needed to create
complete communities and respond to new residents’ desires for
gathering and recreation spaces. Because Burlingame has virtually no
1
Page: 8
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/25/2017 5:06:28 PM
connect with
IX. HEALTHY PEOPLE AND HEALTHY PLACES
HP-22 | CITY OF BURLINGAME
HHP-6.6: R e gi onal St ormw a ter M a n a ge me n t
Continue to follow requirements for the Municipal Regional Stormwater
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to
monitor stormwater activities, reduce pollution from stormwater runoff,
and provide annual reports on compliance activities. [AC, S , H]
HP -6.7: St or mw a ter Co n vey ance Syst em
Identify opportunities to upgrade and improve the City’s stormwater
conveyance system (MS4). [SO, S , H]
HP-6.8: Water-E f f icient Land sc a ping
Continue to enforce Burlingame’s Water-Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance, and promote the use of native, drought-tolerant landscaping.
Educate the public about the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Guidelines and
other resources for water-efficient landscaping. [PI, S , H]
HP-6.9: Gr e e n In f ras tr uc ture
Adopt and implement a Green Infrastructure Plan in accordance with the
Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit. Incorporate green infrastructure into streets and right-of-
ways wherever practicable, including curb extensions, flow-through
planters, and bioswales that slows stormwater runoff by dispersing it to
vegetated areas, harvests and uses runoff, promotes infiltration and
evapotranspiration, and uses bioretention to clean runoff.
HP-6.10: New Dev el opm ent a n d C on s truc tio n
Regulate new development and construction to minimize pollutant and
sediment concentrations in receiving waters, and ensure surface water
discharged into the San Francisco Bay meets or exceeds relevant
regulatory water quality standards. Require new development to
incorporate Low Impact Design features that treat and reduce surface
runoff volumes. [DR, S, H]
1 2
Page: 9
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/26/2017 10:00:12 AM
[DR, SO, PI]
Number: 2 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/26/2017 10:00:23 AM
Add implementation categories
XI. IMPLEMENTATION
IP-10 | CITY OF BURLINGAME
II mp l em enting Program
Estim at ed Timefr ame(s) 5 Years 10 Years15+ Years Annual On-going Responsible Department(s) Public Works
Supporting Department(s)
Police
Partner(s)
Funding Source(s) General Fund, Grants
IP-18 Complete Streets Implementation
City staff will use a phased approach to evaluate and implement
the proposed Complete Streets improvements identified in the
Mobility Element. A priority list will be established through the
Capital Improvements program.
√
Policy(ies) Implemented CC-1.2 through 1.4; M-1.1; M-2.1
through 2.5; M-3.1 through 3.7
Program Category(ies) DR, MP, AC
Responsible Department(s) Public Works
Supporting Department(s)
Central County Fire Department,
Community Development,
Police
Partner(s)
Funding Source(s) General Fund, Grants
IP-20 Complete Streets Evaluation
City staff will periodically evaluate and prepare recommendations
on how well the streets and transportation network are serving
each category of users.
√
1
Page: 10
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/26/2017 8:49:19 AM
Missing bold
ENVISION BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | IP-19
II mp l em enting Program
Estim at ed Timefr ame(s) 5 Years 10 Years15+ Years Annual On-going Funding Source(s) Recycling Fund
IP-37 Rainwater Harvesting and Greywater Systems
City staff will evaluate the appropriateness of amending the City’s
building and development codes to support and encourage
rainwater harvesting and greywater systems.
√
Policy(ies) Implemented CC-1.1, CC-1.7; If-2.11; IF-4.8
Program Category(ies) SR, DR, SO, PI
Responsible Department(s) Community Development
Supporting Department(s)
City Attorney, City Manager
(Sustainability Coordinator),
Finance, Public Works
Partner(s)
Funding Source(s) General Fund
IP-37 Underground Utility Ordinance
The City will continue to require private developers to
underground utilities along the street frontage of their project site
when new or substantial development occurs.
√ Policy(ies) Implemented IF-6.3
Program Category(ies) PR, MP
Responsible Department(s) Public Works
Supporting Department(s)
City Attorney Community
Development
Partner(s)
If-2.11
1
2
3 4
5
Page: 11
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/26/2017 10:02:57 AM
Since the previous chapters spelled it as "graywater", let's keep it consistent.
Number: 2 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/26/2017 10:02:10 AM
Graywater
Number: 3 Author: jlee Subject: Inserted Text Date: 10/26/2017 10:02:14 AM
graywater
Number: 4 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/26/2017 9:27:31 AM
Missing capitalization
IF-2.11
Number: 5 Author: jlee Subject: Highlight Date: 10/26/2017 9:27:35 AM
XI. IMPLEMENTATION
IP-20 | CITY OF BURLINGAME
II mp l em enting Program
Estim at ed Timefr ame(s) 5 Years 10 Years15+ Years Annual On-going Funding Source(s) N/A
IP-42 Disaster and Emergency Program
Central County Fire Department staff and City staff will prepare a
comprehensive update of the City’s disaster and emergency
program.
√
Policy(ies) Implemented CS-3.1 through 3.15
Program Category(ies) SO< FB< PI
Responsible Department(s) Central County Fire Department
Supporting Department(s)
City Manager, Finance, , Parks
and Recreation, Police, Public
Works
Partner(s)
Funding Source(s) General Fund, Grants
IP-43 Disaster Drills
Central County Fire Department staff will conduct training and
exercise drills to train City staff and test the effectiveness of the
Emergency Operations Plan and operational readiness of the
Emergency Operations Center.
√
Policy(ies) Implemented CS-2.8; CS-3.2; CS-3.7
Program Category(ies) SO, AC, PI
Responsible Department(s) Central County Fire Department
Supporting Department(s)
Community Development, City
Manager, Human Resources,
SO< FB< PI 12
Page: 12
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/26/2017 9:37:12 AM
SO, FB, PI
Number: 2 Author: jlee Subject: Highlight Date: 10/26/2017 9:37:04 AM
ENVISION BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | IP-29
II mp l em enting Program
Estim at ed Timefr ame(s) 5 Years 10 Years15+ Years Annual On-going Responsible Department(s)
Supporting Department(s)
Partner(s)
Funding Source(s)
IP-63 Recycled Water Plan
City staff will evaluate the feasibility of delivering recycled water to
customers to increase the use of recycled water.
√
Policy(ies) Implemented CC-1.1; CC-1.7; IF-2.11
Program Category(ies) SR, DR, SO, PI
Responsible Department(s) Public Works
Supporting Department(s) City Attorney, City Manager,
Community Development,
Finance
Partner(s)
Funding Source(s) General Fund, Grants
IP-64 Water Conservation Standards
The City will continue to maintain Water Conservation Standards
within the Municipal Code for households, businesses, industries,
and public infrastructure. √
Policy(ies) Implemented CC-1.1; CC-1.7; CC-1.8; IF-2.10
Program Category(ies) SR, DR, SO, PI
Responsible Department(s) Public Works
,3;;*UHHQ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQ
7KH&LW\ZLOODGRSWDQGLPSOHPHQWD*UHHQ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH0XQLFLSDO
5HJLRQDO6WRUPZDWHU13'(63HUPLW
3ROLF\ LHV ,PSOHPHQWHG && ,) ,) ,) ,) ,) +3 +3 +3
+3 +3
3URJUDP&DWHRU\ LHV '503623,
5HVSRQVLEOH'HSDUWPHQW V 3XEOLF:RUNV
6XSSRUWLQJ'HSDUWPHQW V &RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ&LW\0DQDJHU
6XVWDLQDELOLW\&RRUGLQDWRU
3DUWQHU V 6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\ZLGH:DWHU3ROOXWLRQ3UHYHQWLRQ3URJUDP
)XQGLQJ6RXUFHV V *HQHUDO)XQG
(VWLPDWHG7LPHIUDPH V <HDUV
1
Page: 21
Number: 1 Author: jlee Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/26/2017 9:08:49 AM
Please add an implementing program for the Green Infrastructure Plan after the Water Conservation Standards. See text on right.
Sun, Oct 29th 2017, 10:09
Name:
Danelle rienks
Email:
Subject:
Losing my home Renter for 18 years on Douglas Avenue
Comment:
Hello I have lived work and going to school and burlingame for the last 18 years. My daughter
lives with me and goes to school and works on Burlingame Avenue I am self-employed and all
of my clients are in burlingame we do not want to leave burlingame this is our people are
community our city our life we want to stay in burlingame As you know we live at the major
project 1128 to 1130 to Douglas however 1124 Douglas just got sold to a major developer who
is going to redevelop and make the rent well over $3000 a month for a very small unit that I
currently only pay 1200 a month for now you tell me does this send me into homelessness will
we be living in my car I could not find any apartments under $2000 in the surrounding area
please help this is overwhelming and pushing us to homeless .I make less than $25,000 a year
and there’s no way I can afford an apartment of $3000 or more and even when you guys
decide to build affordable housing in luxury apartments those are still $3000 a month so get a
clue help us out would you like us living on the City Hall doorstep?And by the way the
affordable housing in other surrounding cities is closed there are no open applications available
or open apartments available and affordable housing anywhere in any city so I don’t know what
to do we will end up homeless on the City Hall doorstep with a sign and I can begging for
affordable housing
1
CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
From:Esperto Labs
Sent:Wednesday, November 22, 2017 8:07 AM
To:Envision Burlingame
Subject:---General Plan Input-Technology and Smarter Roads--
As I indicated in one of the meetings, I suspect we will need to begin planning our city roads and
sidewalks for a more equitable mix of transportation modes; for bikes, to electric powered people
movers and cars. As you can see in the attached link this change will impact a cities design
substantially.
http://www.sehinc.com/news/future-what-do-driverless-cars-mean-road-design
Furthermore; Burlingame 2040 should be able to make informed decisions by capturing massive
amounts of data about the population and its patterns, such as security, water use and traffic flows.
This information gathering results in what is called big data, and it is essentially gathered via
surveillance.
There can also be voluntary efforts to collect information, but the ease and affordability of sensors
throughout Burlingame, Artificial Intelligence and advanced analytics in the future will mean this
function can be completely automated. The data can be collated from a constantly evolving
technology encompassing traffic lights and cameras, pollution sensors, building control systems, and
personal devices – all literally feeding giant data stores held in the cloud.
The ability to crunch all this data for our City managers who then disseminate it to the Burlingame
residents is becoming easier due to rampant growth in the use of devices algorithms, AI, and
predictive software – all running on networks of high performance computing and storage devices.
Bottom-line; Burlingame will need to take a more active role in managing the technology infrastructure
rather than outsourcing this function to San Mateo County.
In summary; let's make sure we do not let the events set the agenda where we are tossed and turned
by the tides of life. Let's practice “proactivity” or grace under stress. This way we might avoid the
myriad of new taxes and Bond Measures which are sure to come our way.
2
Thanks
Timothy Hooker
--
Timothy Hooker
Chief Experience Officer
Esperto Labs
P.O. Box 117523
Burlingame, CA 94011-7523
650-989-2950-Voice/fax
800-418-1491-Toll free
My Email: timothy@espertoinc.com
Our website: www.espertolabs.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/espertoinc
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/esperto
Web Design|Online-Marketing|Social Media|Security
Search Engine Optimization|Reputation Management
From:PARKS-Bob Disco
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:General Plan
Date:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:45:07 AM
Hi Kevin,
I understand the General Plan is in final review. I do have issues with this section:
HP-5.8: Invasive Plant Species
Prohibit the use of any invasive plant species in landscaped or natural areas. Work with the
California Invasive Plant Council to identify invasive plant species within Burlingame, and establish
plans for removal. Ensure that new development obtains appropriate permits and approvals related to
invasive species from the Army Corps of Engineers and other relevant agencies. [AC, DR, H,
S] ______
We don’t want to be consulting with the Plant Council to plant or remove plant material. Their
list of invasive plants is too restrictive and many of the trees they have listed are common in
Burlingame and not invasive. I just see problems with this.
Please let me know how I can get this changed.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob Disco
Park Superintendent / City Arborist | Park & Recreation Department | City of Burlingame | 650.558.7334 |
bdisco@burlingame.org
Name:
Laurie Graham
Email:
Subject:
Bird Safe Windows
Comment:
Any new buildings should be built with bird-safe windows. There is such a thing. Thank you.
London Breed
President of
the Board of
Supervisors and
Acting Mayor
Ike Kwon
President
Vince Courtney
Vice President
Ann Moller Caen
Commissioner
Francesca Vietor
Commissioner
Anson Moran
Commissioner
Harlan L. Kelly, Jr.
General Manager
San Francisco
Water Power Sewer
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
1415.487-5210
Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
January 5, 2018
Via Email to envisionburlinoame@burlinqame.oro,
PLANNINGDEPT@BURLINGAME.ORG AND TO KGARDINEROBURLINGAME.ORG
Kevin Gardiner AICP, Planning Manager
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame
Community and Economic Development Department
501 Primrose Road - 2nd Floor
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: City of Burlingame — Draft General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Update
Dear Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Meeker:
On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco"), through
its Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC"), we thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the City of Burlingame ("Burlingame")'s proposed Draft General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update ("Draft General Plan") and register San
Francisco's strong objections to the proposed zoning changes, because (i) San
Francisco is not subject to such changes because of intergovernmental
immunity principles and (ii) such changes will materially impact the SFPUC's
ratepayers' economic use of the SFPUC Property.
Background
As part of its regional utility system, the SFPUC manages 63,000 acres of
watershed land and hundreds of miles of other property, mostly used for water
transmission pipelines and electrical power overhead lines. The SFPUC's
Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System provides water to approximately 2.7
million people, including to the City of Burlingame.
Pursuant to San Francisco's Charter and in accordance with land use policies
and practices adopted by the SFPUC, the primary purpose of SFPUC Property
is for SFPUC utility use. The SFPUC requires unrestricted access to its
property to ensure timely completion of both routine and emergency
maintenance and repair to all utility infrastructure and appurtenances. To
protect this access, the SFPUC has adopted long-standing land use policies,
which heavily restrict the scope of use of its lands by third parties, including a
prohibition on structures and restriction on vegetation installation and
management and surface coverings. No aerial encroachments, trees, or
structures are allowed. Any proposed third-party use over the SFPUC Property
must conform to these SFPUC land use policies.
In addition and as much as practicable, surplus property owned by the SFPUC
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer
services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted
to our care.
Kevin Gardiner AICP, Planning Manager
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community and
Economic Development Department
January 5, 2018
Page 2
is utilized in a beneficial manner for ratepayers and is consistent with San
Francisco's existing plans and policies.
The SFPUC monitors and protects its lands by reviewing proposed projects
and activities that may impact SFPUC lands and infrastructure for consistency
with SFPUC policies and plans and interfere with its facilities and operations.
Current Zoning and Use of SFPUC Property
San Francisco, through the SFPUC, owns a tract of land (the "SFPUC
Property') in the City of Burlingame ("Burlingame") in fee (as opposed to an
easement). The SFPUC Property consists of multiple parcels and runs parallel
to, and occupies, a portion of California Drive. The SFPUC Property
constitutes a portion of the former Market Street Railway right-of-way
(commonly known as the Old Muni Right of Way) that San Francisco acquired
for the operation of a street railway line running between San Francisco and
San Mateo County pursuant to a deed dated September 29, 1944.
The SFPUC Property in Burlingame currently bears either an unclassified
zoning classification or a R3 zoning classification.
Consistent with these zoning classifications, certain income-producing tenants
and licensees occupy portions of the SFPUC Property pursuant to real estate
agreements with San Francisco, through the SFPUC. Burlingame currently
occupies small portions of the SFPUC Property as shown on the attached map
in addition to California Drive. As shown on the attached map, old SFPUC
revocable permits were issued to Burlingame with respect to portions of the
SFPUC Property used by Burlingame. Since at least 1995, however, large
portions of the SFPUC Property used by Burlingame have not been subject to
a lease or permit with the SFPUC.
SFPUC's Comments
In August 2017, Burlingame issued its Draft General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Update, which includes proposed zoning changes that, if applicable,
would affect the SFPUC Property. The following comments pertain primarily to
the portions of the SFPUC Property designated as SFPUC Parcels 23 and 24.
Kevin Gardiner AICP, Planning Manager
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community and
Economic Development Department
January 5, 2018
Page 3
First, many of the following comments should be moot in light of
intergovernmental immunity principles that make a municipality's zoning and
building laws inapplicable to real property owned by another city. Such
principles are based on California Government Code 53090 et seq. and judicial
and administrative interpretations of those statutes (see, e.g., County of Los
Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 160, 166; Akins v.
County of Sonoma (1967) 67 Ca1.2d 185, 194; and 40 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 243
(1962)). Accordingly, San Francisco requests that Mountain View consider
these intergovernmental immunity principles in its deliberations regarding the
scope of its proposed zoning changes.
Location 1: A portion of SFPUC Parcel 24 from Oak Grove Avenue to
Burlingame Avenue
Current Zoning: Unclassified
Proposed Zoning: Parks and Recreation2
Current Use: Parking, vacant space and a portion of California Drive
Existing Permit(s): NRP0003 issued to Burlingame for Storm Water Pump
Station at California Drive and Grove Avenue
As noted above, pursuant to San Francisco's Charter and in accordance with
land use policies and practices adopted by the SFPUC, the primary purpose of
SFPUC Property is for SFPUC utility use. To support this utility use, the
SFPUC has a statutory duty to its water ratepayers to manage its lands in a
manner that promotes its water and power enterprises. Consistent with such
duty and policies, portions of the SFPUC Property are, or have been, income-
producing, which income is used to reduce the costs of the SFPUC's utility
operations. Consequently, if the proposed rezoning applies to the SFPUC
Property, it would adversely impact the SFPUC's ability to produce income and,
in light of its discussions regarding sale of all or portions of the SFPUC
Property, could significantly reduce its value.
1 Unclassified lands (Current): Any lot, parcel of land or area within the city which has not been
assigned a zone classification by adoption of a map or by legislative action is Unclassified. The use
of unclassified land for any purpose for which no permit, license or other evidence of approval has
been granted by an appropriate action of the city is declared to be an unlawful use (Burlingame
Municipal Code 25.12.040).
Continuation of existing use of unclassified lands: Any existing use of unclassified land which was
heretofore legally permitted may continue but may not be changed to any other use, expanded,
extended beyond present confines or otherwise modified without a conditional use permit from the
planning commission and compliance with the city general plan and any adopted city specific
plans, including their design guidelines (Burlingame Municipal Code 25.12.041).
2 Parks and Recreation: "The Parks and Recreation (PR) designation applies to regional parks,
community and neighborhood parks, and special use facilities such as community centers, golf
courses, and trails that accommodate active recreation activities. Burlingame has a diverse set of
parks and recreation facilities that meet a variety of needs for both residents and visitors, and this
land use designation preserves these spaces throughout the City" (Draft General Plan, page 62).
Kevin Gardiner AICP, Planning Manager
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community and
Economic Development Department
January 5, 2018
Page 4
The proposed rezoning might also give rise to inverse condemnation claims
based on the lost income and/or property value resulting from attempts to apply
such new zoning restrictions against the SFPUC Property.
Accordingly the SFPUC must strongly object to the proposed rezoning (insofar
as it may be applicable to the SFPUC Property) because (i) the SFPUC
Property is exempt from Burlingame's zoning restrictions based on
intergovernmental immunity principles, (ii) the proposed restrictions would
deprive the SFPUC's ratepayers of income to support the SFPUC's primary
utility purpose; and (ii) such restrictions would diminish the SFPUC Property's
resale value.
Location 2: A portion of SFPUC Parcel Numbers 23 and 24 from
Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue
Current Zoning: R33
Proposed Zoning: Rail Corridor4
Current Use: A portion of California Drive, parking
Existing SFPUC P4109 — Storm water discharge pipe
Permit(s): P4204 — SFPUC income-producing license to Off the
Grid
P4287 — SFPUC income-producing license to Parking
for Maverick Jacks
The rail corridor use does not support the statutory and policy mandates that
the SFPUC Property be used primarily for utilities. As stated above, the
SFPUC has a statutory duty to its water ratepayers to manage its lands in a
manner that promotes its water and power enterprises. Consistent with such
duty and policies, portions of the SFPUC Property are, or have been, income-
producing, which income is used to reduce the costs of the SFPUC's utility
operations. Consequently, if the proposed rezoning applies to the SFPUC
Property, it would adversely impact the SFPUC's ability to produce income and,
in light of its discussions regarding sale of all or portions of the SFPUC
Property, could significantly reduce its value.
Accordingly the SFPUC must strongly object to the proposed rezoning (insofar
as it may be applicable to the SFPUC Property) because (i) the SFPUC
3 R3 (Current): R3 Zoning designates both permitted and conditional uses. Permitted uses include
multifamily residential uses, churches, convents and parish houses. Conditional uses include
parking areas, rooming houses or boardinghouses, and limited corner store retail (Burlingame
Municipal Code 25.28).
4 Rail Corridor: "The Rail Corridor (RC) designation applies to properties including and supporting
rail lines and ancillary functions. These parcels include the public right-of way, as well as parking
lots and other spaces associated with commuter service" (Draft General Plan, page 64).
Kevin Gardiner AICP, Planning Manager
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community and
Economic Development Department
January 5, 2018
Page 5
Property is exempt from Burlinganne's zoning restrictions based on
intergovernmental immunity principles, (ii) the proposed restrictions would
deprive the SFPUC's ratepayers of income to support the SFPUC's primary
utility purpose; and (ii) such restrictions would diminish the SFPUC Property's
resale value.
Location 3: SFPUC Parcel 23 and a portion of SFPUC Parcel 24 from Mills
Avenue to Broadway
Current Zoning: Unclassified
Proposed Zoning: Rail Corridor
Current Use: Portion of California Drive, parking, and vacant land
Existing SFPUC P4275- Income-producing license for parking for
Permit(s): Rector Motor Company
The same concerns and principles discussed above with respect to Location 1
(portion of SFPUC Parcel 24 from Oak Grove Avenue to Burlingame Avenue)
and Location 2 (portion of SFPUC Parcel Numbers 23 and 24 from Broadway
to Oak Grove Avenue) apply to this parcel.
Accordingly the SFPUC must strongly object to the proposed rezoning (insofar
as it may be applicable to the SFPUC Property) because (i) the SFPUC
Property is exempt from Burlingame's zoning restrictions based on
intergovernmental immunity principles, (ii) the proposed restrictions would
deprive the SFPUC's ratepayers of income to support the SFPUC's primary
utility purpose; and (ii) such restrictions would diminish the SFPUC Property's
resale value.
Francard Eucalyptus Grove
In addition, the Draft General Plan discusses the Francard Eucalyptus Grove
all or portions of which may be located on the SFPUC Property. The Draft
General Plan identifies the Grove as both registered and eligible to be
registered as historic with the National Historic Register.
"In 2012, the Francard Grove Eucalyptus Tree Rows
along the Caltrain tracks were added to the National
Historic Register. The Francard Grove tree row
aligned with the Caltrain tracks between North Lane
and Larkspur Drive, and is within the right-of way
belonging to the Joint Powers Board" (Draft General
Plan, page 26).
"The Francard Tree Groves along the Caltrain tracks
are eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places" (Draft General Plan, page 73).
Kevin Gardiner AICP, Planning Manager
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community and
Economic Development Department
January 5, 2018
Page 6
Please provide a detailed map of the grove boundaries in relation to SFPUC
property. To the extent that the grove is situated at all on the SFPUC Property,
the SFPUC will have further comments.
California Drive Roadway Redesign
The Draft General Plan proposes a redesign of California Drive which may
affect SFPUC Parcels 23 and 24. The project map, identified as Figure M-6,
was not attached to the document, and therefore it is not clear where the
proposed redesign will occur.
"Implement a redesign of California Drive consisting
of a "road diet" south of Broadway and installation of
continuous bicycle facilities to establish a north-south
bicycle corridor through Burlingame, connecting to
bicycle facilities in Millbrae and San Mateo. Concepts
for sections north of Broadway and between
Broadway and Burlingame Avenue focus on traffic
calming, providing a continuous bicycle facility, and
improving pedestrian connections" (Draft General
Plan, page 149 M-10.1).
Please provide SFPUC with plans that show the location of the new bicycle
lanes and pedestrian walkways so we can confirm whether or not they impact
the SFPUC-owned section of California Drive. The SFPUC reserves the right
to issue further comments after receipt of the plans.
Additionally, if these improvements are in fact planned for the SFPUC Property,
any proposed use or improvement on the SFPUC Property, including, but not
limited to, ingress and egress over the SFPUC Property must: (1) comply with
current SFPUC policies; (2) be vetted through the SFPUC's Project Review
process; and (3) be formally authorized by the SFPUC.
All Locations: Potential Tree Preservation on SFPUC Property
The Draft General Plan proposes to preserve trees along California Drive in
certain locations. This likely includes a portion of SFPUC Parcel 24 along
California Drive between North Land and Morrell Avenue.
"Protect local scenic roadways by preserving mature
trees wherever possible, maintaining landscaping
along roadways, and ensuring that development and
land uses do not detract from the aesthetics of the
Kevin Gardiner AICP, Planning Manager
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community and
Economic Development Department
January 5, 2018
Page 7
corridor" (City and County Scenic Roadways page
238 HP-7.3).
Because it is not clear whether this provision is intended to apply to the SFPUC
Property we request that Burlingame provide us with a detailed map of the
trees proposed to be preserved in relation to SFPUC property boundaries.
We also request that Burlingame clarify if this proposed change to its General
Plan implements a state tree preservation law.
The SFPUC reserves the right to trim or remove trees that are deemed
hazardous; that may impact negatively any SFPUC infrastructure; or that may
present a liability to the City of San Francisco. With these exceptions,
consistent with its land use policies, the SFPUC seeks to preserve trees.
SFPUC Project Review Process
As stated above, any changes proposed on SFPUC property would require
approvals from the SFPUC, including but not limited its Project Review
Process, which requires that proposed projects and other proposed activities
on any SFPUC property be considered by the SFPUC's Project Review
Committee if the proposed project or activity contemplates construction;
excavation or earth moving; clearing; installation of improvements; the use of
hazardous materials; other disturbance to watershed and property resources;
or the issuance of new or revised leases, licenses, and permits.
Among other Commission restrictions, the SFPUC emphasizes that the SFPUC
Property may not be used to fulfill an adjoining owner's open space, setback,
parking, access, or third-party development requirements. In addition, the
SFPUC Property may not be used as the emergency vehicle access for an
adjoining property.
The Project Review Committee is a multidisciplinary team with expertise in
natural resources management, environmental regulatory compliance,
engineering, water quality, and real estate. The Committee reviews proposed
projects and activities on or adjacent to the SFPUC Property for:
1. Interference with SFPUC facilities and/or operations;
2. Consistency with our Environmental Stewardship Policy, Real Estate
Guidelines, and other policies and best management practices; and
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Avenue (CEQA)
and environmental regulations including mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting plans.
In reviewing a proposed project, the Project Review Committee may conclude
Kevin Gardiner AICP, Planning Manager
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community and
Economic Development Department
January 5, 2018
Page 8
that modifications or avoidance and minimization measures are necessary.
Large and/or complex projects may require several project review sessions to
review the project at significant planning and design stages.
Please notify all property owners and/or developers that, to the extent
their proposals will involve the development or use of the SFPUC
Property, such proposals are first subject to the SFPUC's Project Review
Process. The Committee must first vet the proposal, and then the project
sponsor must receive authorization from the SFPUC pursuant to a final
executed lease or revocable license before they can use or make any changes
to the SFPUC Property.
To initiate the Project Review process, a project sponsor must download and fill
out a Project Review application at http://www.sfwater.org/ProiectReview and
return the completed application to Michael Oakes at moakes@sfwater.orq
If
res@sfwater
any questions or need further information, please contact us at
Sin rel
osanna Russell
Real Estate Director
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
January 9th, 2017
Burlingame City Council
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: SFO Technology Center at 1300 Bayshore Highway Project
Dear Mayor Brownrigg and Burlingame City Councilmembers,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Sequoia Audubon Society, Golden Gate Audubon Society,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, the Committee for Green Foothills, and the Citizens
Committee to Complete the Refuge are all writing to express our deep concern with the
proposed SFO Technology Center at 1300 Bayshore Highway (Project). We strongly believe the
proposed Project design will result in unacceptable bird mortality that can be avoided if
Burlingame directs the developer towards an alternative, ecologically - and location-sensitive
design.
Renderings of the project show an 8-story reflective and transparent curtain of glass facing the
Bay with very little distinction between sky and building. Additionally, the Project proposes to
surround and cross Easton Creek with transparent glass fences, railings, two pedestrian bridges
with partially glass railings as well as glassy strips connecting the two buildings, at several levels,
across the creek. This design is extremely hazardous to migratory birds. Birds collide with glass
buildings and structures during the day as they attempt to access resources reflected by or seen
through the glass. At night, brightly lit glass buildings lure migrating birds to their death. The
glass screen walls that extend between the two buildings over the creek are of particular
concern, as birds flying to and from the Bay along the creek channel are almost certan to collide
with these transparent walls.
We strongly believe that the proposed design will introduce an unmitigable hazard to the bay
front.
The San Francisco Bay has been designated as a site of “hemispheric importance” to bird
populations throughout the Western Hemisphere. 136 species of birds have been documented
along the Bay Trail in Burlingame; including the threatened Wester n Snowy Plover. In addition
to resident birds, flocks of wintering shorebirds feed and rest along the shore in Burlingame for
much of the year, from each autumn until migrating back to their breeding grounds each spring.
Yet the documents for the Project show no biological surveys or mitigations for impacts to birds
and wildlife. In fact, the Project documents show no awareness of the seriousness of the issue
for birds, even though it is located adjacent to important habitat.
It is now widely recognized that bird collisions with man-made structures, especially glass
buildings and glassy elements, are significant contributors to bird -mortality and, most
importantly, to the decline of bird populations in North America. When bird -friendly design is
implemented as a guiding principal, the hazards can be greatly reduced.
Many neighboring cities recognize bird -collision with glass as an important issue and make an
effort to minimize hazardous construction. The issue is addressed in General and Specific Plans
(San Jose, Palo Alto, Mountain View), in Ordinances and mandatory Guidelines (San Francisco,
Oakland, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Richmond) and in Mitigation Measures for areas near the Bay
(Menlo Park). All of these cities look to provide standards and ordinances for bird-friendly
design for any buildings located along and near the Bay. Some cities also require or recommend
bird-friendly design and the regeneration of ecosystems along creek corridors. For example,
Mountain View has established a 200-foot “habitat overlay zone” for creeks and sensitive
habitats in the North Bayshore. Companies such as Google, Facebook, Intuit, Microsoft, and
LinkedIn are also incorporating bird-friendly design into their buildings situated on or near the
Bay, signifying the easily attainable union between ecology and urban design and preserving
the integrity of our natural ecosystems while allowing our region to develop.
Generally, bird-friendly design measures may include: a substantial reduction in the amount of
glassy material used in the building’s design; avoidance of glass and glazing that reflect the bay,
the sky and surrounding vegetation; incorporation of visual cues into glass facades to alert birds
of the structure; avoidance of see-through situations such as transparent or glassy obstructions
and free standing walls; and avoidance or reduction of light emissions at night. Along the Bay
front, it is especially crucial to implement avoidance and minimization measures to prevent bird
carnage. We recommend planning with respectful setbacks from sensitive habitats and the
implementation of adequate avoidance measures and minimization measures to prevent
unnecessary and substantial bird deaths.
Together, our organizations represent tens of thousands of members in San Mateo, San
Francisco and Santa Clara Counties and together we wish to bring these concerns to your
attention. It would be tragic for this Project to become an inadvertent death trap for birds.
We urge the City of Burlingame to join other Bay Area cities and companies in demonstrating
environmental stewardship and leadership by requiring an alternative, bird -friendly design for
the 1300 Bayshore Highway Project and all other projects along the Bay. We hope the City of
Burlingame elects to build in a manner compatible with nature, particularly along the bay, and
to integrate development along the bay with the natural environment in ways that do not
degrade this environment. We also hope that Burlingame will include a Bird -Friendly Design
Policy in the Envision Burlingame General Plan that will provide guidelines for implementation
of such policy in Burlingame. Below, we provide resources on bird -friendly design for your
review.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Gita Dev
Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta
Leslie Flint
Conservation Committee
Sequoia Audubon Society
Helen Wolter
Legislative Advocate, San Mateo County
Committee for Green Foothills
Gail Raabe
Board of Directors
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Noreen Weeden
Director of Volunteer Programs
Golden Gate Audubon Society
Mackenzie Mossing
Environmental Advocacy Associate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Cc:
o Burlingame Planning Commission
o Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
Standard, Guidlines and Design Resources
• The City of San Francisco Standards for Bird Safe Buildings
o http://sf-planning.org/standards-bird-safe-buildings
• The City of San Jose Creeks and Bird Safe Design Ordinance requi res Bird Safe Design in
all areas along the Bay (north of Hwy 237). There are also recommendations for new
construction along creeks.
o https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/60393
• Richmond Bird-safe standards
o https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/41218 (See 6-105)
• Sunnyvale Bird Safe Building Design Guidelines (required)
o https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23799
• In Mountain View, the North Bayshore Precise Plan requires Bird Safe Design for all new
buildings North of Hwy 101 and installs a 200-ft Habitat Overlay Zone setback near
wetlands and creeks.
o http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24429
• American Bird Conservancy Bird-Friendly Design Guide
o https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Bird-friendly-Building-
Guide_LINKS.pdf
Additional resources
• The Glass industry is well aware of the issue of bird collision, and a US Senate bill is
looking to require bird friendly design for government buildings
o https://www.usglassmag.com/2018/01/bird-friendly-bill-introduced-in-
senate/
• Lighted buildings attract and kill migratory birds
o http://www.audubon.org/news/nearly-400-migratory-birds-were-killed-one-
texas-building-single-night
1
CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
From:John A. Matthews Jr
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:12 AM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner; Raymond Marino; Brian Neider; John Lucchesi
Subject:1764 Marco Polo Way
Kevin Gardiner
Planning Manager
City of Burlingame
Kevin,
This email will serve to record our conversation yesterday.
The rough draft for the new general plan called Envision Burlingame shows 1764 Marco Polo Way as a “Public
Institutional” use designation. It assumes that this property will be part of a specific plan area with the Mills Peninsula
Hospital. 1764 Marco Polo Way is not owned by the hospital. We agreed that the proposed new designation is
inappropriate and you will contact the CIty’s consultants to have the properties along Marco Polo Way not owned by the
Hospital District to be appropriately zoned to allow multi-family mixed use.
Thank you for your assistance,
Jack
John A. Matthews AIA
335 A East Fourth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Phone: 650-340-1107
Fax: 650-340-1677
1
From:info@envisionburlingame.org
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 1:58 PM
To:info@envisionburlingame.org
Subject:Comment from the Envision Burlingame Website
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Greg Holtmann
Organization: Broadway Business Improvement District President & owner of Sutterfields Consignment on Broadway
Email:
Subject:
Envision Burlingame
Comment:
Burlingame would benefit from putting a new hotel together with open
space for recreation at the site of state owned undeveloped property on
the bay south of Kinkaid’s Restaurant. Obviously, this would improve
Burlingame’s transient occupancy tax while simultaneously improving
our bay trail. Also, he has asked in writing for the city council to
increase housing density in the Broadway/California Drive area in order
to enhance our “transit village “ neighborhood and increase the
pedestrian traffic to all the businesses on Broadway. As residents
decrease reliance on personal automobiles, easy access to mass transit
will make or break a community like Burlingame.
In the short term, the Broadway BID has also requested an increase of
parking density which would also greatly enhance business on Broadway,
while increasing use tax benefits for Burlingame.
1
CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
From:Jennifer Pfaff
Sent:Thursday, July 05, 2018 3:41 PM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:Map of zones on diagram 3-5- El Camino Real zone
Hi Kevin,
I am briefly flipping through pages, of the draft, trying to understand the lay of the land, and how and what to
mention. Then I happened to see this attached map a nd so am wondering why the diagram on 3-5 does not show
the full length of the historic zone of ECR (Peninsula to Ray), that runs along the DSAP region, as well—I
haven’t seen this drawn out before and was curious why the ECR area wasn’t drawn all the way to Peninsula at
the border, or at least showing it as an overlay green over red, for example. There is high density housing
allowed on nearly the whole thing, both east- and west sides, excluding a short area along eastside around
Burlingame Avenue give or take a block. Historically, El Camino Real has been its own zone— this may be too
in the weeds to bring up at the meeting, but I was just curious….thx. j.
KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AlA
ARCHITECT uc. c 17697
Ill ANZA BLY[), , SUITE 212, Dli RLII"GAME, CA 94010
PH. (650) 342-0237 FAX (650) 342 5114
July 11, 2018 VIA e-mail: kgardiner@burlingame.org
VIA Hand Deliver
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
Members of Planning Commission
City Of Burlingame
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Burlingame General Plan Study
Public Comments
Dear Mr. Gardiner and Members of Planning Commission,
My name is Kamran Ehsanipour. I am a Burlingame practicing architect for over three decades and the
owner of the vacant land in the corner of El Camino Real and Adeline Dr. (1501 El Camino Real). My office
address is: 111 Anza Blvd., Suite 212, Burlingame, CA 94010. I also have been a Burlingame resident for
many years.
My comments here are focused on the zoning regulations applicable to my lot 1501 El Camino Real. This
property, along with its neighboring property 1508 Adeline Dr. (known as Adeline Market), were within an
R-3 zoning along El Camino Real for many years, but were used as a commercial property under the
Grandfather Rules. On or around 1984, the zoning for the above mentioned two properties changed from
R-3 to C-1 commercial use (Ordinance No. 1266). Under the zoning Codes at the time for C-1, a mixed use
was allowed. A few years ago, The City of Burlingame revised its zoning regulations, and as the result of that
the mixed use feature was stripped away from the C-1 Zoning Parcels, including my property.
The goal of each City Public Official is to provide the best quality of life for its residents, encouraging
development to provide adequate housing units for all income levels, encouraging development of retail,
offices and businesses that, while addressing the needs of its residents, at the same time generates enough
funds for the City to support its public services costs.
E-mail: kamran@ehsanipour.com Websrte: www.ehsanipour.com
• ARCHITECTURE oPlANNING a ENGINEERING • INTERIOR DESIGN a CONSTRUCTION
Burlingame General Plan Study
Public Comments
July 11, 2018
The 21st Century Urban Design has find the answer to the above goals in two words: “MIXED USE”.
A MIXED USE property reduces traffic, saves time for residents, adds to the quality of life for its residents,
provides easy and comfortable access to shopping for its residents, and at the same time can add to the
beauty of the buildings, streets and the City.
Considering the above professional facts, it is mostly beneficial to allocate a “Mixed Use” right, for
properties in zoning C-1 in general, which mainly provides retail, office and businesses that apply to every
day residents’ use, and in particular a C-1 Parcel that was in the past zoned as Residential (R-3), and still is
surrounded by R-3 Residential Buildings/ Parcels, (the immediate neighbors both north as well as south are
zoned R-3).
My professional opinion as an architect with decades of experience in mixed use design is, considering the
location, the history of Zoning Use and existing surrounding parcels’ Zoning Use and the benefits to the
neighboring residents, the parcel that is most qualified to be considered as a MIXED USE in the City of
Burlingame is the subject property, 1501 El Camino Real.
Accordingly, I respectfully request to re-instate the right to have MIXED USE for my property 1501 El Camino
Real, and apply the “NORTHERN BURLINGAME MIXED USE” zoning to this property which is only a two block
away from the proposed NBMU area.
Your consideration of my request is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Kamran Ehsanipour, Architect
1501 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA Property Owner
E-mail: kamran@ehsanipour.com Websrte: www.ehsanipour.com
• ARCHITECTURE oPlANNING a ENGINEERING • INTERIOR DESIGN a CONSTRUCTION
1
CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
From:John Kevranian
Sent:Tuesday, August 14, 2018 1:04 PM
To:CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
Subject:Comment Letter to the General Plan Draft EIR
Hi Kevin,
Chapter 18. Transportation and Circulation in part: "Burlingame aims to develop a complete multimodal transportation
network...to encourage people to use non‐automobile modes for as many trips as possible...to move people with less
delay, cost and environmental impacts."
While various Alternative Modes of local and regional transportation are stated therein, somehow Ferry Service is
omitted, which with Burlingame's adjacency to SFO and proximity to Millbrae Station provides Burlingame the complete
multimodal transportation network the General Plan calls for.
Best,
John Kevranian
650‐676‐7301
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph Baylock
1527 Newlands Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
joe@baylock.com
Mr. Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
kgardiner@burlingame.org
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
Please accept this document as responsive to the request for public comment.
Comments on Draft EIR of June 28, 2018
The City of Burlingame seeks public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of June 28,
2018 (SCH#: 2017082018) as part of the General Plan update. This document is intended to provide
such comment in support of the Program EIR’s goals noted as:
“The advantages of a Program EIR include consideration of effects and alternatives that cannot
practically be reviewed at the project-level, consideration of cumulative impacts that may not be
apparent on a project-by-project basis, the ability to enact citywide mitigation measures, and
subsequent reduction in paperwork.”
The comments here are focused on the DEIR and do not include a review of the Existing Conditions
Report (ECR) which may be a valuable future exercise.
Two main areas of concern are described here:
1. The minimal identification, discussion and analysis of Water Supply and Distribution in the DEIR
particularly in regards to section 20.1.1(a) and subsequent sections.
2. A counter to the comment regarding increasing density above 120 du/acre.
Water Supply Security
Water supply security is a major area of concern due to both the known (i.e. approved) and projected
growth in commercial and residential demand throughout Northern California. It is a fundamentally
flawed approach to examine only Burlingame’s historical use and potential for water conservation. That
appears to be the limited scope of the DEIR:
“Total water demand within the Burlingame service area was approximately 1,283 million
gallons in 2015….
2
“The projected annual water demand for the City is 1,875 million gallons MG in 2025, 1,963 MG
in 2030, and 2,138 MG in 2040. Passive and active conservation would reduce the water
demand in 2025 to 1,756 MG, to 1,775 MG in 2030, and to 1,841 MG in 2040 .”
What is interesting is the lack of documentation for these aggressive conservation results. Per Section
20.2.3, Burlingame is “guaranteed” 1,909 MG per year in perpetuity from the San Francisco PUC
Regional Water System. However, Burlingame use would exceed that allotment as soon as 2030 if the
conservation methods prove to be ineffective. To avoid going over the 1,909 MG guaranty, the
conservation efforts for 2040 must achieve 77% effectiveness. If conservation only achieves 50% of the
hoped-for reduction, Burlingame will be in need of 1,989.5 MG in 2040, well over the “guaranteed”
allotment. One lesson from this analysis is that the anticipated growth in Burlingame and the
accompanying increased water demand may force the reduction of water use, even if planned
conservation methods prove ineffective.
Therefore, attention must also be paid to the effects of proposed water conservation measures. Active
conservation measures at the state, county and local level have been implemented in recent years in
reaction to the five-year drought. As noted by the Sacramento Bee
(https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article212605634.html):
“The two bills, AB 1668 and SB 606, set general guidelines for water agencies to follow in
California's post-drought era.
“Water agencies will be encouraged to have their customers limit indoor water use to an
average of 55 gallons a day per person, declining to 50 gallons by 2030.
In addition, the California Water Resources Control Board wants to increase water flows on several
rivers, as recently reported in the San Francisco Chronicle
(https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/California-water-wars-State-plans-to-cut-SF-s-
13166078.php), with these noted possible effects:
“Between 7 and 23 percent less river water on average would be available for human
consumption, and sometimes more, according to state estimates…
“A prolonged dry spell like the one between 1987 and 1992, according to agency projections,
would force cuts of up to 40 percent, which [Steve] Ritchie [assistant general manager for water
for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission] said is simply unsustainable for a thriving
metropolitan area ...”
The impact of these planned or possible restrictions on the flora and fauna of Burlingame have not been
well-documented. This oversight needs to be corrected in the DEIR. And, perhaps the more
fundamental issue of planning for a 23% increase in population should be reconsidered.
This reconsideration should account for on-going projects such as, but not limited to: 301 Airport Blvd.
(Facebook/Oculus which is sized for approximately 4,500 employees per local commercial realtor
estimates), 220 California Dr., Carolan Ave. (Anson Apartments), 263 Lorton Ave., 988 Howard Ave., 920
3
Bayswater Ave., Trousdale Ave. (Sunrise), and Marco Polo Way (proposed Senior Center). The mix of
commercial and residential projects also suggests that population growth (i.e. residents) may not be the
most accurate metric to gauge future water usage.
Of equal or greater import are the regional trends and possible governmental actions that can
negatively affect water security for residents and businesses. The Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) for Burlingame has not been reviewed and may prove to be a valuable future exercise. At a
minimum, it should identify several serious risks including, but not limited to:
Earthquake vulnerability of the Hetch Hetchy pipeline system and local distribution facilities,
The possibility that the Federal Department of the Interior may decide to “restore” Hetch
Hetchy to its natural, dry state,
The on-going drought and wildfire risks in the state that can reduce available water supplies.
The April 2018 USGS report titled “The HayWired Earthquake Scenario” should be reviewed and the risks
included in the DEIR along with mitigation plans for increased Burlingame water storage and other
options. See https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-rolls-out-groundbreaking-earthquake-study-haywired-
earthquake-scenario?qt-news_science_products=1#qt-news_science_products.
The July 2018 state appellate court ruling against Restore Hetch Hetchy’s argument that the reservoir
represented an unlawful diversion of water at odds with the state Constitution cannot be relied upon to
stand forever. Any mitigation for a change of base water sources of the SFPUC merit examination.
August 2018 news reports that California has enough water supply to fight more than fifteen major
wildfires do not account for the reduction in reservoir levels due to these ongoing emergency
consumption levels.
Similar risks should be identified in future water supply assessments (WSAs) and it is hard to envision
how the cumulative number of projects in Burlingame, San Mateo County and the Bay Area could not
raise serious concerns about any “all clear” assessment for major projects.
The minimal investment in additional reservoir capacity, underground storage capacity and
desalinization capacity should be examined (https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/California-
funds-new-dams-to-protect-against-13101961.php) for risks to the demand forecasts presented in the
Draft EIR.
Further state-level concerns that should be addressed are the risks to the California Environmental
Quality Act itself. Pointed statements by public officials including the governor would indicate that the
limited protections CEQA provides today may be reduced. The impact on water security of a diminished
CEQA process are serious.
In summary, section 20 of the Draft EIR, as it stands, is inadequate to address serious, foreseeable risks
to water supply security for Burlingame residents and businesses.
Project Density
Prior public comments have been received that urge the City to increase the high-density category to
140 du/acre from 120 du/acre (Table 1-1). The ramifications of such an increase are wide-ranging and
4
in many respects negative to the water supply security, infrastructure capacity, public school capacity
and quality of education and to the overall quality of life of Burlingame residents. Contrary to the prior
comment, a reduction to 100 du/acre would be more in keeping with the ability of the City, the County
and the State to maintain existing commitments of quality and capacity of a number of governmental
functions.
As we continue to Envision Burlingame, we must take a realistic, reasoned approach to planning and
development with an eye towards what can reasonably be expected from levels of government with
limited resources and major financial, regulatory and environmental constraints. Please accept these
comments with that lens.
Sincerely,
Joseph Baylock
PUBLIC STORAGE
701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201
Tel: 818-244-8080
publicstorage.com
August 31, 2018
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Public Storage Input on Envision Burlingame and the Live Work Designation Applicable to 1811
Adrian Road and Surrounding Property
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and to provide input on Envision Burlingame, the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update. As you know, Public Storage owns and operates a location at 1811 Adrian
Road in Burlingame, in addition to the industrial building to the behind our facility at 1801 Adrian Road
(together, “Property”). In 2015, Public Storage converted a then-vacant building at 1811 Adrian Road into a
Public Storage location pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for self-storage use within the Automobile Sales
and Service Overlay Area of the Rollins Road (“RR”) zoning district.1 Public Storage is now contemplating a
project to further modernize this facility. To that end, Public Storage respectfully requests that the City consider
a modification to the proposed General Plan and zoning that would allow Public Storage to provide the most
effective and best use of the Property, without any notable change in impacts to the City or surrounding area.
As proposed, the new General Plan land use designation for the Property would be “Live Work,”2 and the
zoning district would continue to be RR.3 Permitted uses in the Live Work land use designation include “light
industrial, service commercial, retail commercial, studios for creative industries, commercial recreation, and
limited medium-density residential as live-work units.”4 Public Storage very much appreciates that our self-
storage use will continue to be a permitted uses in the Live Work designation, and RR zoning district.
However, we note that the proposed maximum floor area ratio (“FAR”) for the Live Work designation is 1.0,
with the same maximum FAR permitted for self-storage use with a Conditional Use Permit (for use above 0.5
FAR) in the RR zoning district5 We believe, based on our extensive experience as an owner and operator of
self-storage properties throughout the country that our use is more suited to a higher FAR because our
1 Burlingame Zoning Code §§ 25.44.020(k), 25.44.030(a), 25.44.050(b)(2).
2 Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, available at:
https://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/335/Burlingame%20GP%20-%20Maps%20-
LAND%20USE_FINAL.pdf.
3 Burlingame general plan zoning – northeast areas Map, Draft June 2016, available at:
https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap-Burlingame-NE.pdf.
4 Envision Burlingame Public Draft, at page CC-13, available at:
https://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/334/Burlingame_Public_Draft_August2017_ALL-searchable.pdf ;
Land Use Designation Description, available at:
https://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/279/Revised%20Land%20Use%20Table_4.13.17.pdf.
5 Id.; Burlingame Zoning Code §§ 25.44.020(k), 25.44.030(a).
PUBLIC STORAGE
701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201
Tel: 818-241-8080
publicstorage.com
self-storage uses involve buildings that can be slightly larger in size but have substantially less impacts than
other uses would have if higher FAR were permitted (e.g. traffic, water supply, public services). And, the
ability to redevelop, modernize and increase the size of the building would allow us to improve aesthetics and
security for the neighborhood, and to provide better customer service. This is because self-storage facilities
have very few employees and visitors on a daily basis, and therefore have very low transportation and other
environmental and public service impacts.
Therefore, Public Storage recommends an increased maximum FAR of 1.25 to 1.5 for self-storage uses, to be
approved on by Conditional Use Permit on a case-by-case basis. If it would be helpful, we would be happy to
provide data and/or a parking consultants’ report to support this recommendation.
Thank you very much for your consideration. Public Storage values the City’s partnership and is dedicated to
providing the best service for our customers in Burlingame as possible.
Sincerely,
Bryan Miranda
Regional Vice President
EXHIBIT C
Implementation Programs
Errata/Edits (shown in tracked changes)
1
EXHIBIT D
75 CNEL Noise Contour Errata/Edits
Figure CS-2 in Chapter VIII (Community Safety Element) indicates residential uses in the noise
contour 75 CNEL or greater to be “Clearly Unacceptable.” However, Figures 15-2 (Existing (2017)
Transportation Noise Contours) and Figure 15-3 (Future (2040) Transportation Noise Contours)
in the Draft EIR indicate existing and proposed residential uses within the 75 CNEL noise contours
aligning with Highway 101 and Interstate 280. Existing residential uses within the 75 CNEL
contour include multifamily and single family uses in the vicinity of Rollins Road from Cadillac
Way to Larkspur Drive, and multifamily and single family uses in the vicinity of Interstate 280.
Proposed residential uses within the 75 CNEL contour include a portion of the proposed
Live/Work land use area at the north end of Rollins Road.
Policy CS-4.2 (Residential Noise Standards) addresses residential uses within the 70 CNEL noise
and greater noise contours with requirements that new residential units shall have a maximum
acceptable interior noise level of 45 dB with windows closed. Furthermore, for project locations
that are primarily exposed to noise from transportation operations, the maximum instantaneous
noise level in bedrooms shall not exceed 50dB(A) at night (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) and 55 dB(A)
during the day with windows closed. These standards can be achieved by incorporating buffers
and noise control features into a development project such as setbacks, landscaping, building
transitions, site design/building orientation, and building construction approaches.
Below are suggested edits to the General Plan and EIR to address this matter, consistent with
the performance standards in Policy CS-4.2.
General Plan Figure CS-2, include the following text in both the Normally Acceptable
category (70 CNEL for multifamily residential) and Clearly Unacceptable (75 CNEL
and greater for multifamily residential): If new construction or development does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and
needed noise insulation features included in the design. This text is currently applied
to the Normally Acceptable category; it would therefore be duplicated as a condition
in the Clearly Unacceptable category to address the 75 CNEL noise contours
associated with Highway 101 and Interstate 280. (Refer to edits shown in tracked
changes below)
Make the same edits to the corresponding Tables 15-9 and Mitigation Measure 15-3A
in the EIR.
In General Plan Policy CS-4.2, make the following text edit: For locations primarily
exposed to noise from aircraft, Caltrain, and BART, Highway 101, and Interstate 280
operations, the maximum instantaneous noise levels in bedrooms shall not exceed
50dB(A) at night (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.), and the maximum instantaneous noise
level in all interior rooms shall not exceed 55 dB(A) during the day (7:00 A.M. to 10:00
P.M.) with windows closed.
Make the same edits to the corresponding Table 15-16 in the EIR.
2
§¨¦101§¨¦28075 CNEL70 CNELCity of MilllbraeCity of HillsboroughCity of San MateoSan Franciso BayCalifornia DrTrousdale DrBernal AveAdeline DrEaston DrPeninsula AveHoward AveBurlingame General Plan EIRFigure 15-2 Existing (2017) Transportation Noise Contours 1,500750 3,000 FT 0N65 CNEL60 CNELBurlingame BoundaryStreet CenterlinesRailroads75 CNEL70 CNEL
§¨¦101§¨¦280City of MilllbraeCity of HillsboroughCity of San MateoSan Franciso BayCalifornia DrTrousdale DrBernal AveAdeline DrEaston DrPeninsula AveHoward AveBurlingame General Plan EIRFigure 15-3 Future (2040) Transportation Noise Contours 1,500750 3,000 FT 0N65 CNEL60 CNELBurlingame BoundaryStreet CenterlinesRailroads75 CNEL70 CNEL
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE UPDATE OF THE
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300 et
seq., the City of Burlingame has prepared and proposes to adopt a new general plan for the
physical development of the City; and
WHEREAS, three community workshops, eighteen Citizens Advisory Committee meet ings,
three joint meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council were held to involve, the
public, local residents and business owners, and property owners in the development of the
plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan establishes appropriate goals, objectives, policies and
programs to address such issues as land use; housing; economic development; community
design, neighborhoods and districts; transportation and circulation facilities and infrastructure;
public facilities, services and infrastructure; parks, recreation and open space facilities and
waterways; health and safety; youth and elderly services and facilities; education and
community services and facilities; and natural, cultural and historical resources; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan has been prepared in conformity with the provisions of
State law requirements, including the requirements of California Government Code Section
65300 et seq., and the requirements of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame held a public
comment hearing to accept testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Draft
Burlingame General Plan; and
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
October 22, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, after proceedings duly and
regularly held and noticed as provided by law, did on October 22, 2018 review and consider 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 said Update to the General Plan.
Chairman
2
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 22nd day of October, 2018, by the
following vote:
Secretary
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE UPDATE OF THE
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300 et
seq., the City of Burlingame has prepared and proposes to adopt a new general plan for the
physical development of the City (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan establishes appropriate goals, objectives, policies and
programs to address such issues as land use; housing; economic development; community
design, neighborhoods and districts; transportation and circulation facilities and infrastructure;
public facilities, services and infrastructure; parks, recreation and open space facilities and
waterways; health and safety; youth and elderly services and facilities; education and
community services and facilities; and natural, cultural and historical resources; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, §
21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the City Council of
the City of Burlingame ("Council") is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with
general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame, as lead agency, determined that a Program Environmental
Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all adverse
environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") identifying the scope of environmental issues was
distributed to numerous State, federal, and local agencies and organizations on August 2, 2017,
with comments requested by September 1 , 2017 pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections
15082(a), 15103 and 15375. A total of five comment letters were received and are included in
Volume 2 of the Draft EIR ("DEIR"). Relevant comments received in response to the NOP were
incorporated into the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, a public seeping meeting was held at the City of Burlingame on August 14, 2017
and input from the public providing direction and scope of the EIR was received; and
WHEREAS, a DEIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines, where the City analyzed the Project's environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the DEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on July 3, 2018, with the
comment period expiring on August 20, 2018. Ten comment letters were received during the
public comment period. The City prepared written responses to all comment received on the
DEIR, and those responses to comments are incorporated into the Final EIR.
2
WHEREAS, the Final EIR (“FEIR”) is comprised of the DEIR, and all appendices thereto, the
comments and responses to comments, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program;
and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2018, the Response to Comments Document was made available
to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame held a public hearing to
consider the General Plan Update, the Final EIR, and staff recommendations, on October 22,
2018. Notice of this Planning Commission hearing was provided through publication on October
11, 2018;
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for
its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied
in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the significant environmental effects of the
Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence
set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the
hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies,
appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of the
proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal
business hours at the Planning Division located at City of Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that agencies and interested members of the public
have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the EIR and the Project; and
WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving the Project, make one or more of the following written findings for each significant
effect identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR;
or, (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, (3) Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities
for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR; and
3
WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Project will cause
significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states
that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant but which the City
finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Table 2-1 of
the DEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant but which the City
finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all
feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in
Table 2-1 of the DEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference;
and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the 2040 General Plan Update that might eliminate or reduce
significant environmental impacts are described in Section 21 of the DEIR, incorporated herein
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, a discussion of the project benefits and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are
set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081 .6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have
been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is summarized in Table 2-1 of the DEIR, attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, prior to making its recommendation to the City Council action, the Planning
Commission reviewed, considered and has exercised its independent judgment on the Final EIR
and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written
testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings and finds that the Final EIR is adequate
and was prepared in full compliance with CEQA. No comments or any additional information
submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring recirculation or
additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City
Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the findings, statement of overriding considerations, and
mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the update to the General Plan.
4
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 22nd day of October, 2018, by the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT A: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 10-1: Increases in GHG Emissions.
The proposed General Plan Update would
result in GHG emissions that could exceed
the 2030 and 2040 GHG emission targets
necessary to fully demonstrate progress and
consistency with long-term state GHG
reduction goals, even after inclusion of all
policies contained within the General Plan.
The Climate Action Plan (CAP) would assess
feasible policies contained within the
proposed General Plan and include, if
necessary, additional measures to further
reduce GHG emissions. Until these additional
reductions have been demonstrated, this
would be a significant and unavoidable
impact (see criterion [a] under Section
10.3.1, “Significance Criteria,” above).
SU Mitigation 10-1. There are no measures that
would reduce this impact. This impact would
be significant and unavoidable.
City SU
Impact 10-2: Plan Consistency. Adoption
and implementation of the proposed General
Plan Update would conflict with the 2017
Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2040, and the
2017 Clean Air Plan. This would be a
significant and unavoidable impact (see
criterion [b] under Section 10.3.1,
“Significance Criteria,” above).
SU Mitigation 10-2. The proposed General Plan
Update would be inconsistent with the 2017
Scoping Plan Update, and the 2017 Clean Air
Plan, because community-wide emissions are
not in line with state GHG reduction goals.
The General Plan Update is also inconsistent
with Plan Bay Area 2040, because although
there are many features that support a
sustainable, transit-oriented Burlingame, the
City cannot demonstrate the currently
City SU
EXHIBIT A: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
adopted Specific Plans within the Burlingame
El Camino Real PDA in conjunction with the
policies contained in the proposed update
would reduce per capita CO2 emissions from
passenger vehicles and light duty trucks by
15 percent, by 2035. Accordingly, the
proposed General Plan Update would conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a plan,
policy, or regulation adopted with the intent
GHG emissions. Although implementation of
Mitigation Measure 10-1 would be required by
the City, and it may be able to demonstrate
the City’s General Plan is consistent with the
2017 Scoping Plan Update, 2017 Clean Air
Plan, and Plan Bay Area 2040, until the
additional policies are quantified, it cannot be
assured the City would be able to reduce the
significance of this impact. Thus, this impact
is considered significant and unavoidable.
The City would implement Mitigation Measure
10-1 to address this impact.
Paleontological Resources
Impact 12-1: Paleontological Resources.
Since there is no information on the likelihood
of discovering paleontological resources and
there are currently no General Plan policies
requiring the discovery, monitoring, and
protection of paleontological resources,
Mitigation 12-1 is recommended to avoid
potentially significant impacts on
paleontological resources should they occur
in the planning area.
S Mitigation 12-1. Paleontological
Assessment. In areas containing middle to
late Pleistocene-era sediments where it is
unknown if paleontological resources exist,
prior to grading an assessment shall be made
by a qualified paleontological professional to
establish the need for paleontological
monitoring. Should paleontological monitoring
be required after recommendation by the
professional paleontologist and approval by
the Community Development Director,
paleontological monitoring shall be
City LS
EXHIBIT A: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
implemented.
Noise
Impact 15-1: Short-Term Construction
Noise Levels. Implementation of projects
under the proposed GPU would involve
construction that would result in temporary
noise generation primarily from the use of
heavy-duty construction equipment. Based on
modeling for typical construction activities,
short-term construction-generated noise
could exceed applicable standards. This
would represent a potentially significant
impact.
S Mitigation 15-1. To ensure that future
development projects implement appropriate
construction noise controls, General Plan
Policy CS-4.10 shall be revised to state:
Policy CS-4.10 Construction Noise Study: All
development projects shall be subject to the
applicable construction hour limitations
established by the City’s Municipal Code.
Development projects that are subject to
discretionary review and that are located near
noise-sensitive land uses shall assess
potential construction noise levels and
minimize substantial adverse impacts by
implementing feasible construction noise
control measures that reduce construction
noise levels at sensitive receptor locations.
Such measures may include, but are not
limited to: 1) Construction management
techniques (e.g., siting staging areas away
from noise-sensitive land uses, phasing
activities to take advantage of
shielding/attenuation provided by topographic
features or buildings, monitoring construction
n); 2) Construction equipment controls (e.g.,
ensuring equipment has mufflers, use of
electric hook-ups instead of generators); 3)
Use of temporary sound barriers (equipment
enclosures, berms, walls, blankets, or other
devices) when necessary; and 4) Monitoring
of actual construction noise levels to verify
the need for noise controls.
City LS
EXHIBIT A: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Although specific construction activities and
noise levels associated with future
development projects are this time is not
known, Mitigation Measure 15-1 revises the
proposed General Plan to require the
implementation of feasible construction noise
control measures when development occurs
near noise-sensitive land uses and, therefore,
would render potential construction noise
impacts from future development projects a
less than significant impact with mitigation.
Impact 15-3: Increases in Traffic Noise
Levels. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would increase noise levels
along roadways with nearby sensitive
receptors. Proposed policies would establish
noise standards for new development and
require that site-specific noise studies be
conducted to reduce noise exposure;
however, traffic-related noise increases are
predicted to exceed 3 dB, the level typically
audible to the human ear and, therefore,
considered a substantial increase in noise.
The application of the policies and objectives
outlined in the City’s General Plan update
would reduce the amount of future vehicle
trips generated from implementation of the
General Plan, however, the potential level of
reduction is uncertain at this time and would
be contingent on the characteristic of each
individual future development project. Since a
reduction in vehicle trips cannot be
S Mitigation 15-3. No feasible mitigation is
available.
NA SU
EXHIBIT A: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
guaranteed, and future noise levels would
increase by 3 dB or more and/or potentially
expose noise-sensitive land uses to
conditionally acceptable or higher noise levels
(e.g., Broadway Avenue between El Camino
Real and Bernal Avenue). this would
represent a significant unavoidable impact
(see criteria [a] and [c] in subsection 15.3.1,
"Significance Criteria," above).
Transportation and Circulation
Impact 18-1: Project Intersection Impacts.
While the increased traffic associated with the
proposed General Plan at the California
Ave/Broadway intersection may be
considerable, the proposed General Plan
includes policies and implementation
programs to reduce the LOS impact by
updating the LOS standard to consider other
modes, and encourages strategies to
enhance travel modes other than the single
occupant auto. Table 18-7 identifies these
policies and programs. In addition to the
General Plan policies, the following mitigation
measure is recommended to reduce impacts
on the California Avenue and Broadway
intersection to less than significant.
S Mitigation 18-1. At the intersection of
California Avenue and Broadway, the
proposed 2040 GP would worsen the
intersection level of service to unacceptable
LOS F and add more than 5 seconds of
average delay during both the AM and PM
peak hours. The draft 2040 GP identifies a
policy (M-12.2) to “coordinate with Caltrain
and Caltrans to design and construct a grade-
separated intersection at Broadway and the
rail tracks.” It is assumed that the proposed
grade separation project would restore
intersection level of service at California
Avenue and Broadway to acceptable
conditions.
City LS
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines,
the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopts and makes the following
Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts
of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of
the Project.
The City finds and determines that: (i) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will
be reduced to less-than-significant and acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described
in the Final EIR and approved and adopted by these Findings; (ii) the City's approval of the
Project will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided
even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) there are
no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that would f urther mitigate
or avoid the remaining significant environmental effects. The significant effects that have not
been mitigated to a less-than-significant level and are therefore considered significant and
unavoidable are:
Impact 10-1: Increases in GHG Emissions. The proposed General Plan Update would
result in GHG emissions that could exceed the 2030 and 2040 GHG emission targets
necessary to fully demonstrate progress and consistency with long -term state GHG
reduction goals, even after inclusion of all policies contained within the General Plan.
The CAP would assess feasible policies contained within the proposed General Plan
and include, if necessary, additional measures to further reduce GHG emissions. Until
these additional reductions have been demonstrated, this would be a significant and
unavoidable impact.
Impact 10-2: Plan Consistency. Adoption and implementation of the proposed General
Plan Update would conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2040, and the
2017 Clean Air Plan.
Impact 15-3: Increases in Traffic Noise Levels. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would increase noise levels along roadways with nearby sensitive
receptors. Proposed policies would establish noise standards for new development and
require that site-specific noise studies be conducted to reduce noise exposure; however,
traffic-related noise increases are predicted to exceed 3 dB, the level typically audible to
the human ear and, therefore, considered a substantial increase in noise.
Despite these potentially significant impacts, it is the City's considered judgment that the
benefits offered by the General Plan outweigh the potentially adverse effects of these significant
impacts. Each overriding consideration set forth constitutes a separate and independent ground
for finding that the benefits of the General Plan outweigh its potential adverse effects and each
such consideration, standing alone, warrants approval of the General Plan.
The proposed General Plan is intended to guide growth in Burlingame through the year 2040.
Growth that occurs haphazardly, without considered planning and forethought, has been
demonstrated to result in unsustainable development that requires more infrastructure to serve
fewer people, puts greater distances between employees and employers thereby increasing
commute times, and requires more and more inefficient uses of energy. Burlingame’s updated
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Burlingame General Plan
2
General Plan is designed to produce a community that can serve as a model for sustainable
growth and sustainable lifestyles and will provide benefits to its residents and neighbors for
many years to come. The benefits of the General Plan include the following:
1. Establishing a plan and a process for sustainable growth that protects the environment
and promotes the efficient use of finite resources. A guiding principle of the General Plan
is that it should result in balanced and smart growth that conserves and promotes the
efficient use of natural resources and facilitates and encourages healthy lifestyles. The
community recognizes the need to grow in a manner that supports inclusivity and access
while protecting established neighborhoods and community assets. General Plan
policies guide future development and investments in a manner that is thoughtful,
sustainable, and reflective of local values. This includes allowing growth to occur in
targeted areas where supportive physical and community infrastructure are available or
can readily be provided, and where such growth contributes to the positive qualities and
characteristics that define Burlingame. There is also an emphasis on maintaining a
balance of ownership and rental housing, with opportunities for people of all income
ranges to live in Burlingame. Land use decisions are to be based on the ability of the
multimodal transportation network to support growth.
2. Ensuring that development to accommodate anticipated growth is undertaken in a
manner that respects the character of the existing development and the City's diverse
neighborhoods, and supporting the urban forest. Burlingame’s physical character is
defined by its cherished tree groves and urban forest, distinct neighborhoods and
business districts, and historic structures and resources. The General Plan includes
goals, polices, and programs that will ensure that these features are respected and
enhanced. This includes ensuring that that trees continue to be an integral character-
defining feature of the City’s streetscapes, neighborhoods, and business districts.
Furthermore, it includes recognizing the distinct qualities of Burlingame’s many and
varied neighborhoods and business districts, and requiring that new development
respond to and respect the desired character-defining features of these places. The
General Plan includes provisions to protect the character and quality of Burlingame’s
historical buildings, neighborhoods, districts, and landscapes, while being receptive to
modern design approaches that complement the Burlingame aesthetic and are
harmonious with their surroundings.
3. Providing connections that reduce the number of vehicle trips that occur in the City and
the number of vehicle miles traveled by residents of the City. The General Plan includes
goals, policies, and programs that allow Burlingame’s residents, workforce, and visitors
to access the full range of services and amenities the City offers through meaningful
connections that can be safely navigated by all modes of travel. This includes the
provision of a well-defined multimodal transportation network that accommodates a
range of travel choices and connects Burlingame to the region. The General Plan will
allow the development and maintenance of safe and easy-to-use bicycle and pedestrian
travelways citywide, with an emphasis on providing connections from neighborhoods to
local schools, parks, shopping, and entertainment. Emphasis is also given to ensuring
the provision of “first-mile” and “last-mile” connections to and from transit stations,
providing safe and effective access between transit and destinations.
4. Promoting economic development and increasing opportunities available to City
residents. The General Plan contains numerous policies and programs that reflect the
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Burlingame General Plan
3
importance of a diverse economic base for providing sustainable, reliable revenue to the
City and access to economic opportunity for residents. The goals and policies of the
General Plan ensure the City accommodates and supports a mix of commercial activity
while providing the flexibility to adapt to a dynamic economic environment. This includes
local, independent businesses co-existing alongside businesses that are regionally and
nationally owned. The approach emphasizes a mix of businesses that collectively works
to maintain a stable tax base and revenue stream for the City.
5. Emphasizing public health, environmental responsibility, and resilience through “healthy
people and healthy places.” The health and safety of the City’s residents and its natural
environment are fundamental to the many goals of the General Plan. Community
resilience and the physical and social health is provided through policies and programs.
Unique recreation experiences in parks, open spaces, and public plazas is anticipated
citywide, and the plan promotes development approaches that emphasize nonmotorized
and pedestrian access. High-quality, energy-efficient, and sustainable design is to be
incorporated into all new development, and provisions are made to preserve and
enhance open spaces, natural resources, and environmentally sensitive areas, including
the Bay and the local creek system. Policies and programs support maintaining and
enhancing public safety through community and environmental designs that promote
secure, active, and safe streets and neighborhoods, and celebrating arts, culture, and
diversity.
6. Valuing education. The General Plan recognizes that residents value Burlingame for the
opportunities it offers, including access to high-caliber education for all ages. Burlingame
is committed to fostering educational opportunity for all residents, while promoting high-
quality education for K-12 students. The General Plan includes goals, policies, and
programs that promote productive partnerships with local schools and other educational
institutions, and recognize that high-quality education contributes to overall community
success and health. This extends to programs that provide enrichment and life-long
learning.
7. Promoting civic engagement. The General Plan, through “Envision Burlingame” initiative,
is built on a foundation of community engagement. The City is committed to building on
this legacy to implement the General Plan and foster healthy civic dialogue for all issues
of public interest. The General Plan provides a framework that maintains an environment
that always welcomes and encourages productive public discourse on issues shaping
Burlingame’s future.
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersWednesday, July 11, 2018
General Plan Study Session
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner and Planning Manager Ruben Hurin.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and TsePresent5 -
Kelly, and GaulAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Overview
Staff Report
Exhibits A and B: Comments Logs
Draft General Plan - August 2017
Draft EIR - June 2018
Attachments:
Community Development Director Gardiner introduced the consultant team: Dan Amsden, Laura Stetson,
and Lillian Jacobsen of MIG.
Dan Amsden and Laura Stetson made a presentation to the commission.
Commission questions/comments:
>In the General Plan list of figures in the Table of Contents the figures noted under Community
Character (CC-63, CC-64, CC-65) are mislabled.
>CC-17 "Badlands" should be "Baylands."
>CC-46 discusses Broadway mix of uses but the diagram shows downtown. Should show the Broadway
diagram.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>EIR inconsistency with 2017 Clean Air Plan and 2017 Scoping Plan is noted, with updated Climate
Action Plan underway. Does the Significant Unavoidable Impact need to go to Council? (Stetson: It is a
process issue. The Climate Action Plan is not finished but it will be finished by the time the plan goes to
public hearing. The mitigation is to do a Climate Action Plan, so the impacts will no longer be significant
and unavoidable.)
>EIR page 210 indicates two alternatives, not three. (Stetson: That is a typo.)
>Recalled in previous discussions that environmental justice is an emerging element. Where is it
referenced? (Stetson: The Legislature has passed legislation to require General Plans to address
environmental justice. If there were census tracts that were identified as disadvantaged it would need to be
addressed, but Burlingame does not have any of those ares that would be considered impacted due to
income or exposure to environmental hazards. As such there is not an explicit addressing of
environmental justice in terms of complying with State Law, unless the Commission or Council sees an
issue that requires policy to be to be addressed.) It is addressed under Community Character in the plan,
so is there something that should clarify in the EIR why it is not included? (Amsden: It is a clarification
that can be made in the Final EIR.)
>The amount of land designated for Institutional development is being reduced because of
redesignation. What does that mean? Particularly since the Existing Land Use Map does not have an
Institutional designation. (Jacobsen: It relates to whether the Mercy property should be designated as
Institutional or Residential. Ultimately it was decided to designate it Residential, which would provide them
with more flexibility. The base line is what is on the ground, not what is shown in the previous General
Plan.)
>Would Institutional uses be allowed in those neighborhoods with a Conditional Use Permit? (Gardiner:
Yes. There were discussions whether or not to designate an Institutional use with the underlying land use .
The decision was made to retain the underlying land use to allow more flexibility in the future.)
>Table 12-81 on page 12-8 mentions Policy CC-3.1 - comprehensive historic surveys should indicate
policy CC-3.2. (Stetson: Will fix that.)
>Page 17-7 Burlingame School District should be abbreviated as "BSD" not "BUSD."
>Regarding wastewater collection and treatment, are the cumulative effects of growth in the Town of
Hillsborough included? (Stetson: Will need to check. Does not anticipate Hillsborough will have significant
growth.)
>Page 21-11 of the EIR mentions noise impact on Broadway between El Camino Real and Bernal
Avenue, and attributes it to new residential units in the hillside neighborhood west of the road segment. Is
that really the reason, the right description? Or is it better described as hillside residents accessing
Broadway and the Broadway interchange? (Stetson: Correct, it is the latter. It is due to regional traffic.)
>Does Policy CC-3.1 indeed require historic resource evaluation of any project that significantly alters a
building that is more than 50 years old? Is it really intended to be that broad? (Stetson: CC-3.1 addresses
the City initiating surveys for historic districts to get a baseline for evaluating projects rather than
continuing to do things on a case by case basis. The aim is to have a more rigorous assessment of
projects for buildings that have been designated as potentially significant.)
> If the requirement is to evaluate every building over 50 years old that would significantly effect
everything that is done in the city. It would be a waste of money and time. (Stetson: The commission can
provide guidance on this if it is not clear or providing the desired direction. Can tie the two historic
measures together.)
>How would traffic be reduced through the bicycle network? (Stetson: The idea is to make it easier for
people to do a mode shift. If someone is hesitant to ride a bike, the bicycle master plan and the
associated improvements to the network might encourage them to make more trips on bikes.)
>What would be the potential impact to circulation with shifting to more bikes? (Ollie Zhou, Hexagon
Transportation Consultants: The traffic model analysis assumes bike mode share would remain 2 percent
of the total. Traffic is projected to increase overall, and the bike share would increase proportionally and
remain at 2 percent.)(Stetson: The potential could be greater, but the analysis is conservative.)
>Not clear what the Rollins /Road mixed use live/work zone would be comprised of, and how successful
it has been in other areas? (Stetson: There are emerging examples of live /work. The district would not
need to be fully mixed use buildings, but the district itself could have a mix of uses. For example a small
office or commercial building with a residential building adjacent. Or it could be where there is a work
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
space on the ground floor and a residence above, with the same owner of tenant using both. It has been
shown to work in urban areas .)(Amsden: The proximity to the BART station would allow the area to
become more urbanized, with a live/work mix. There could be either horizontal or vertical mixed use.)
>Would it just be a change to the land use designation in Rollins Road, but it would be up to the land
owner to make the application for the development project? Or would the City do anything to encourage
that change? (Stetson: It is up to the property owner. The City could be proactive in education if it wanted
to move it along, but could not force anything. An example is the "funk zone" in Santa Barbara, which is
an older industrial district that is changing fairly quickly. There is re -use of industrial buildings, as well as
new buildings. There are wineries, restaurants, and maker spaces mixed in with residential uses .)
(Amsden: Fourth Street in Berkeley, and the west side of Santa Cruz are other examples.)
>Could a use such as an artist studios, cabinet shop, and furniture shop go into one of the spaces, but
also have an apartment associated with it? (Gardiner: The approach would acknowledge the existing
industrial uses and allow those uses to stay if the property owners choose. However multiple uses could
coexist, so the environment would be different than a more conventional residential neighborhood which
would expect industrial uses to be phased out. In this instance the expectation is the residential and
live/work uses understand they are moving into an area with eclectic mix of uses. It could evolve over time
organically, or could be more defined though the zoning and possibly a specific plan.)
>The San Francisco design area is slowly seeing tenants being pushed out by new housing and
commercial buildings. If there was a design center like that here, there would be a number of gallery
spaces and design spaces to support the showrooms. Would the FAR be sufficient to support that type of
development? (Stetson: The FAR may not be as high as in San Francisco, but we can re -evaluate it to
make sure it could accommodate the concept.)
>Ferry service is mentioned. Is it being considered as a transportation option for the Bayfront?
(Stetson: It is not excluding the possibility, but because of the dredging that would be considered it would
be a fairly complex undertaking. It could be considered in the future but the implementation would be a
challenge.)
>Rollins Road has high -power lines requiring development to stay away from power lines. How far does
development need to be from the power lines to accommodate housing? (Stetson: Can bring a more
detailed response back in the public hearing.)
>Could the threshold for historic review be 100 years, not 50? There were so many homes built in the
1950s and 1920s. (Gardiner: There is the CEQA threshold, versus a city policy threshold. A 100-year
threshold would be a city policy choice .)(Stetson: 50 years is a standard threshold used throughout the
country.)
>Would be difficult to have a 50-year historic evaluation threshold since most homes in Burlingame are
more that 50 years old. (Stetson: Some communities have begun designating mid -century homes such as
Eichlers as representative of certain eras. While 50 years is a standard practice, a community could
decide to have a two -tiered system.)(Gardiner: The framework in the plan intentionally emphasizes historic
preservation. This was the direction of the Community Advisory Committee, to have a higher, more
rigorous level of evaluation than exists currently.)
>There is a difference between historic and nostalgic. Believes it would be hard to make the case that
many of the buildings that are more than 50 years old are actually historic. In the Burlingame Park
neighborhood, most of the evaluations have come back as not being eligible. If this practice is applied
citywide, it would have an impact that would unnecessarily constrain the city.
>Believes the intent is have a more comprehensive analysis of the city. Right now there is a limbo that
there was an historical evaluation survey of Downtown, and then Burlingame Park has a status where each
individual project has to prepare its own evaluation. The goal here would be to have a more comprehensive
evaluation, sponsored by the City, which would remove the burden from the individual property owner.
>Earlier the modest 2 bedroom/1 bath houses were the ones being torn down and replaced, but those
are all gone now. Now those being torn down include some very nice houses. The potential tear -downs now
include more substantial houses that could be potentially historic, but there is no recourse to ask for
something other than allowing it to be torn down, or to consider incentives for the homeowner to preserve
and add on instead and do something through the Mills Act.
>Even the properties that have been determined to have historic merit have been allowed to do
substantial projects, while maintaining their historic nature. Historic designation does not mean that
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
something cannot be done to a house.
>Would prefer to look at the historic issue more holistically. Concern with the existing practice of
individual evaluations; does not feel like there is a lot of return, and it is a burden. Only a handful end up
being deemed significant.
>The focus should be on the character.
>Has anyone looked at the typical lot sizes of lots in Rollins Road for the types of projects being
intended? Should make sure the FAR being proposed is going to work for the types of projects
envisioned. (Stetson: There is no typical lot size in the area, but the FAR would likely apply only to the
non-residential development.)
>Given the water table in the area, underground parking may be difficult in the Rollins Road area. Not
convinced 1.0 FAR will be sufficient to encourage change.
Public Comments:
>Florence Wong: Is on the School Board for the Burlingame School District. Demographers project for
every 100 new single family units there will be 20 more students, with 7% middle school students. If by
2040 there would be 3,000 new housing units, that would be 600 new students. Even with the new school
recently added, all elementary schools are at capacity except for Franklin. BIS already has 1,100
students. Is not opposed to adding housing units, but in the future will need some help from the city to
identify land for a new school, a big school. There are rules for where schools can be located, minimum
distance from highways. Could not build a school in the North Rollins area. Needs to be able to have the
funding and be able to identify land for future schools.
>Kamran Ehsanipour: Owns land at corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real. Property was originally
zoned R-3, and surrounding area is R -3. Property was used as a commercial use as a grandfathered use .
In 1984 the zoning changed to C -1. At that time mixed use was allowed in C -1, but not allowed now .
Wants to be able to develop mixed use. Mixed use can add to quality of life and beauty to city. Opinion is
C-1 should be considered to allow mixed use. Would like the North Burlingame Mixed Use designation for
this property.
>Cynthia Cornell, Housing for All Burlingame: Concerned with 3,000 units. Burlingame Point will bring
4,000 new jobs. The old Hyatt movie theater redevelopment would add more jobs, as well as possibly two
new hotels and Top Golf. Jobs will be low income. Burlingame continues to develop commercial properties
without housing. Needs to consider where people will live in the future, and will need another school .
Renters are at risk of losing their housing once Burlingame Point opens.
>Jennifer Pfaff: Concern with not having a height limit on the northern end, concerned how the city
intends to handle design. How to get good design with overreach from the State, which does not allow
design standards to be imposed on projects? Not understanding how the two pieces will go together .
Historic preservation was a concern of the Community Advisory Committee given how much is being torn
down and the character changing; Burlingame Park was treated in a certain way from its characteristics .
Different areas of the city are treated in different ways, which is not equitable. There are older areas of the
city besides Burlingame Park, but they are not being treated the same. In Burlingame Park while most of
the surveys have shown the building to not have significance, there were more than a couple that were
designated as special. There were also some that were considered contributors to a district, but we do not
consider districts. Would like to look at what other cities do; some of it is legal. Should be equitable but
not be a nuisance to owners and developers.
>Tim Donnelly: Impressed with the plan: it is comprehensive and well thought out. A lot of effort has
gone into it. Don't let it get watered down.
>Leslie McQuaide: Has lived in Burlingame for 41 years, and was on the Community Advisory
Committee. Has fear of the city losing its character. People redevelop houses but then move on .
Concerned with traffic; there is a line of cars on Broadway heading to the freeway. Needs another way to
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
get to the freeway. Rollins Road will add more traffic. SFGate had an article quality of life, with South San
Francisco and San Carlos featured as being concerned with changing quality of life.
Community Development Director Gardiner noted that there will be meetings in the future to provide further
input and discussion.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
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 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 10, 2018
a.General Plan Update - Historical Preservation Policies
Staff Report
Attachments
Attachments:
Dan Amsden, MIG, made a presentation.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are the options presented "both/and" options or "either/or?" Could there be a mix and match of
options, versus choosing one approach over the the other? (Amsden: The examples shown illustrate
different ways cities have addressed historic resources. The loss of a potentially historic resource is a
potentially significant impact under CEQA. There is some discretion for local jurisdictions to avoid the
significant impact from a historic resource being destroyed. It could include local registrations, for
example.)
>Right now there are two triggers for conducting a historic evaluation: location in Burlingame Park, and
anything in the Downtown area that is on the list from the survey prepared for that plan. However there is
no trigger for anything outside of those two areas to determine historic eligibility? (Gardiner: Correct.
CEQA does not allow categorical exemptions for potentially historic resources, but there has not been
pre-screening for areas outside Downtown or Burlingame Park. If an application comes forward that could
impact a potentially historic resource, we won't necessarily know whether it may qualify without some type
of pre-screening.)
>The current practice in Burlingame treats some applications very different than most others.
>How was 50 years determined to be the threshold for review? Soon 1970s homes would qualify, as well
as all of the Mills Estate. (Amsden: It is a standard CEQA threshold, and is also used as a threshold for
State eligibility. The intent is not necessarily the age itself as the criteria; a property less than 50 years old
might qualify if is was designed by a famous architect, for example.)
>Could a different threshold be established, such as 75 years? (Gardiner: There are two aspects. First
is CEQA, where 50 years is an initial screening criteria for determining potential environmental impacts .
The other is community values, which may identify a different threshold than 50 years but would not be
tied to CEQA. For example, Redwood City has a threshold of 1940 based on designating pre -war
development to be an era of interest, which would be regarded differently for purposes of community
character. A community could identify a threshold based on its own history, such as a particular
subdivision. However that would not address the CEQA element.)
>There is an Eichler development in Burlingame, worth preserving and maintaining.
>If someone is coming into town and purchasing a home, could the historic evaluation be prepared in
conjunction with the sale of the home? Similar to the sewer lateral report that has to be completed prior to
selling or purchasing a home. (Gardiner: Could look into it further. The current trigger is an application for
a discretionary development permit before the Planning Commission. Not sure a city could make that
requirement as a policy matter, however it is a disclosure. One aspect of CEQA is that is discloses
potential environmental impacts. Sometimes real estate professionals will inquire about the historic status
of a property when preparing a listing because they are preparing disclosures.)
>Real estate agents in Burlingame Park are often already aware of this, and advise an evaluation as
part of the disclosures.
>Needs to clarify to the community that just because a structure is over 50 years old, it is not
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
automatically considered historic, or could be designated as historic, unless and until it goes through an
evaluation that deems it to be potentially eligible for a State or other register. There is a high threshold for
determining the significance, beyond the 50 year threshold.
>Would think many could be ruled out without doing the full research. A major renovation, for example.
>The historical society database information can provide guidance on whether a building could be ruled
out.
>Evaluations are not cheap. There needs to be a streamlined process for determining yes or no.
>The threshold cannot be subjective. It needs to be definitive in how it is applied.
>Are there different approaches for how this is achieved? There could be a staff member who is trained
to make an initial determination. (Amsden: That could be an option. However the draft as written requires
the evaluation for any discretionary permit. It could be implemented by staff, or could be prepared by an
outside consultant.)
>Are there statistics for how many buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places?
Statistically, there is probably a low number of buildings that meet the standards to qualify for the registry .
Concerned that a lot of people will be paying $3500 to determine their house older than 50 years is not
historic, since the great majority of buildings in the city are not historic.
>Concerned if something is written into the General Plan that forces people to spend more money than
they already have to spend to do renovations.
>Could have evaluations of areas with high potential for historic properties. Even in those areas, would
not expect to have many eligible.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
Jennifer Pfaff: Historical society members are not licensed to provide evaluations. A licensed professional
looks at certain criteria, including special aspects of a property that may not be evident. Never ceased to
be surprised by some of the evaluations. There are areas with older homes that are more in tact, which is
why Burlingame Park is treated differently. However there are properties that would be of interest in other
areas too. The determinations cannot be dependent on specific historic society staff. Has advocated for
the trigger to be where an application is submitted for a major project. Maybe Page & Turnbull can provide
a tiered approach. Would not recommend it being at staff level, as pressure would be put on staff
members. If someone is buying an older house and does not plan to do a major project, should not need
to conduct an evaluation, so would not suggest the evaluation be done at time of the sale. Focus should
be on the trigger; a teardown would absolutely be a trigger, but if the home is being left alone or is just
having minor changes, does not see a need to have an evaluation prepared.
Leslie McQuaid: Examples of cities with historic resources: Amsterdam, Washington DC, Savannah,
Chicago. The focus is on the outside of the building; alterations can be made on the inside as long as the
outside maintains the historic qualities. Each of these cities is a tourist destination. Would prefer a district
where they are all together, as these other cities have done.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>If an application requires discretionary review, it is a potentially significant project. There are not that
many $5,000, $10,000 to $15,000 projects that come to the Planning Commission as discretionary
reviews. The applications before the Commission typically are much more substantial, and therefore the
approx. $3,500 cost for the historical determination represents a smaller proportion of the overall project
costs. The trigger that determines that something should go to the Planning Commission is important. In
the past the older, smaller houses were candidates for teardowns, but now most are all gone. Now the
teardowns involve more substantial houses, and there is some angst to see the house go away.
>Should not rely on the historical society to make designations. Could be difficult for staff to be
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
required to be arbiters for making the determination. The detached professional analysis may help with
applicants who are resistant to the process.
>Something needs to be done, since some properties are being treated differently than the rest of the
City.
>The economics drive the demolition of houses; a house has a certain life. Perhaps there could be an
incentive to restore them. One of the examples shown in the presentation had a tear -down fee to deter or
discourage demolitions, or perhaps a reduction in other fees to allow for a professional evaluation. Or if the
house character could be maintained better than just tearing it down.
>Could have other language to stipulate when a home would be catagorized, to meet the CEQA
requirements without stating the number of years.
>Wants the process to be fair, objective, and definitive.
>Likes good old buildings; doesn't like bad old buildings. Just wants to be careful so it does not
become misguided. Would want the city to keep data to track the evidence, rather than just nostalgia.
This was a Study Item so there was no action from the Planning Commission.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION will hold a public
hearing to consider adoption of the Burlingame General Plan Update and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The Planning Commission will review the proposed General Plan and Final EIR,
and make a recommendation to the City Council.
The hearing will be held on Monday, October 22, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
The Draft General Plan and EIR may be viewed at
www.burlingame.org/generalplan. The staff report and draft documents may be
reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department,
Planning Division, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and on
the City's website at www.burlingame.org. For additional information please call
the Planning Division at (650) 558-7250.
To be published by Friday, October 12, 2018.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 17, 2018 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 22, 2018
FROM: ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1411 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling at 1411 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning
Commission on October 23, 2017 (see attached October 23, 2017 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in April 2018 and construction is underway.
The applicant is requesting approval of the following proposed changes to the design:
Roofing material for the main dwelling and detached garage changing from standing
seam metal to asphalt shingle;
Moving all vent louvers on gable ends to under the soffit eaves;
Changing wood siding to stucco siding on the following elevations:
o Front elevation – right half of the second floor;
o Rear elevation – second floor deck and entire first floor;
o Left elevation – second floor window enclosure and rear portion of first floor;
o Right elevation – middle section of both floors and rear portion of first floor; and
Changing stucco siding to wood siding on second floor gable at the front of the
house.
Please refer to the attached explanation letter, date stamped October 15, 2018 for an
explanation of the proposed changes to the approved plans. The applicant submitted plans
showing the proposed changes to the previously approved design review project, date stamped
October 15, 2018.
Staff would note that the previously approved plans had shown the garage width incorrectly; the
proposed plans shows the true existing dimensions for the detached garage. This clarification
does not affect the projects’ compliance with off-street parking and development requirements.
Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other
changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing
with direction to the applicant.
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped October 15, 2018
October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes
Proposed building elevations, date stamped October 15, 2018
Originally approved building elevations, date stamped October 13, 2017
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 23, 2017
b.1411 De Soto Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (e)(2). (Scott and Leanne Duong, applicant and property owners; Thomas
Biggs, Biggs Group Architecture, architect) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1411 De Soto Ave. - Staff Report
1411 De Soto Ave. - Attachments
1411 De Soto Ave - Plans - 10.23.17
Attachments:
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.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Leann Duong and Thomas Biggs represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Will the windows really have "true" divided lights? (Biggs: yes.)
>Will the louvers be simple, rectangular vents? (Biggs: yes.)
>On the rendering, the front elevation looks very symmetrical, but on the plans, the overhangs look
asymmetrical, why? (Biggs: the overhangs should be the same.)
>Will there be no trim around the windows? (Biggs: yes.)
>The renderings look very stark as a white house with black trim. (Biggs: trying for a Contemporary
Farmhouse aesthetic. The renderings don't really show the contrast in textures between the first and upper
floor.)
>This is the first home that is being remodeled in the neighborhood; perhaps there is some way to
soften the appearance. (Biggs: could perhaps set the windows in a bit.)
>With respect to the right elevation, the roofline appears very grand, takes over that side of the home .
Is there any way to soften this. (Biggs: if modified the entire look of the front would change. Would move
the design away from the design aesthetic. Could look at adjusting the roof slope somewhat.)
>Did the architect consider bringing the chimney on the left side up to the roof? (Biggs: the chimney will
serve no purpose as the fireplace is being converted to a direct-vent.)
>Was delighted to see such a significant change from the original design.
>Perhaps something can be done to add more articulation through the use of color. Perhaps something
can be done to soften the appearance. (Biggs: feels that the varied finish work and trim will break up the
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
monotony. Offered recessing the windows by perhaps two inches to provide some shadowing that would
break up the mass.)
>Likes the idea of recessing the windows; would add texture to the building.
>The Strawberry Tree shown in the front yard may not grow to be in scale with the remodeled home .
Ensure that the landscaping filters the view of the home. (Biggs: the landscape architect can revisit the
landscape plan. Trees should match the neighborhood pattern.)
>Look at trim near the stucco.
Public Comments:
Neighbor on the right -hand side: was a second floor deck shown on the prior design removed? Would
there be a concern about the deck looking into his yard or into a future second -story bedroom; was this a
consideration? (Meeker: there is no guarantee of privacy in any development of this sort. The Commission
considers the size of the deck and how it could be used and impact privacy. Can't consider a speculative
concept for development of the adjacent property. Commissioner: try to limit the size of second -floor
decks and limit them to being off of a bedroom or other similar area so they do not become a major
gathering point.)
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the changes that have been made. Likes the front porch. Would prefer something other than
the cable-wire railing on the deck.
>Design is significantly improved. Likes the idea of recessing the windows.
>Believes the wire railing system works with the design for the deck; consider landscape solutions to
address privacy.
>Would like the appearance of the project to be softened.
>There are still a few items to be addressed; inclined to continue the matter to permit the applicant the
opportunity to address outstanding concerns. (Meeker: could these items be addressed through an FYI .)
Yes, they could.
>Feels that the outstanding issues: recessed windows, trees in the front, can be addressed through an
FYI.
>Concerned that the applicant may be punished because of the rendering that has been presented.
>Feels that the project is approvable.
>Concurs with Commissioner's assessment regarding the discussion of second-floor decks.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the
application with the additional condition that an FYI shall be submitted showing the recessed
windows and revised landscape plan for the front to address the size of the trees.
Discussion of Motion:
>May help to incorporate an actual chimney on the left-side fireplace.
Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto8 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2018
5 1/2 : 125 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12 1220LV
3050FX3050FX3050FX3050FX
5 1/2 : 12
1220LV
6 : 12
3050FX3050FX3050FX3050FX
6 : 12
3050FX3050FX
1870FX1870FX
3050FX3050FX
6 : 12
1870FX1870FX
5 1/2 : 125 1/2 : 12
6 : 126 : 12
5 1/2 : 125 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12 1220LV
3050FX3050FX3050FX3050FX
5 1/2 : 12
1220LV
6 : 12
3050FX3050FX3050FX3050FX
6 : 12
3050FX3050FX
1870FX1870FX
3050FX3050FX
6 : 12
1870FX1870FX
5 1/2 : 125 1/2 : 12
6 : 126 : 12
FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSED
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC
6 : 126 : 12
2040SC
4030DC
2040SC2040SC
3020AW
5040DC
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
1016LV
2040SC
2050SC2050SC
5030DC
6 : 12
6 : 12
4030DC
2040SC2040SC
3020AW
5040DC
2040SC
2050SC2050SC
5030DC
3'-7"8'-3"1'-0 5/8"8'-3"7'-4 1/4"DIRECT VENT
EXHAUST
WATER HEATER
FIRST FLR.
EL. 102.9'
PLATE
SECOND FLR.
EL. 112.22'
PLATE
TOP OF RIDGE
EL. 127.85'
A.T.O.C.
97.85'
GRADE
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC
6 : 126 : 12
2040SC
4030DC
2040SC2040SC
3020AW
5040DC
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
1016LV
2040SC
2050SC2050SC
5030DC
6 : 12
6 : 12
4030DC
2040SC2040SC
3020AW
5040DC
2040SC
2050SC2050SC
5030DC
LEFT ELEVATION - PROPOSED
5 1/2 : 125 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
4023DC
6 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
1220LV
2020AW
3040SC
6068
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
1220LV
6 : 12 6 1/8 : 12
3040SC
6068
CSPD 120683068
4023DC
6 : 12 6 1/8 : 12
CSPD 120683068
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
6 1/8 : 126 1/8 : 12
5 1/2 : 125 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
4023DC
6 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
1220LV
2020AW
3040SC
6068
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
1220LV
6 : 12 6 1/8 : 12
3040SC
6068
CSPD 120683068
4023DC
6 : 12 6 1/8 : 12
CSPD 120683068
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
6 1/8 : 126 1/8 : 12
REAR ELEVATION - PROPOSED
2040SC2040SC 2040SC
3020AW
5670MU
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
1220LV 1220LV
3020AW
2450SC2450SC
4540DC
3020AW
6 : 12
6 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC2040SC 2040SC
3020AW
5670MU
3020AW
2450SC2450SC
4540DC
3020AW
2040SC
5 1/2 : 12
3020AW
6 : 12
2040SC
3020AW
8'-3"1'-0 5/8"8'-3"7'-4 1/4"FIRST FLR.
EL. 102.9'
PLATE
SECOND FLR.
EL. 112.22'
PLATE
TOP OF RIDGE
EL. 127.85'
A.T.O.C.
97.85'
GRADE
2040SC2040SC 2040SC
3020AW
5670MU
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
1220LV 1220LV
3020AW
2450SC2450SC
4540DC
3020AW
6 : 12
6 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC2040SC 2040SC
3020AW
5670MU
3020AW
2450SC2450SC
4540DC
3020AW
2040SC
5 1/2 : 12
3020AW
6 : 12
2040SC
3020AW
RIGHT ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Revision Table
No.Date Description
3708 Linwood Ave.
Oakland, CA. 94602
Phone: 510-757-6131
Email: tom.biggs@biggs-group.com
Client:
Scott & Leanne Duong
1415 Desoto Ave.
Burlingame , CA. 94010
Phone: 310-562-8130
Email: scottduong@verizon.net
PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONSA-7RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION1411 Desoto Ave.Burlingame, CA.E1
A-7
E1
A-7 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E1
A-7
E1
A-7 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E1
A-7
E1
A-7 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E1
A-7
E1
A-7 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
FINISH PALLET
PAINT COLORS: (BENJAMIN MOORE)
- WOOD FACIA
-WOOD TRIM
- COVE GUTTERS
-3" DOWNSPOUTS
- MISC FLASHING
-ATTIC VENTS
-SHADOW BOARD
-STEEL HANDRAILS &
POSTS
- STONE PANELS AT BASE
-MS INTERNATIONAL,
"COAL CANYON"
ROOF FINISH:
"LOC SEAM" SS MTL ROOF
MANUFACTURER: MBCI
COLOR: CHARCOAL GREY
EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE
-BELOW EAVES
PAINT ON BEAD
BOARD
(SIMILAR TO
BM #1603)
EXTERIOR PENDANT
(FRONT PORCH)
WINDOW & DOOR
ALUM. CLADDING FINISH
WINDOW & DOOR
HARDWARE FINISH REAR DECK FINISH
METAL POSTS &
CABLE RAILINGFRONT PORCH/STEPS
FLOOR FINISH
SEALED IPE WOOD, 6" PLANK
W/ CONCEALED FASTENER
SLATE TILE, GREY
GROUT
SS METAL ROOF
FACIA TRIM
5" COVE GUTTER
WINDOW UNIT
PENDANT FIXTURE
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
10-6-2017
6" SHIPLAP SIDING
COLOR : WHITE
SMOOTH STUCCO
COLOR: WHITE
DIRECT VENT
EXHAUST
SS METAL ROOF
STUCCO
ALUM CLAD WINDOW
PAINTED GUTTER
MTL. RAILING
SS. CABLE
PAINTED LOUVER
SS MTL. ROOF
PAINTED LOUVER
ALUM. CLAD WINDOW
MTL. RAILING
SCONCE FIXTURE
MTL RAILING
STONE BASE
STUCCO
SS MTL. ROOF
SCONCE FIXTURE
SS MTL. ROOF
MTL. RAILING
IPE WOOD DECK
PAINTED
LOUVER
SCONCE
FIXTURE
STONE BASE
PAINTED DOWNSPOUT
PAINTED
WOOD SIDING
STONE BASE
PAINTED WOOD COLUMN (DOUBLE 8" SQ. POSTS)
PAINTED WOOD BEAM AND 4X RAFTERS ABOVE
STUCCO
GENERAL FINISH NOTES:
1.FACIA TO BE 2X8.
2.ALL WINDOWS TO BE ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES.
8070 3040SC3040SC2870P / L P / L
E1
A-8
E1
A-8
GARAGE - FRONT
E2
A-8
E2
A-8
GARAGE - LEFTE3
A-8
E3
A-8
GARAGE - REAR
E4
A-8
E4
A-8
GARAGE RIGHT1'-6 1/2"9'-2"1'-3 1/2"
12'1'-5 5/8"2'-8"4'-6"3'6'-5 5/8"18'-1 1/4"10'-2 1/2"11'-1" X 17'-2"
GARAGE
(E) 3'X4' WINDOW
REPLACED W/
NEW CASEMENT
REPLACED (E)
DOOR
REPLACED GAR.
DOOR (10' MIN)GARAGE FLOOR PLAN
8070807080708070
01014LV
80708070807080708070
Grade Level
0'
Top of Wall
8'-1"97"Highest Ridge
11'-8 3/16"43 3/16"8070807080708070
01014LV
80708070807080708070
GARAGE - FRONT GARAGE - LEFT
GARAGE - REAR
3040SC
2870
3040SC
2870
3040SC3040SC3040SC3040SC3040SC
2870
3040SC
2870
3040SC3040SC3040SC3040SC
GARAGE RIGHTE1
A-8
E1
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
6 : 12 6 : 12
P / L P / L
10'-2 1/2"GARAGE
GARAGE ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED
Revision Table
No.Date Description
3708 Linwood Ave.
Oakland, CA. 94602
Phone: 510-757-6131
Email: tom.biggs@biggs-group.com
Client:
Scott & Leanne Duong
1415 Desoto Ave.
Burlingame , CA. 94010
Phone: 310-562-8130
Email: scottduong@verizon.net
GARAGE EXISTING &PROPOSED PLANSA-8RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION1411 Desoto Ave.Burlingame, CA.E2
A-8
E2
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E3
A-8
E3
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E4
A-8
E4
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E1
A-8
E1
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
DECORATIVE
LIGHT FIXTURE
"DARK SKY
COMPLIANT"
STUCCO
10X16" GABLE VENT
GARAGE DOOR
WATERTABLE
TRIM
6" T/G HORZ
SIDING
SS MTL. ROOF
5" COVE GUTTER
2X6 TRIM
STUCCO
3.5" TRIM-
DOOR
(MATCH
GARAGE)
6" T/G SIDING
CONC.
3" RND. MTL.
GUTTER
TO SPLASH
BLOCK BELOW
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
10-6-2017
E1
A-8
E1
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
3050FX3050FX3050FX3050FX
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
3050FX3050FX
1870FX30701870FX
3050FX3050FX
6 : 12
3050FX3050FX3050FX3050FX
6 : 12
3050FX3050FX
1870FX30701870FX
3050FX3050FX
3050FX3050FX3050FX3050FX
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
3050FX3050FX
1870FX30701870FX
3050FX3050FX
6 : 12
3050FX3050FX3050FX3050FX
6 : 12
3050FX3050FX
1870FX30701870FX
3050FX3050FX
FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSED
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
4030DC
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 126 : 12
2040SC
6 : 126 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
4030DC
2040SC2040SC
3020AW
5040DC
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC2040SC5040DC
2040SC
2050SC2050SC
5030DC
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC
2050SC
3'-7"8'-3"1'-0 5/8"8'-3"7'-4 1/4"DIRECT VENT
EXHAUST
WATER HEATER
FIRST FLR.
EL. 102.9'
PLATE
SECOND FLR.
EL. 112.22'
PLATE
TOP OF RIDGE
EL. 127.85'
A.T.O.C.
97.85'
GRADE
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
4030DC
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 126 : 12
2040SC
6 : 126 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
4030DC
2040SC2040SC
3020AW
5040DC
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC2040SC5040DC
2040SC
2050SC2050SC
5030DC
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC
2050SC
LEFT ELEVATION - PROPOSED
2020AW
3040SC
6068
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
CSPD 120683068
4023DC
6 : 12 6 1/8 : 12
2020AW
3040SC
6068
CSPD 120683068
4023DC
2020AW
3040SC
6068
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
CSPD 120683068
4023DC
6 : 12 6 1/8 : 12
2020AW
3040SC
6068
CSPD 120683068
4023DC
REAR ELEVATION - PROPOSED
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC
2450SC
6 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC2040SC 2040SC
3020AW
5670MU
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC2040SC 2040SC
5670MU
3020AW
2450SC2450SC
4540DC
3020AW
6 : 12
6 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC
3020AW
4540DC
6 : 12
8'-3"1'-0 5/8"8'-3"7'-4 1/4"FIRST FLR.
EL. 102.9'
PLATE
SECOND FLR.
EL. 112.22'
PLATE
TOP OF RIDGE
EL. 127.85'
A.T.O.C.
97.85'
GRADE
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC
2450SC
6 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC2040SC 2040SC
3020AW
5670MU
5 1/2 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC2040SC 2040SC
5670MU
3020AW
2450SC2450SC
4540DC
3020AW
6 : 12
6 : 12
5 1/2 : 12
2040SC
5 1/2 : 12
6 : 12
2040SC
3020AW
4540DC
6 : 12
RIGHT ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Revision Table
No.Date Description
3708 Linwood Ave.
Oakland, CA. 94602
Phone: 510-757-6131
Email: tom.biggs@biggs-group.com
Client:
Scott & Leanne Duong
1415 Desoto Ave.
Burlingame , CA. 94010
Phone: 310-562-8130
Email: scottduong@verizon.net
PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONSA-7RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION1411 Desoto Ave.Burlingame, CA.E1
A-7
E1
A-7 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E1
A-7
E1
A-7 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E1
A-7
E1
A-7 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E1
A-7
E1
A-7 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
FINISH PALLET
PAINT COLORS: (BENJAMIN MOORE)
- WOOD FACIA
-WOOD TRIM
- COVE GUTTERS
-3" DOWNSPOUTS
- MISC FLASHING
-ATTIC VENTS
-SHADOW BOARD
-STEEL HANDRAILS &
POSTS
- STONE PANELS AT BASE
-MS INTERNATIONAL,
"COAL CANYON"
ROOF FINISH:
GREY ASPHALT SHINGLE:
SIMILAR TO OWENS CORNING
OAKRIDGE ESTATE GREY
ARCHITECTURAL ROOF
SHINGLES
EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE
-BELOW EAVES
PAINT ON BEAD
BOARD
(SIMILAR TO
BM #1603)
EXTERIOR PENDANT
(FRONT PORCH)
WINDOW & DOOR
ALUM. CLADDING FINISH
WINDOW & DOOR
HARDWARE FINISH REAR DECK FINISH
METAL POSTS &
CABLE RAILINGFRONT PORCH/STEPS
FLOOR FINISH
SEALED IPE WOOD, 6" PLANK
W/ CONCEALED FASTENER
SLATE TILE, GREY
GROUT
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
FACIA TRIM
5" COVE GUTTER
WINDOW UNIT
PENDANT FIXTURE
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
10-6-2017
6" SHIPLAP SIDING
COLOR : WHITE
SMOOTH STUCCO
COLOR: WHITE
DIRECT VENT
EXHAUST
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
STUCCO
ALUM CLAD WINDOW
PAINTED GUTTER
MTL. RAILING
SS. CABLE
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
ALUM. CLAD WINDOW
MTL. RAILING
SCONCE FIXTURE
MTL RAILING
STUCCO
STUCCO
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
SCONCE FIXTURE
MTL. RAILING
IPE WOOD DECK
SCONCE
FIXTURE
STUCCO
PAINTED DOWNSPOUT
PAINTED
WOOD SIDING
STONE BASE
PAINTED WOOD COLUMN (DOUBLE 8" SQ. POSTS)
PAINTED WOOD BEAM AND 4X RAFTERS ABOVE
PAINTED WOOD
SIDING
GENERAL FINISH NOTES:
1.FACIA TO BE 2X8.
2.ALL WINDOWS TO BE ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES.
2 10-11-17 EXTERIOR
FINISH
CHANGES
2222
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
22
PAINTED TRIM
PAINTED TRIM
22
22
22
8070 3040SC2870P / L P / L
E2
A-8
E2
A-8
GARAGE - LEFTE1
A-8
E1
A-8
GARAGE - FRONT
E3
A-8
E3
A-8
GARAGE - REAR
E4
A-8
E4
A-8
GARAGE RIGHT3'-4"8'3'-4 1/4"
14'-8 1/4"1'-5 3/4"2'-8"13'-11 5/8"18'-1 3/8"13'-9" X 17'-2"
GARAGE
(N) 3'X4' WINDOW
CASEMENT
REPLACED (E)
DOOR
REPLACED GAR.
DOOR (10' MIN)GARAGE FLOOR PLAN
807080708070807080708070
Grade Level
0'
Top of Wall
7'-6 9/16"90 9/16"Highest Ridge
11'-8 3/16"49 5/8"807080708070807080708070
GARAGE - FRONT GARAGE - LEFT
GARAGE - REAR
3040SC
2870
3040SC
2870
3040SC3040SC3040SC
2870
3040SC
2870
3040SC3040SC
GARAGE RIGHT
5 3/4 : 12
P / L P / L
5 3/4 : 12
GARAGE
GARAGE ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED
Revision Table
No.Date Description
1 3/21/
2018
PC
COMMENT
S
3708 Linwood Ave.
Oakland, CA. 94602
Phone: 510-757-6131
Email: tom.biggs@biggs-group.com
Client:
Scott & Leanne Duong
1415 Desoto Ave.
Burlingame , CA. 94010
Phone: 310-562-8130
Email: scottduong@verizon.net
GARAGE PROPOSEDPLANS &ELEVATIONSA-8RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION1411 Desoto Ave.Burlingame, CA.E2
A-8
E2
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E3
A-8
E3
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E4
A-8
E4
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
A-8
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
DECORATIVE
LIGHT FIXTURE
"DARK SKY
COMPLIANT"
STUCCO
GARAGE DOOR
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
5" COVE GUTTER
2X6 TRIM
STUCCO
3.5" TRIM-
DOOR (MATCH
GARAGE
DOOR FINISH)
CONC.
3" RND. MTL.
GUTTER
TO SPLASH
BLOCK BELOW
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
10-6-2017
11
2 10-11-17 EXTERIOR
FINISH
CHANGES
22
STUCCO
22
22
A-8
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
E1
A-8
E1
A-8 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"