HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.11.10Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, November 10, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 27, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga.
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
1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance for automobile sales within an existing commercial building (Enrique Pelaez
Jr., applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, designer; John T. Michael, RWR Properties Inc .,
property owner) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
a.
1327 Marsten Rd Staff Report
1327 Marsten Rd Attachments
Attachments:
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a
commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/10/2014
November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Update to the Circulation Element of the General Plan - Staff Contact: Kevin Gardinera.
Staff Report
Draft Circulation Element
Circulation Element Attachments
Attachments:
1262 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in
a detached garage (Christopher and Anna Clevenger, applicants and property owners;
Bottarini Construction, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
b.
1262 Balboa Ave Staff Report
1262 Balboa Ave Attachments
Attachments:
14 Stanley Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first floor addition
that qualifies as substantial construction. (Samuel Sinnott, architect; Christy and Jesse
Lindeman, property owners) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
c.
14 Stanley Rd Staff Report
14 Stanley Rd Attachments
Attachments:
2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye,
applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (58 noticed) Staff
Contact: Kevin Gardiner
d.
2308 Hillside Dr Staff Report
2308 Hillside Dr Attachments
2308 Hillside Dr recd after
Attachments:
770 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two -story single family
dwelling and attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jonathan and
Tamara Miller, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
e.
770 Walnut Ave Staff Report
770 Walnut Ave Attachments
770 Walnut Ave - 11.10.14 - recd after
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
1813 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling (Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant
and designer; Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners) (53 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin (Continued from the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission
meeting)
a.
1813 Ray Dr Staff Report
1813 Ray Dr Attachment
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/10/2014
November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1444 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage (Jeff Chow, ICE, applicant and engineer;
May Li and Yim Nor Yan, property owners) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
b.
1444 Cortez Ave Staff Report
1444 Cortez Ave Attachments
Attachments:
21 Park Road, zoned BMU – Application for Environmental Scoping, Condominium
Permit, Design Review, and Tentative Condominium Map for a new three -story, 8-unit
residential condominium (Samir Sharma, applicant; Dana Denardi, property owner;
SDG Architects, architect) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
c.
21 Park Rd Staff Report
21 Park Rd Attachments
21 park recd after 1
21 park recd after 2
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Commission Communicationsa.
City Council Regular Meeting - November 3, 2014b.
FYI: 1153 Bernal Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
c.
1153 Bernal Ave Memorandum
1153 Bernal Ave Attachment
Attachments:
FYI: 1435 Benito Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
d.
1435 Benito Ave Memorandum
1435 Benito Ave Attachment
Attachments:
FYI: 1225 Floribunda Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
e.
1225 Floribunda FYI Memorandum
1225 Floribunda FYI attachments
Attachments:
12. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/10/2014
November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on November 10, 2014. 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 20, 2014, 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 $485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/10/2014
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 27, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
This was
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent6 -
LoftisAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.October 14, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
>Page 3, motion included removing the setback reduction.
>Page 3, should indicate the property owners presented the application.
>Page 3, Commissioner DeMartini met with owners and received a tour of the property.
>Page 4, Commissioner Terrones recused because of quasi -business relationship with property
owner
>Page 5, last bullet, should indicate porch on the right side.
>Page 5, window cladding is fiberglass.
>Page 5, approve with amended conditions.
>Page 6, Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote.
>Page 8, Commissioner DeMartini met with the owners of the property.
>Page 9, last bullet, extra “bathroom” is listed.
>Page 10, should read “infringement on the property right.”
>Page 11, character of the neighborhood breaks down into three groups… original homes with
garage in the rear, new homes that meet the design guidelines, and homes built before the design
guidelines.
>Page 12, Ellen M., should read challenging to understand what the aesthetics of change are.
>Page 14, need to listen to recording.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
meeting minutes with the revisions as stated. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Pat Giorni spoke on this item:
>Conditions of Approval are legal document registered with the registrar in the County.
>First condition is that “this project will be built to the plans date stamped...”
>If there are changes need to be submitted to Commission.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Suggest when approved by resolution add language that this it is a legal and binding document and
contract is the plans. Any violation is a violation of the contract.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.2748 Burlingview Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Front Setback Variance and
Hillside Area Construction Permit for first floor additions to an existing single -family
dwelling (Jesse Geurse, designer and applicant; Henry Hsia, property owner) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he has a business relationship with the
property owners (an prior applicants) at 2747 and 2753 Burlingview Drive.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>When plans come back would like them to show where average front setback line would be.
>Responses in Variance application Items A and B don ’t justify variance. Item A – Stated that
because it is a corner lot the front of the house is the side setback, but that is the case for every corner
lot so is not exceptional or extraordinary. Item B – Hardship just talks about making a bedroom larger,
and if it could not be extended the house value would decline, but does not adequately address the point
of the variance.
>Average setback is already 28.4 feet and existing property is already encroaching. Another 129
square feet will further encroach.
>Will create more of a blank wall to the entry of Hillview Court, and is set up above street level .
Anything to mitigate the blankness would be beneficial.
As a study item, there is no action on this item. The application will return on the Regular Action
Calendar when revised as directed.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1548 Meadow Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single -family dwelling (J. Deal, J. Deal Associates,
designer and appilcant; Barrett and Aimee Foster, property owners) (63 noticed)
StaffContact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Bandrapalli was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject
property.
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Bandrapalli1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1521 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for a
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
new single family dwelling with an attached garage (James Chu, Chu Design
Associates, Inc., designer; Eric Mainini, applicant and property owner) (49 noticed)
Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
All commissioners visited the site. Commissioner Sargent met with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue,
met with the applicant, and exchanged email with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue. Commissioner
Terrones had a conversation with residents at 1523 Cabrillo Avenue. Commissioner Yie met with the
property owner, and with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue. Commissioner DeMartini met with the
neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Questions from staff:
>If privacy film is used to obscure the glass, are they required to maintain that? If later on, if the film
were removed, would the neighbor be able to file a code enforcement complaint? (Kane: If it is part of
the entitlements of the project that there be obscuration of the glass, if they decide to do that through film
rather than integral in the glass, they are responsible for maintaining that condition. If they fail to do so, it
would be subject to a code compliance complaint.)
>Do we typically allow the film rather than the glazing itself to be obscured? (Gardiner: This has not
come up as an issue before. The plans indicate obscured /stained glass but the exact means as such
was not included specifically.)
>Over the past eight years, cannot recall ever specifying what the specific obscuring methodology
would be.
Eric Mainini represented the property owner:
>Complaint on privacy on four of the windows on the west-facing side.
>On framing detail in the plans, called out for a three-panel window, but elevation did not reflect that.
>With house built, can now stand in the rooms and see the privacy or lack of privacy in a real world
situation. Major tree between this house and adjacent neighbor which blocks out the view of the entire
back yard.
>Three-panel window follows with the design of the downstairs window too. Does not deviate too
much from the look.
>All of the light for this house comes from the west. It is important, makes it a better house.
>The two windows to be obscured are the Master Bedroom closet window (fine whether or not it is
obscured) and the bathroom window.
>Film is a 3M material that makes it so one cannot see through at all. Zero visibility but allows some
light in.
>Suggesting to eliminate obscuring on the bedroom window and stairwell window. Stairwell is a
transitional space.
>Large Oak tree in front, another in back, and another on the side. There is a lot of natural shading,
so looking for natural light.
>Also proposing changing front window from circular to square – more light, not a privacy issue .
Though the elevation looks like it is on level ground, there is a creek to the right and the house is down a
100-foot driveway so cannot be seen from street. Square window will allow more light, is about 1/3 the
price of the round window, and did not think it martially affected the look and feel of the house.
>Closest measurement to 1532 Drake Avenue is 52 feet. It is a large area. Does not border house, is
separated by an easement.
James Chu represented the designer:
>When project originally came in for review and there was concern with privacy, now that the house is
built there is not a privacy issue, even without the landscaping being installed yet.
>Requesting amendment to change the two-panel window to three-panel, without obscuring.
Commission questions:
>How does film do in wet environment, since one of these windows will be a bathroom window?
(Mainini: Vendor says it is used in this capacity all the time and will not be an issue.)
>In the review and approval meetings, there was discussion of the three -panel windows and they
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
became two-panel and obscured. (Mainini: Has included planting that will block the view, but has not
been installed yet. Obscuring of the glass was agreed at the very beginning because of the privacy
issue, but now this is a real house and when one walks through it and sees it can see there is not a
privacy issue. House was built off framing plans, and elevation and framing plans had a discrepancy .)
(Chu: When the window was changed from three panels to two, it was changed on the elevation but not
on the plan.)(Gardiner: Elevation and plan approved by the Planning Commission both showed a
two-panel window.)
>When did privacy issue go away? (Chu: There is an existing tree in neighbor ’s yard, not including
our own trees.) Accepted privacy issue when approved, but once the house was built the privacy issue
went away. (Chu: Can go back to two panels, but are requesting not to have the film. Feels there is not a
privacy issue.)
>Have you been in the back yard of the resident who has an issue with this? (Chu: Yes. Has also
been all through the new house, and cannot see the neighbor’s yard from the new house.)
>Is there a sample of the film? (Mainini: Asked vendor today but sample was not available. It looks
like a frosting of the glass, totally obscured. Zero visibility, only light comes through.)
>Talked to neighbor who has privacy issues? (Mainini: Yes. Also asked if neighbor wanted extra tall
plants.)
Bill Meyers, 1519 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Two windows or three does not seem like a big deal as long as it is frosted.
>Wants to make sure there won’t be changes that will affect his property.
>Is located between the easement and Cortez, directly adjacent to the structure.
Frank Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Submitted letters from neighbors
>When project was initially presented raised concerns about permanent privacy glass in four windows
facing yard.
>Request was considered reasonable enough that it was written into the plans, pleased with
outcome.
>Property owner blatantly disregarded plans, now gets an opportunity to rewrite the plans. Would be
rewarded for violating plans.
>What asking for and was approved was reasonable and fair.
David Green, 2020 Adeline Drive, spoke on this item:
>FYIs allow applicants to request material changes when something comes up, but this doesn ’t
satisfy that condition.
>Privacy issue has not gone away because trees are still needed. If the privacy issue had gone away
they would not need the trees.
>Saving cost should not be a qualification for a change.
>Project was negotiated, compromises were made, plans were filed and approved, but house was
built the way the owner wanted it the first time.
>House should be built as it was approved.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Certification before the framing inspection was invalid. Architect’s assistant did not look at the size of
window.
>This project is illegal because of a perjurious certification. Should go back to original plans.
>Is there mathematical proof that the square window in the front would provide more light than the
round window?
>More natural light brings more heat.
>Approval was August 2013, applicant came back in May 2014 for amendment for tree issue. Has
been 5 months since framing was illegally certified.
Anahita, 1240 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Important to make contractors and their architect accountable. Once plans approved need to stick to
what the city required.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Planning Commission plays an important role in keeping contractors and architects accountable.
Diedre Shaw, 2536 Valdivia Way, spoke on this item:
>Planning Commissioners are the stewards of the town – it is their job.
>Appears to be easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
>Does not know the details of this project, but is speaking to say that the City needs to uphold its
laws.
Linda Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Over past 10 years has seen six new homes, four major remodels and two landscape renovations
all on the dead-end of the street. Have never complained about previous construction.
>Project has not installed the correct type and style of windows that had been agreed on and
approved.
>Neighbors had previously met with Mr. Mainini, talked about obscured stained windows, and a
specific landscape plan.
>During summer Mr. Mainini suggested installing a fence on his property that would exceed
regulations. Was in agreement would be OK.
>Mr. Mainini also suggested building a planter and privacy hedge in the easement.
>Had agreed to stained or obscured windows. Talked to Marvin salesperson who said Mr. Mainini had
considered but did not like the look of the frosted glass. Said he would install film instead.
>Concern film would not provide privacy, could be removed with solvent right after sign -off. Previous
discussions specified permanent stained or obscured glass.
>If a film is used, request that it be in writing that it is two -way privacy and permanent, never to be
removed by the occupant.
>Work crew is disregarding construction hours.
Commission discussion/comments:
>What did Conditions of Approval say regarding the obscured windows? (Gardiner: There was not
anything specific in the Conditions of Approval, just notes on the plans stating “shaded/obscured glazing
shown typ.” and four windows are shown on the elevation shaded to indicate those would be obscured
or stained glazing.)
>Looking at drawings, does not see any reason to remove the shading. Does not see any reason to
go from three window panes to two.
>There has already been a visit from the City Arborist during construction for cutting into the roots of
a 36-inch oak tree. Should have a tree protection plan for the 48-inch oak tree in the front. Does not
seem to care about the rules.
>Unilaterally deciding there is no privacy issue and acting on that is presumptuous.
>On the elevation the two -panel window looks better than the three -panel. Consider obscuring at the
bottom of window but leaving top clear to allow view of sky and tree into room. Same with stairwell
window.
>There is distance between the houses, but the screening tree is a deciduous so when leaves fall
there will be privacy impacts.
>Change to front window is minimal given the oak, how the house steps back, and that it can ’t be
seen from the street.
>Agrees contractors should be required to build what is on the plans, and if not should expect
consequences. However can also be hard to imagine what happens in the field versus the drawings .
There is a process for that.
>Windows are quite some distance from the rear property line. However lots are small, so
disadvantage is having less privacy than if lots were larger. But window treatment applicant agreed to
was reasonable.
>Presumption on part of public is that by reviewing application and giving the application its due,
presumption is that the Commission is already in support of application. However just by listening to the
application neither indicates support or lack of support for an application.
>There is no ordinance to protect privacy, but it is addressed individually with each application.
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion to deny the request. There was no second.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission discussion:
>Did not appear to be objections to the change in the front window from round to square.
>Would window film be an FYI to review later? (Gardiner: Could be a condition for the Commission to
impose.)
>Had assumed glass would be glue chip or frosted. Has not seen film, does not know if it would be
acceptable.
>Cannot add requirements after the fact. The approval did not specify how the glass would be
obscured, and film a common practice – can’t tell the difference. Film was not mentioned in the approval,
but also was not disallowed.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Commission question to applicant:
>Willing to install obscured window instead of filmed windows? (Mainini: The intended purpose of the
film was to obscure the glass. It produces the same end effect, can’t tell the difference.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Item
with the following amended conditions:
1.Accept change in Front Elevation window from round to square.
2.Require the original approved windows on Left Elevation to be installed as approved shown
on the plans approved by the Planning Commission date stamped August 14, 2013.
3.If film is used to obscure the windows it shall be brought back as an FYI, it shall provide
two-way privacy, be permanent and maintained into perpetuity, and the condition remains
irrespective to ownership.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye,
applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (65 noticed) Staff
Contact: Kevin Gardiner
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli reported she spoke with the
neighbors. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>None
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mike Ma (designer) and Hari Inouye (property owner) spoke as applicant:
>Plans revised to respond to Commission’s comments in last meeting.
>Is further proposing to add a side window in Bedroom #4. It would be a high window, spanning from 5
feet up to 7 feet, above eye level.
>If there was a detached garage instead of the attached garage, would result in driving in and out
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
past neighbor’s bedroom windows. Neighbors prefer garage as proposed.
>Counted 19 two-door attached garages on Hillside Drive, from El Camino Real to the Fire Station at
the top/City Limit line, excluding corner parcels. >Perhaps 7 additional if counting the corner houses.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>None
Public comments:
> None
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion/questions:
> Window addition seems like a modest change but it has not been noticed. Could it be submitted as an
FYI? (Gardiner: FYIs are not noticed. The only way to properly notice the neighbor would be to continue
the item or have it come back as a Design Review Amendment.)
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
>Neighbors have seen the plans and are in support of the project, but they have not seen the
proposed additional window. (Inouye: Would prefer to drop the proposed window than have the
application delayed further.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
>Neighborhood does not have any mid -block attached two-car garages. It would dramatically change
the look of the neighborhood and does not improve it.
>Design guidelines have a definition of what a neighborhood is for determining what type of garage
the project could have. In this neighborhood within a 1 or 2 block radius there are no front -facing two-car
garages mid-block. Can’t make finding that it would fit in the neighborhood; is not in keeping with the
other houses in the neighborhood.
>Hillside is not so much a neighborhood as it is a boulevard. It can handle more variety than some of
the interior blocks.
>Benefit of attached garage is convenience, and a lot of people with detached garages do not park
their cars in the garage. The garages as designed are split and nicely designed.
>Difficult to back out of a long driveway given traffic on Hillside Drive. Makes it difficult for residents.
>Neighborhood and street are varied in style, character and massing. May not have a number of
attached two-car garages, but the details of this design such as separated doors make it a good
application. Massing works nicely.
Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Yie, made a motion to approve as submitted, not
including the window proposed at the meeting.
Aye: 3 - Bandrapalli, Yie, and Terrones
Nay: 3 - DeMartini, Sargent, and Gum
Absent: 1 - Loftis
Motion fails (a motion that fails to carry a majority fails)
Further commission discussion:
> Discussion previously focused on the roof pitch, columns, and details. If the dealbreaker was going
to be the attached garage, in fairness to the applicant the Planning Commission should have made it
more clear from the very beginning.
> Attached garage was an issue in previous discussions.
> When the project was approved previously with the attached two -car garage, had referred to a map
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
prepared by the applicant, but the data was incorrect.
> Not clear to all commissioners that the attached garage was not supportable.
Commissioner Yie, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, made a motion to continue. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.1908 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a new, two -story dwelling and Special
Permits for an attached garage, height, basement ceiling height, and exiting (Jesse
Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, designer and applicant; Scott and Brooke Hill,
proerty owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>What is the rule for ceiling height in counting floor area? (Hurin: 12 feet or higher is counted twice.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Commission questions/comments:
Jesse Geurse and Scott & Brooke Hill represented the applicants:
>Reduced height by 1 foot, so majority of ridge is at or just above the 30 foot height limit.
>Sloping lot and top of curb are the issue.
>Did research and found ten examples of similar homes that received approval for heights over 30
feet – five within the last two years.
Commission questions/comments:
>Changes help it fit neighborhood better.
>What will be in top of family room? (Geurse: Ceiling height will be 11’-11 1/2” or less. There will be
storage accessed from Bedroom 4 above.)
>Changes are subtle but noticeable. Proportions of windows and other elements are better.
>Encroachment is modest, only the middle part of the roof.
>Basement height and entrance will not adversely impact the neighborhood, neither will direct exit
from basement.
>Sloping lot presents circumstances for height.
There are several other existing houses in the area with attached garages, also there is a long
driveway so it is far back from the street, the slope minimizes the impact of garage, and the covered
landing and porch mitigate the effect.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
d.1426 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC – Application for Variance for Required
Business Access for a new retail space in an existing commercial building (Dale
Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer; Green Banker LLC, property
owner) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the
applicant originally. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant:
>Easement has been arranged to provide for use of exit.
>In subdividing space did preliminary concepts with hallway down the middle (like Fox Mall) but no
takers. Has not been able to find tenant until now.
Commission questions/comments:
>Why is easement not executed? (Meyer: The Wurlitzer property (the easement grantor) is run by a
trust, with several signers. If approved tonight should be signed tomorrow.)
Ron Karp spoke on this item:
>In favor of applicant.
>In opinion applicant does not need a variance.
Commission comments/discussion:
>Is variance required? (Gardiner: Easement is required for fire access regardless. Spaces at rear of
the building have effectively been severed from the front and do not connect out to the street.)
>Size of the building is an exceptional situation since it would be more difficult for each business to
have access to the public street.
>Some of the hardship was created by the property owner, however the building itself has challenges.
>The space is in an area where there are a number of other business entrances operating in a similar
fashion.
>The variance is conditional on the easement being operational.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1813 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Minerva Abad, MDA Design,
applicant and designer; Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners) (53 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
The applicant was not in attendance. The item was continued to the November 10, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting.
b.1547 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits
for a recreation room and toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure (Julie
Carlson, JCarlson Architectural Design, applicant, designer and property owner) (56
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Yie was recused for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent reported he spoke with the
neighbors at 1543 and 1540 Vancouver Avenue. There were no other ex -parte communications to
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
report.
Questions of staff:
>Does the garage compliance include setback from the fence line? (Hurin: If located in the rear 40%
of the lot detached structures are exempt from side setback requirements. A new detached structure
would require a Special Permit, but because this is existing and not changing the building envelope a
Special Permit is not required.)
Julie Carlson represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Concerned with roof form. Acts as second -floor mansard roof. Did you consider extending front roof
form up vertically? Could then have second floor rooms come off as dormers and other pieces. (Carlson:
Likes houses that are lower, but could consider. Roof has different pitches. If pitched from the side
extension could get a peak.) Not as bad on front elevation, but on other sides looks like a truncated roof.
>Extending roof may require Special Permit, but may be supported because working with existing
conditions, Tudor style often has steeply -pitched roofs, often are very tall. Truncated mansard is not
typical of the neighborhood.
>Garage is an improvement – taking an existing non -permitted in-law unit and creating a functional
garage.
Carlson: Would it be OK to change front bedroom window from three casements to two?
(Commissioners: Should be OK. This kind of change is not unusual.)
>What will accessory structure be used for? (Carlson: Will be used as a bonus room. Bought house
with full bath, but discovered it was not permitted.)
>Seems like some of the character is being taken away in front.
>Concerned about having recreation room and shower on the property line. Is neighbor at 1543
Vancouver Avenue familiar with proposal? (Carlson: Does not know, can talk to her.)
>Special Permit for toilet and sink are acceptable, but shower would seem to encourage a use that
goes beyond being a recreation room. Would be hard to justify.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Yie1 -
c.1025 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a bathroom in a detached
accessory structure (James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, designer and
applicant; 1025 Cabrillo Burlingame LLC, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
Commissioner Yie was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the
owner of 1015 Cabrillo Avenue. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Questions of staff: None.
James Chu (designer) and Michael Callan (landscape architect) represented the applicant:
>Client has talked to neighbors. Majority seem to like project, except for neighbor to left.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Mitigate privacy concerns with tree planting.
Commission questions/comments:
>Has a consistent ring of second -floor plate all around. Massing looks like a two -story ring around the
top, with just a few gestures and elements that are one -story. On sides it stretches out and looks very
long.
>Front elevation could have roof brought down, let dormer to right pop out. Would bring down overall
height and help with massing.
>Tudor revival style with brick is handsome, nicely detailed.
>It’s a large lot, should look at if there is a way to shift the house over to allow more planting area
along the driveway. Focus is towards the lush side of the creek but the left side is barren. (Chu:
Driveway is 12 feet wide but code only requires 9’-6”, so there is plenty of room to add planting .)(Callan:
Has talked to neighbors on both left and rear to have evergreen screening with Grecian laurels. 10 feet
wide by 20-25 feet hight.)(Chu: There is only one bedroom window facing neighbor to left.)
>How is the bathroom in the garage intended to be used? (Chu: Had thought about creating a
swimming pool site in the back, so would be for the future owner to use if they had a pool.)
>Concern garage could be converted into an illegal use in the future. Other uses would require a
Conditional Use Permit or Special Permit with Planning Commission action. (Chu: Won’t happen since
the house is required to have a 2-car garage. Not the intention to have unauthorized uses.)
>House looks like a house from Hillsborough dropped into a small street in Burlingame. It is very
massive, there are not a lot of houses that massive on Cabrillo, doesn’t fit in. \
>Design guidelines talk about not stacking floors and providing relief. Left elevation looks like it is
doing what the design guidelines ask not to do. (Chu: There is a 60” redwood tree that helps with
screening. Could also plant some trees along driveway.)
>Oak trees have been pruned wrong. At this point OK to take out, but should have been pruned
properly previously.
>Which laurel trees harbor sudden oak disease? Is Grecian laurel OK? (Callan: Laurels can harbor
sudden oak, but there are not oak trees on the property anymore. Could work with the arborist if there is
another tree that would be preferable.)
>Although the house is not currently occupied, needs to be maintained. Redwood is overgrown.
>A large lot can support a large house if massed properly. The house across the street is a good
example where massing is handled really well – does not look like a really large house.
>Concerned about the height and the size of the windows and doors on the side. Consider obscured
windows on the south side.
Sally Downing, 1801 Carmelita Avenue spoke on this item:
>Concern with massing. House is a north /south orientation. Once foliage comes out there will be
privacy issues. Will just have one maple on the north side and a lot of north-facing windows.
>Special corner of Burlingame, does not make sense to put that large of a house there. The lot is
bigger, but has encroachment of creek.
>Dormer windows on the side would help.
>Bathroom in garage is a concern. Would not welcome conversion in the future.
>Shed in back and debris is falling into the creek.
>Wants landscaping that will limit water use and provide some privacy.
Dan Griffin, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue spoke on this item:
>Had submitted email with concerns.
>Concern with noise and privacy, with cars driving up the driveway.
>Very large and intrusive house.
Chu: There is a lot of vegetation along the creek, can work with neighbor to minimize privacy intrusion .
Neighbor also has a swimming pool on her lot. This house will not be seen from Carmelita since there is
a house in between.
Commission discussion/comments:
>Is the 400 sq ft exemption for the detached garage factored in the total floor area? (Hurin: There can
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
be a credit of 400 square feet for the garage.)
>Massing needs to be addressed. House could fit into the neighborhood with changes.
>Concerns with toilet in the accessory structure.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to bring the item back
on the Regular Action Calendar when revised as directed. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Yie1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.Commission Communications
b.City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014
>1600 Trousdale Drive was reviewed and the zoning amendment introduced. The application and
zoning amendment will return on November 3rd with additional design refinements.
>The Broadway Community Meeting on October 18th had more than 80 people in attendance. The
survey will be open for one more week. Over 1100 survey responses have been received to date. A
report to be made to the City Council in an upcoming meeting.
c.FYI: 1529 Bernal Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
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 October 27, 2014. 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 6, 2014, 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 $485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance
Address: 1327 Marsten Road Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for automobile sales within an existing
commercial building.
Applicant: Enrique Pelaez Jr. APN: 026-133-020
Property Owner: John T. Michael, RWR Properties Inc. Lot Area: 4,862 SF
Designer: Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates Zoning: RR
General Plan: Industrial Uses: Industrial & Office Use
Previous Use: Automobile repair facility.
Proposed Use: Indoor automobile sales facility enclosed within a warehouse structure with no outdoor
vehicle display areas.
Allowable Use: Conditional Use Permit required for automobile sale within a warehouse structure.
Project Description: The applicant, representing Infinite Auto Group, is proposing to operate an indoor
automobile sales facility at 1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR. The 1,950 SF space was most previously occupied
by an automobile repair facility. Code section 25.44.030 (d) requires a conditional use permit for automobile
sales businesses that are wholly enclosed within a warehouse structure with no outdoor automobile display area.
In his letter date stamped September 5, 2014, the applicant notes that Infinite Auto Group “will be running an
owner operated small, low volume low inventory automobile dealership”. The dealership specializes in modern
day classics to traditional classic cars. The dealership focuses on a specific market which allows them to be
largely an internet based business with most viewing occurring by appointment only. For additional information
about the business, please refer to the attached letter of explanation provided by the applicant.
Within the tenant space, the existing office area (157 SF) would continue to be used as office and the remaining
warehouse space (1,793 SF) would be used as an automobile showroom. The proposed floor plan indicates
that up to five vehicles will be displayed inside the warehouse; a sixth parking space will be dedicated for
employee parking. Any service required to the vehicle will be outsourced, so there will be no auto repair or
detailing done on these premises. There are no changes proposed to the interior or exterior of the building.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Conditional Use Permit for indoor automobile sales within a warehouse structure with no outdoor vehicle
display areas (Code Section 25.44.030 (d)); and
Parking Variance to allow a vehicle to back onto Marsten Road to exit the property (Code Section
25.70.025 (b) (3)).
The use within the tenant space is being intensified from automobile repair to an automobile showroom.
Additional parking is required on-site for the intensification of use. Based on the existing uses (157 SF of office
and 1,793 SF of automobile repair), a total of three parking spaces are currently required on site. Based on the
proposed uses (157 SF of office and 1,793 SF of showroom area), a total of four parking spaces would be
required. Therefore, one additional parking space is required for the intensification of use. The applicant is
proposing to provide the one additional parking space within the warehouse space; this space could be used for
either employee or customer parking. However, a Parking Variance would need to be granted to allow a vehicle
to back onto Marsten Road to exit the property (Code Section 25.70.025 (b) (3)).
The hours of operations will be Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on weekends by
appointment only. The business will have one to two employees and one to four customers visiting the site per
day. The maximum number of persons expected on site at any one time is six.
Item No. 6a
Study Item
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1327 Marsten Road
2
1327 Marsten Road
Lot Area: 4,862 SF Plans date stamped: October 29, 2014
Existing
Proposed
Required
Use: office/warehouse
(previously automobile
repair)
(1,950 SF)
indoor automobile
sales within a
warehouse structure
with no outdoor vehicle
display areas ¹
(1,950 SF)
conditional use permit
required for indoor
automobile sales within a
warehouse structure with no
outdoor vehicle display
areas
Off-Street Parking: 0 spaces
1 space 1 additional parking space
required for intensification of
use from auto repair to auto
sales
Vehicle Egress: n/a Vehicle in new on-site
parking space will back
onto Marsten Road ²
Egress onto Marsten Road
shall be in the forward
direction
¹ Conditional Use Permit for indoor automobile sales within a warehouse structure with no outdoor vehicle
display areas.
² Parking Variance to allow a vehicle to back onto Marsten Road to exit the property (Code Section 25.70.025
(b) (3)).
Staff Comments: Planning staff determined that since the envelope of the existing building is not being
changed and no additional square footage is proposed within the warehouse space, this application is not
subject to the current on-site landscaping requirements. See attached memos from the Chief Building Official,
Fire Marshal and City Engineer.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1327 Marsten Road
3
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Enrique Pelaez Jr., applicant
Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, designer
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Explanation Letter, date stamped September 5, 2014
Conditional Use Permit Application
Variance Application
Commercial Application
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 31, 2014
Aerial Photo
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
UPDATE TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(a)
1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Exempt Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this
Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Any future project proposing to utilize the provisions of
State law and this Ordinance would be subj ect to additional environmental review to address traffic, public facilities,
archaeological issues, biological issues, etc.
BACKGROUND
In September 2008, the California Complete Streets Act became law, codified as Government
Code sections 65302(b )(2)(A) and (B). The Act requires that:
Commencing on January 1, 2011, upon any substantial revision of the circulation element, the
legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multi-modal
transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for
safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of
the general plan.
For purposes of this paragraph, "users of streets, roads, and highways" means bicyclists,
children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of
public transportation, and seniors.
The City's current General Plan Circulation Element was part of the original adoption of the General Plan
in 1969 (Resolution No. 87-69). Since that time the City has updated its circulation and transportation
policies and programs through a series of policy documents and specific plans. Taken together, these
documents represent a citywide approach to a balanced, multi-modal transportation network in the
manner of Complete Streets.
Beginning in early 2015, the City will be embarking on a comprehensive update of its General Plan,
including the Circulation Element. The process is anticipated to take approximately two years. However,
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has restricted future eligibility for certain federal
transportation monies (One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funds) to communities that have achieved the
following by January 31, 2015:
A Housing Element certified by the State Department of Housing & Community Development as
"in compliance" with state statutes; and
A Circulation Element that contains adequate "Complete Streets" policies and concepts.
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
UPDATE TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(a)
2
The updated Housing Element was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council this past
summer. The draft is currently being reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) and should be adopted well in advance of the January 31, 2015 deadline.
Given the timing of the General Plan Update, a new Circulation Element will not be ready for adoption
prior to January 31, 2015. In order to preserve the City’s eligibility for the next round of OBAG funding,
staff has prepared an interim update that reflects existing Complete Streets policies and programs
already adopted in the various specific plans and other policy documents. This effort consolidates
currently adopted Complete Streets policies, essentially serving as an “existing conditions” overview to
build upon, but with an expectation that there will be additional work in the future as the other General
Plan elements are updated.
DISCUSSION
Although the current Circulation Element of the General Plan was adopted by the City Council as a part
of the original adoption of the General Plan several decades ago, there are a number of other policy
documents related to circulation that have been adopted over the intervening years. These documents
consist of:
Complete Streets Policy of the City of Burlingame – adopted by the City Council on
November 5, 2012, by Resolution No. 77-2012
Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan – adopted by the City Council on October 8, 2004, by
Resolution No. 91-2004
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Chapter IV. Traffic and Circulation – adopted by the City
Council on April 5, 2004, by Resolution No. 26-2004. Amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan
were adopted on August 21, 2006, by Resolution No. 58-2006 and on June 18, 2012, by
Resolution No. 44-2012.
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Chapter 5. Circulation and Infrastructure –
adopted by the City Council on On September 20, 2004, by Resolution No. 85-2004. The Specific
Plan was amended by the Burlingame City Council on February 5, 2007, by Resolution No. 13-
2007.
Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Chapter 7. Circulation and Parking – adopted by the
City Council on On October 4, 2010, by Resolution No. 73-2010.
The purpose of this update is to consolidate all the relevant circulation policies into one document, to
update the data in these documents to reflect current conditions, and to report on what implementation
measures within these documents have been completed. Data in the original Circulation Element has
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
UPDATE TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(a)
3
been updated, obsolete passages removed, and current background information added (a tracked
changes version of the document is attached). Furthermore, status updates have been added to the
Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan sections.
At this time it is not the intent to change the policies that are now in place. As the community will be
embarking on a comprehensive update of the General Plan over the next two years, the expectation is
that the Circulation Element will be more fully updated in coordination with the rest of the plan, together
with environmental review. However this interim consolidation and update will allow the City to
demonstrate that, taken together, its existing policies incorporate the provisions of the California
Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) and take into account the multimodal transportation networks within the
community and Bay Area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should review the draft Circulation Element Update, conduct a public hearing,
and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission should:
1. Consider existing circulation and transportation goals, policies and programs, with any
clarifications directed to staff;
2. Provide suggestions for potential further changes to be considered or issues to be studied as part
of the General Plan Update; and
3. Take action on a recommendation to the City Council.
Kevin Gardiner
Planning Manager
Attachments:
Draft Circulation Element
Tracked changes version of current Circulation Element
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Published in the San Mateo Daily Journal October 31, 2014
Amendment to the General Plan
November 10, 2014
City of Burlingame
Draft
Circulation Element
Update
Table of Contents Page i
Burlingame Draft Circulation Element Update
Table of Contents
I. Current Circulation Element ................................................................................... 1
II. Complete Streets Policy of the City of Burlingame .................................................... 5
III. Bicycle Transportation Plan .................................................................................... 7
IV. Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Traffic and Circulation ......................................... 24
V. North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Circulation and Infrastructure ................ 34
VI. Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Circulation and Parking .................................... 47
VII. Next Steps ........................................................................................................ 62
Purpose of the Update: The purpose of the Circulation Element Update is to consolidate
the existing policy documents related to circulation into one comprehensive document.
Although the current Circulation Element of the General Plan was adopted by the City
Council as a part of the original adoption of the General Plan (October 20, 1969, Resolution
No. 87-69) there are several other policy documents related to circulation that have been
adopted over the intervening years. These documents consist of:
• Complete Streets Policy of the City of Burlingame – adopted by the City Council
on November 5, 2012, by Resolution No. 77-2012
• Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan – adopted by the City Council on
October 8, 2004, by Resolution No. 91-2004
• Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Chapter IV. Traffic and Circulation –
adopted by the City Council on April 5, 2004, by Resolution No. 26-2004.
Amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan were adopted on August 21, 2006, by
Resolution No. 58-2006 and on June 18, 2012, by Resolution No. 44-2012.
• North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Chapter 5. Circulation and
Infrastructure – adopted by the City Council on On September 20, 2004, by
Resolution No. 85-2004. The Specific Plan was amended by the Burlingame City
Council on February 5, 2007, by Resolution No. 13-2007.
• Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Chapter 7. Circulation and Parking –
adopted by the City Council on On October 4, 2010, by Resolution No. 73-2010.
The purpose of this updtate is to consolidate all the relevant circulation policies into one
document, to update the data in these documents to reflect current conditions, and to
report on what implementation measures within these documents have been completed. It
is not the intent to change the policies that are now in place; the existing policies
incorporate the provisions of the California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) and take into
account the multimodal transportation networks within the community and the connections
throughout San Mateo County and the Bay Area.
Bicycle Page 1
I. Current Circulation Element
On October 20, 1969, by Resolution No. 87-69, the Burlingame City Council adopted the
Burlingame General Plan, which included the following Circulation Element.
OVERVIEW
An integrated system is proposed including the Southern Pacific Railroad (including both
passenger service and through movement of freight), local transit, and four categories of
streets and highways. The street and highway system would accommodate private passenger
automobiles, trucks and local transit vehicles. The integrated system is proposed to include all
modes of travel, including walking, bicycling and transit, allowing users of all ages and abilities
to reach destinations in the community and region safely and directly.
POPULATION
In 2000, 28,128 people lived in the City of Burlingame. About 20.6% of these people were
under the age of 20 and 15.2% were over 65. By 2010 the city's Population had increased by
2.4% to 28,806. There was a minor change in the age composition. By 2010 about 23% of the
city's residents were under 20 and about 14% were over 65. In 2000 there were 2.22 persons
per household on the average. This had increased slightly to 2.29 persons per household in
2010. These minor changes in population and composition reflect the fact that Burlingame is a
built out community where there are no large vacant tracts of land suitable for residential
development. Any new development is expected to replace existing development, primarily in
areas that are near the community's two major transit hubs (Burlingame Caltrain Station and
Millbrae Intermodal Station) and along transit corridors such as El Camino Real and California
Drive.
Population projections for Burlingame are based on build-out of vacant and underused
residential land to the densities given in the General Plan. Projections of household size reflect
a continuation of the minor increase of average household size. However, the critical factor in
the population range given is the rate of new residential construction. The following projections
are derived from Projections 2013, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments:
Population 2000-2010, Projected to 2030
2000 28,128
2010 28,806
2020 31,700
2030 34,800
Source: ABAG Projections 2013
Household size assumptions for the population projections were:
2010 2.33
2020 2.33
2030 2.34
Source: ABAG Projections 2013.
Bicycle Page 2
TRANSIT
An integrated system of regional rapid transit and local transit has been developed to serve
Burlingame residents and workers and to provide for the high volume through-movement that
needs to be accommodated in this corridor. If determined appropriate, grade separations
should be considered to accommodate local street crossings.
The Caltrain commuter line has been established along the existing Southern Pacific Railway
right-of-way along the California Drive/Carolan Avenue corridor. This line also connects to the
Millbrae Intermodal Station with connections to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system and
SamTrans Bus lines. Opportunities exist for Complete Streets projects along this corridor. A
Complete Streets project is proposed for Carolan Avenue between Oak Grove Avenue and
Broadway, to accommodate bicycle lanes and pedestrian improvements. This project is now in
the design process, and is expected to be under construction in 2015. These projects will
enhance the use of the transit facilities and reduce reliance on private automobile travel. There
are also opportunities near the transit stations identified in the Downtown Specific Plan and the
North Burlingame Rollins Road Specific Plan for higher density development that will benefit
from proximity to public transit and to the Complete Streets amenities.
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101) and Junipero Freeway (280 Freeway) are recognized in the
plan. The main proposals affecting the freeways are additions and improvements to the
interchanges at Millbrae Avenue, Broadway, and Peninsula Avenue to provide for full directional
movement at each of these interchanges and to accommodate the increasing volumes of traffic
that will be generated, particularly from the industrial areas. The Millbrae Avenue and
Peninsula Interchange improvements have been completed, and the Broadway interchange
project began construction in 2014. These interchange improvements include facilities for
bicycles and pedestrians using the overcrossings of US 101.
A system of major arterials is proposed to take care of longer distance local trips and to
connect Burlingame with adjacent communities. These include El Camino Real (a State
highway), California Drive, and Bayshore Highway and its extension through the Anza Pacific
development (Airport Boulevard) for major north-south movements. The latter route would
connect with the San Francisco Airport on the north and with the major street system in the
City of San Mateo on the south. Airport Boulevard has been completed to provide through
traffic in the Bayfront area, and a Bayfront trail system has been developed adjacent to
Bayside Park to provide pedestrian and bicycle travel through this area. In addition, bicycle
lanes were recently added to Airport Boulevard. Other major arterials include Millbrae Avenue
(in the City of Millbrae), Trousdale Drive, Carmelita Avenue from El Camino Real to California
Drive,, and Oak Grove Avenue and Peninsula Avenue. These arterials would carry the major
volume of east-west trips and connect with State highways and freeways.
The other elements of the street system are secondary arterials connecting collector and local
access streets to the major arterials, and collector streets to feed traffic to the arterials and
major centers of activity in Burlingame. The systems of streets proposed around the Broadway
shopping center and the Burlingame Avenue shopping center are of particular importance.
These are intended to provide movement around the centers, connect to parking lots, and
permit the central portions of these shopping centers to provide for limited vehicular traffic and
turned over primarily to pedestrians.
GRADE SEPARATION STRUCTURES
Railroad grade separations are recommended at Broadway, Oak Grove, Howard, and Peninsula
Avenues. A highway overpass is needed across Bayshore Freeway to connect Millsdale and
Bicycle Page 3
East Millsdale Industrial areas. (See also proposals under the heading, Broadway-Bayshore
Interchange Area.) A bicycle pedestrian overcrossing of Highway 101 has been constructed
adjacent to the Broadway interchange to provide access to Bayside Park from the
neighborhoods south of Broadway.
PARKWAY
In addition to the other elements of the circulation system, it is recommended that a parkway
be established along the Bayfront connecting Burlingame's Bayside Park with San Mateo
County's Coyote Point Park. Provisions for the Bayfront trail system are included in the
Bayfront Specific Plan, using the Bay Conservation and Development Commission Plan as a
guide. Portions of the trail have been developed in conjunction with development projects
along the Bay shoreline. However, there are gaps in the trail system that will only be
completed when the remaining properties with Bay frontage are developed.
BROADWAY-BAYSHORE INTERCHANGE AREA
Major changes are needed in the circulation system around the Bayshore-Broadway
interchange and the proposed grade separation at Broadway and the railroad. The changes
should be designed to:
1. Reduce the congestion at the present intersection at Rollins Road and Broadway by
providing other means of access to Millsdale and by reducing points of conflict.
2. Provide as much flexibility as possible so that future changes in travel patterns can be
accommodated within the system.
3. Provide alternative routes of travel so that individual drivers have some options to
permit them to avoid points of congestion. (Traffic flow tends to be somewhat self-
adjusting where alternative paths of travel are available.)
4. Increase capacity throughout the Broadway-Bayshore Area by reducing conflicts
through traffic control measures, providing added lanes at critical points, and grade
separating turning movements wherever feasible.
More specific proposals are:
1. Grade separate Broadway and the Southern Pacific Railroad.
2. Provide two completely new links to permit some traffic to avoid the Broadway-Rollins
Road intersection. One of these should connect the Millsdale and East Millsdale
Industrial areas with an overpass on Bayshore Freeway. The other link proposed is a
new street southeast of Cadillac Way extending from Bayshore Boulevard to Carolan
Avenue. This new street should be obtained when the presently vacant land is
developed.
3. On Bayshore Freeway, move the entrance to the southbound off-ramp as far north as
possible and provide connections to Marsten Road, Broadway and Cadillac Way.
Many of these issues will be resolved by the construction of the Broadway Interchange. The
improvements at the interchange are expected to increase the capacity of the
Broadway/Rollins intersection and provide for less delays due to congestion. Any remaining
issues can be evaluated as a part of the upcoming General Plan update.
Bicycle Page 4
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Please Refer to Chapter II, Complete Streets Policy of the City of Burlingame, and Chapter III,
Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan for more information regarding bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
Complete Streets Policy Page 5
II. Complete Streets Policy of the City of Burlingame
On November 5, 2012, the City Council of Burlingame, by Resolution No. 77-2012, adopted the
following Complete Streets Policy.
COMPLETE STREETS POLICY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
The objective of this policy is to establish guiding principles and practices so transportation
improvements are planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained to encourage
walking, bicycling, and transit use while promoting safe operations for all users.
A. COMPLETE STREETS PRINCIPLES
1. Complete Streets Serving All Users. The City of Burlingame expresses its
commitment to creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe,
comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads,
highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a
comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all categories of users,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of
commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children,
youth, and families.
2. Context Sensitivity. In planning and implementing street projects, departments and
agencies of the City of Burlingame shall maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both
residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and shall
work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense
of place ensues. Improvements that will be considered include sidewalks, shared use
paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, paved shoulders, street trees and landscaping,
planting strips, accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals,
signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, public transportation stops and
facilities, transit priority signalization, and other features assisting in the provision of
safe travel for all users, such as traffic calming circles, transit bulb outs, and road diets,
as well as those features identified in the City of Burlingame Bicycle Transportation
Plan.
3. Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by All Departments. All relevant
departments and agencies of the City of Burlingame shall work towards making
Complete Streets practices a routine part of everyday operations, approach every
relevant project, program, and practice as an opportunity to improve streets and the
transportation network for all categories of users, and work in coordination with other
departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to maximize opportunities for Complete
Streets, connectivity, and cooperation. The following projects provide these
opportunities: pavement resurfacing, restriping, accessing above and underground
utilities, signalization operations or modifications, and maintenance of
landscaping/related features.
4. All Projects and Phases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable
reasonably safe travel along and across the right of way for each category of users shall
be incorporated into all planning, funding, design, approval, and implementation
processes for any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations,
alteration, or repair of streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other
portions of the transportation system), except that specific infrastructure for a given
category of users may be excluded if an exemption is approved via the process set forth
in section C.1of this policy.
Complete Streets Policy Page 6
B. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Plan Consultation and Consistency. Maintenance, planning, and design of projects
affecting the transportation system shall be consistent with local bicycle, pedestrian,
transit, multimodal, and other relevant plans, except that where such consistency
cannot be achieved without negative consequences, consistency shall not be required if
the head of the relevant department provides written approval explaining the basis of
such deviation. Such deviations shall be presented to the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee early in the planning and design stage, to ensure the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee has an opportunity to provide comments.
2. Street Network/Connectivity. As feasible, the City of Burlingame shall incorporate
Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and
convenience of users and to create employment, with the particular goal of creating a
connected network of facilities accommodating each category of users, and increasing
connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries and for existing and anticipated future
areas of travel origination or destination.
3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Consultation. Applicable
transportation projects shall be reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee early in the planning and design stage, to provide the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee an opportunity to provide comments regarding Complete Streets
features to be incorporated into the project.
4. Evaluation. All relevant agencies or departments shall perform evaluations of how well
the streets and transportation network of the City of Burlingame are serving each
category of users.
C. Exemptions
1. Leadership Approval for Exemptions. Projects that seek Complete Streets
exemptions must provide written finding of why accommodations for all modes that
were not included in the project and signed off by the Public Works Director or
equivalent high level staff person. Projects that are granted exceptions must be made
publically available for review.
For more information on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel refer to the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel.
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/design.
cfm)
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 7
III. Bicycle Transportation Plan
On October 8, 2004, the Burlingame City Council, by Resolution No. 91-2004, adopted the
Bicycle Transportation Plan, an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
1. OVERVIEW
Purpose of the Plan
Since Burlingame's inception, the center of community activity has been around its two
commercial areas which grew up adjacent to the Burlingame and Broadway train stations with
surrounding nearby multiple family residential development fanning out to single family
homes. The promotion of bicycling as an alternative transportation source is a natural
progression from this transit-oriented community base. Since Burlingame is an older
community, many of the streets are narrow and most of its properties are built out. New
development generally occurs on sites which have had a previous use. The purpose of this plan
is to:
Identify the regional and local bicycle routes through Burlingame for commuters,
recreational riders and local shopping trips;
Explore how the bicycle routes can be made more safe and accessible;
Provide a framework for making physical improvements to the bicycle route
system.
Public Participation
In order to take leadership in promoting bicycle safety in the community and participation in
the preparation of this plan, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSP) and the Planning
Commission appointed a subcommittee consisting of two TSP members and one Planning
Commissioner. This committee has also contacted members of the local bicycle community to
ask their advice on the best and safest routes through Burlingame as well as the areas which
need improvement.
Once the plan was drafted, public hearings before the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
and the Planning Commission were held to offer an opportunity for the public to review and
comment on the plan. Notices of these hearings were published in local newspapers, posted on
the City's website, and posted on streets in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial
Areas, as well as at the train stations and at the local bicycle shop. Following the public
hearings, the City Council held a public hearing and adopted the plan by amending it to the
City's General Plan.
This bicycle plan also builds on the regional routes developed in the San Mateo County
Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, adopted in 2011, which was developed after a
series of public workshops held throughout San Mateo County. It is also consistent with the
routes shown in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's adopted 2009 Regional Bicycle
Plan Update for the San Francisco Bay Area, which shows the Bay Trail and the
California/Carolan north-south route through Burlingame.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 8
2. BACKGROUND AND SETTING
The terrain in Burlingame is similar to other Peninsula communities, with a relatively flat area
east of El Camino Real, and hillier areas to the west of El Camino Real towards Skyline
Boulevard and Highway 280. The north/south bicycle routes are generally flat, with gently
rolling hills on the route just west of El Camino Real. However, the road connections between
lower Burlingame through the hillside areas to Skyline Boulevard are fairly steep. There are
routes in nearby Hillsborough to reach the west end of Burlingame which are not quite as steep
but are more circuitous.
Because most of Burlingame was subdivided before 1940 and the city was almost fully
developed by the 1970's, with little population growth in the ensuing years, the street pattern
is fixed and many of the older residential streets are narrow designed to pre-World War II
standards. El Camino Real as it passes through Burlingame is a substandard four-lane highway
lined by a historic grove of Eucalyptus trees. Burlingame has always been a city of trees, and
even in the early days, efforts to widen El Camino were fought by residents wanting to
preserve the Eucalyptus and Elm trees which line it.
There are a few local streets through the established residential neighborhoods which were
originally designed as "boulevards" and have adequate width to accommodate bicycle travel.
These routes are now used informally by bicyclists. The proposed local and regional network of
bicycle routes was developed using these streets as a base, to connect to the local routes in
San Mateo, Hillsborough and Millbrae. The inter-city routes pass through Burlingame's
neighborhoods as close as possible to existing local parks and schools.
In addition, Burlingame has about two and one-half linear miles of frontage on San Francisco
Bay. The Bayfront land area was primarily created from fill in the 1950's and 1960's. As
development occurred after the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) was
established in 1972, sections of the Bay Trail were built adjacent to the bay's edge. Since there
are still a few parcels which have not been developed, or reused since BCDC was established
by the State legislature, a few gaps in this trail system on private property remain. In 1999,
the City completed construction of the portions of the Bay Trail located on City-owned parcels
with frontage on San Francisco Bay.
Except for a few vacant parcels on the Bayfront, the Burlingame Community is primarily built
out, and the land use patterns are well established. Figure III-1 depicts Burlingame's
transportation hubs, schools, parks and shopping districts.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 9
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 10
Existing and Expected Bicycle Commuters
Based on data collected in the 2010 Census, there are 3453 residents who live and also work
in Burlingame. Of those, 66 (1.9%) commute by bicycle and 345 (10.0%) walk to work. Of the
14,570 Burlingame workers 16 years old and older,, there are 131 people (0.9%) who
commute to work by bicycle and 539 people (3.7%) who walk to work.
County-wide, the 2010 Census shows that out of the 358,970 workers, 4,666 (1.3%) bicycle to
work, and 9,333 (2.6%) walk to work. In comparison, Burlingame has more people who walk
to work and fewer people who bike to work than in the County as a whole.
The following tables, based on data from Census 2010, 2000 and 1990 Census, compares
Burlingame commuters to commuters in the region and State.
Number of Bicycle and Walking Trips, Workers 16 Years Old and Older
Comparison 1990, 2000 and 2010 Census
Bicycle
1990 2000 2010
Burlingame 149 1.0% 108 0.7% 131 0.9%
San Mateo Co. 2,606 0.7% 2896 0.8% 4666 1.3%
Bay Area 34,882 1.1% 36,003 1.1% 49,087 1.4%
California 130,706 1.0% 120,567 0.8% 162,829 1.0%
Walk
1990 2000 2010
Burlingame 360 2.4% 409 2.8% 539 3.7%
San Mateo Co. 7,609 2.1% 8,858 2.6% 9333 2.6%
Bay Area 106,063 3.2% 116,317 3.6% 121,113 3.6%
California 414,581 2.9% 469,867 3.3% 455,922 2.8%
Total Number of Workers 16 years and over
1990 2000 2010
Burlingame 14,818 15,202 14,570
San Mateo Co. 346,559 354,096 358,970
Bay Area 3,200,833 3,306,051 3,379,770
California 13,940,250 14,525,322 16,282,943
The data indicates that Burlingame has shown a slight decrease in bicycling commute trips and
an increase in walking trips over the past ten years, which is on par with the County, Bay Area
and State-wide in the number of commuter trips by bicycle and walking. Over the past ten
years, Burlingame, San Mateo County and the Bay Area have seen a significant increase in
bicycling and walking trips by commuters, while in California as a whole, bicycle and walking
commute trips have decreased.
The Bay Area has a temperate climate which is conducive to commuting by bicycle or walking.
The San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan indicates that based on a survey
conducted county-wide many people who might bicycle to work are concerned with finding safe
routes and having bicycle facilities, including bicycle parking and showers, at their place of
employment.
By making the improvements proposed by this plan, the bike routes through Burlingame will
be safer and easier to use. It is expected that the number of commuters using bicycles or
walking could be increased to well above the Bay Area average. It is a goal of this plan to
increase the number of bicycle and pedestrian commuters in Burlingame to 6.5% of
commuters walking or riding their bicycle to work; and to facilitate bicycle access to
employment destinations in the City.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 11
Existing Bicycle Routes
The primary bicycle routes through Burlingame are now marked with signs. In 1972, the
Burlingame City Council adopted a system of bicycle routes through Burlingame as shown on
Figure III-2, Exhibit A dated May 15, 1972. The routes include Bayshore Highway and Airport
Boulevard east of U.S. 101, Skyline Boulevard on the western edge of Burlingame, and two
other north/south routes on local residential roads between San Mateo and Millbrae, with local
east-west connector routes near the train stations and the commercial core. This route map as
adopted in 1972 shows no east/west routes to connect to Skyline Boulevard to the west.
In the 1970's, bike lanes were installed on Skyline Boulevard. In addition, bicycle route signs
were installed to delineate one of the north-south Class III bike routes through Burlingame.
Over the years, most of the signs along this route have been removed and the bike route is no
longer clearly marked. There are no signs along the other 1972 identified routes through
Burlingame.
Since the adoption of the Bicycle Plan in 2004, most of the bicycle routes identified are now
marked by signs, bicycle lanes have been added on Howard Avenue, Airport Boulevard and
Airport Boulevard, and "sharrow" lane markings have been added to California and Hillside
Drives.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 12
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 13
3. GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL A: Provide a framework for improving the existing bicycle route system in
Burlingame.
Policies:
A-1. Designate routes for both local and regional bicycle trips for the benefit of
commuters and recreational cyclists.
A-2. Establish a list of priority projects for improvement of the community's bicycle route
system.
A-3. Provide a system of signs to direct bicyclists to the best routes within and through
Burlingame and guide them in their use.
A-4. On the portions of Howard Avenue, California Drive and Carolan Avenue where there
is adequate right-of-way, create Class I Bike Lanes to provide both a north/south
and east/west connection through Burlingame.
GOAL B: Promote bicycle travel as a safe and viable transportation mode and
provide a system which connects work, shopping, schools, residential
and recreation areas.
Policies:
B-1. Maintain Bicycle routes in a safe and rideable condition.
B-2. Local bicycle routes should be signed, and should connect local schools, parks and
shopping areas.
B-3. Local bicycle routes should provide access to the Burlingame and Broadway Caltrain
stations, and to the Millbrae Intermodal Transit Station immediately north of the
Burlingame boundary.
B-4. Promote the use of Bicycle Detection Systems to allow bicycles to trigger signals at
the intersections between bike routes and arterials such as El Camino Real and
California Drive.
B-5. Identify and promote safe bicycle parking facilities near shopping areas, schools,
recreation areas and transit stations.
B-6. Encourage bicycle safety programs to educate students at the local schools about
safe riding habits.
GOAL C: Establish new connections across U.S. 101 to provide access from
Burlingame's residential areas to the recreational opportunities along
the Burlingame Bayfront and to provide regional connections to the Bay
Trail.
Policies:
C-1. Work with Caltrans on the design of the Broadway Bicycle and Pedestrian
overcrossing proposed as a part of the U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lane project.
C-2. Develop safe connections to the Broadway bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing from
Cadillac Way on the west side, and onto Broadway/Airport Boulevard on the east
side of the overcrossing.
C-3. Promote a second bicycle/pedestrian connection across U.S. 101 in the vicinity of
the Anza Boulevard off-ramp to connect to Rollins Road near Morrell Avenue and
Winchester Drive.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 14
4. BICYCLE NETWORK, FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Local and Regional Routes
Figure III-3 shows the local and regional bicycle routes through Burlingame. The primary
regional routes are:
North/South Routes
• Bay Trail
• Airport Boulevard/Bayshore Highway
• Howard/Carolan/California Drive
East/West Routes
• Howard Avenue from Humboldt in San Mateo to Ralston Avenue in Hillsborough
• Adeline Drive from Central Burlingame through unincorporated Burlingame Hills to
Skyline Boulevard
The local routes through the residential neighborhoods also provide regional access, but by
roads with less traffic and are more scenic. The route west of El Camino Real which follows
Cabrillo Avenue and jogs up to Quesada Way passes several schools and parks and offers a
fairly flat alternative to El Camino Real, which is much too busy and narrow through
Burlingame to accommodate bicycle traffic.
Bicycle Storage and Shower Facilities
Bicycle racks are available at the Burlingame Public Library, the Recreation Center at
Washington Park and at the schools and parks shown on Figure III-3. Based on the San
Mateo County Congestion Management Plan, bicycle facilities are required as traffic
mitigation for all new development in Burlingame. These facilities could include bicycle
lockers, racks and shower facilities provided for employees working in a new office or
commercial building. It is recommended that additional bicycle racks of a type selected by
the City be placed at strategic locations, such as public parking lots as a part of streetscape
improvements, within the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue Commercial Areas as uses
change, buildings are replaced, and sidewalks are redone.
Bicycle lockers and racks are available at both the Burlingame and Broadway Caltrain
Stations. The Burlingame train station has 18 bicycle lockers available for rent on a monthly
basis and a bicyle rack which will hold 8 bicycles. The Broadway train station has 12 bicycle
lockers for rent and two bicycle racks which will hold a total of 16 bicycles.
Coordination and Consistency with other Plans
This plan is an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Burlingame General Plan, and
is consistent with the transportation policies contained in that plan, including the Bayfront
Specific Plan, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific
Plan.
The regional bicycle routes shown in the plan are consistent with the routes shown in the
San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan adopted by the City/County Association of
Governments in 2011. In addition, the priority projects identified in the County's plan have
been incorporated into the list of projects identified in the implementation chapter of this
plan. In addition, the routes in this plan are consistent with the routes shown in the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission's adopted 2009 Regional Bicycle Plan for the San
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 15
Francisco Bay Area. The MTC regional plan shows the Bay Trail and the California/Carolan
north-south route as regional routes through Burlingame.
The regional routes shown also connect with regional routes to the south which are shown
in the City of San Mateo Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter of the Circulation Element. To the
north, the regional routes connect with those identified in Millbrae's General Plan. Although
the Town of Hillsborough does not have a formal bicycle plan, the routes shown through
Hillsborough are the routes which are commonly used by cyclists and connect to the
planned route on Skyline Drive in Burlingame as well as to regional routes along the San
Andreas reservoir.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 16
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 17
Bicycle Transport on Transit
There are two Caltrain stations in Burlingame, at Burlingame Avenue and Broadway at
California Drive. Each local train is equipped with two cars which allow up to 40 bicycles on
board (gallery car) or 24 bicycles on board (Bombadier cars). These bicycle cars are heavily
used during commute hours. Caltrain also offers limited stop and "Baby Bullet" express
trains that do not stop at all local stops. The bullet train service does not stop in
Burlingame; the nearest stop is at the Millbrae Intermodal Transit Station just north of the
Burlingame border. Some of the limited-stop trains stop at the Burlingame train station.
Caltrain offers 18 bicycle lockers and 13 rack spaces at the Burlingame station.
SamTrans operates a bus system throughout San Mateo County, with three local routes and
five regional routes which provide service in Burlingame. All SamTrans buses are equipped
with bicycle racks, which hold a maximum of two bikes, and two additional bikes are
allowed inside the bus. Following are the bus routes which serve Burlingame:
Route 43 travels from Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center at El Camino Real and
Murchison and connects with the Tanforan Shopping Center in San Bruno,
traversing local streets through Millbrae and El Camino Real.
Route 46 operates entirely within Burlingame starting at Trousdale and Quesada
on the north and traveling south along California Drive to Burlingame Avenue,
and east to Washington Park and the Recreation Center.
Route 292 runs from the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo to the
Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco, and travels through Burlingame
along Peninsula Avenue, California Drive, Broadway and Bayshore Highway.
Route 397 Connects downtown Palo Alto with downtown San Francisco, and
travels through Burlingame on El Camino Real.
Bicycle Safety and Education
Currently, there is no avenue for bicycle education and safety. It is proposed that
brochures be developed which inform people of the location of the bicycle routes
through Burlingame, as well as to offer safety tips for riding, such as the rules of
the road, how to negotiate intersections, riding defensively, and how to use hand
signals. These brochures would be made available at the City's recreation center
and library, as well as distributed to schools. In addition, the posting of signs
along the bicycle routes will educate motorists to expect bicycle traffic on these
streets. The Burlingame Police Department has a School Liaison Officer, and the
brochures can be distributed through this officer as a part of a bicycle safety
education program. The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance also has a
program that provides Bike and Pedestrian Safety workshops at an employer's
work site.
In addition, the League of American Bicyclists conducts an education program for
bicyclists to learn how to ride safely. Classes are taught through local community
centers and provide education to both children and adults. The community can
take advantage of this resource to provide education to all cyclists.
Once some of the designated routes have been established, the community
should hold a "Bicycle Day" to promote the use of the bicycle routes and to
distribute information on bicycle safety.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 18
5. IMPLEMENTATION
Priority Projects
In an effort to improve bicycle transportation in and through Burlingame, the following have
been identified as having the highest priority and giving the most benefit to bicycle
commuters and recreational riders in the community.
1. Bicycle Detectors/Crosswalks and marked bike lane at the Cadillac
Way/Rollins Road intersection to access the new Broadway
bicycle/pedestrian bridge. As a part of the Caltrans Auxiliary Lane project
between Third Avenue in San Mateo and Millbrae Avenue, Caltrans will be
constructing a bicycle pedestrian bridge adjacent to the existing narrow Broadway
interchange overpass. The bridge will land in the island across from the Cadillac
Way/Rollins Road intersection, where it is difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to
cross Rollins Road to access the bridge. This crossing could be made safer by:
a. providing a crosswalk across Rollins Road from the north side of Cadillac Way to
the bridge landing;
b. providing street markings and bicycle detectors on Cadillac Way so that cyclists
can make a left turn towards the bridge landing; and
c. adding a designated bicycle lane along Rollins Road approaching the bridge to
separate bicyclists from the nearest automobile travel lane.
STATUS UPDATE: While these improvements have not been completed, the
Broadway interchange project, which started construction in 2014, will result
in a reconfiguration of this intersection. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the
existing bridge will be included as part of the interchange project.
2. Bike Lanes on Carolan, California and Howard Avenue – The San Mateo County
Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan contains a list of 15 priority projects to enhance
the regional bicycle route system. One of the projects on this list is the completion of
a North-South Bikeway as it runs through San Mateo, Burlingame and Millbrae. The
portion through Burlingame would connect with Delaware Avenue in San Mateo to
the South, and would connect to the Millbrae Intermodal Transit Station to the North.
Most of this regional route is on streets (California, Carolan, Howard) which have adequate
width to provide Class I bike lanes, or to provide adequate shoulder for cyclists to safely
ride next to automobile traffic. It is recommended that improvements to these roadways be
made to add Class II bike lanes to the extent feasible, and to provide adequate signage to
direct riders to use this route (see diagram on Page CI-15 for an explanation of Class I, II
and II bicycle routes).
STATUS UPDATE: Within the last few years, bicycle signage and "Sharrow"
lane markings have been added on California Drive, and bicycle lanes have
been added on Howard Avenue between California Drive and Humboldt
Avenue. A Complete Streets project is being designed for Carolan Avenue
between Oak Grove Avenue and Broadway. Design for this project is now
underway, and it is expected to begin construction by Fall of 2015.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 19
3. Explore the possibility of a local bicycle path between the Broadway and
Burlingame Commercial Areas and train stations using existing right-of-way
along the Caltrain tracks. Along the Caltrain tracks between Burlingame Avenue
and Broadway, there may be excess right-of-way on either side of the tracks
sufficient to install a Class I bicycle path. This right-of-way is not owned or controlled
by the City of Burlingame, but belongs to either the Joint Powers Board which
operates Caltrain, or the City and County of San Francisco (adjacent to California
Drive). This project would have to be a joint effort in cooperation with these agencies
and is a long range project. If the project is determined to be feasible, the path
should be a joint use trail, with separate clearly designated areas for bicycles and for
pedestrians. It is allso recommended that a landscaped buffe be included between
the railroad tracks and the pathway.
4. Place Bicycle Racks in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial
Districts. These two busy commercial districts can be easily accessed by bicycle
from the surrounding residential areas. Bicycle racks of a design to match the
existing street furniture could be placed either along the sidewalks or in the many
public parking lots which serve these areas. These should be designed into any
future streetscape improvements in the public right-of-way.
STATUS UPDATE: Bicycle racks have been added on both Burlingame Avenue
and Broadway as part of the streetscape projects for these streets. The
Burlingame Avenue streetscape project is now underway, with one block still
under construction. This project is expected to be completed before the end of
2014.
5. Explore the possibility of creating a loop path connecting to the proposed
creekside paths in the Rollins Road area. As a part of the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, a series of multi-use (pedestrian/bicycle, etc.)
creek trails is proposed which would be developed as new development occurs in
that area. In order to connect these trails within the Rollins Road area and provide a
full connection through the Rollins Road area, it is proposed that bicycle connections
to these creek trails be created. The exact locations of the connections and whether
they would be on public or private property would need to be explored.
6. Provide a second bridge crossing of U.S. 101 in the vicinity of Winchester
Drive to connect to the existing bike and pedestrian path on the east side
near Anza Boulevard and Bayside Park. The Bayfront Specific Plan identifies this
location for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing of 101 which provides direct access from
the residential neighborhoods west of U.S. 101 to the recreational amenities at
Bayside Park and along the Bay Trail.
7. Bicycle Route Signs along Local and Regional Routes. Another project on the
priority list in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan is to provide
directional signage and signal detectors along the regional north south route. In
addition, some of Burlingame's local bicycle routes have signs which were installed in
the early 1970's, but many are missing and the route is not always apparent. A
comprehensive program for signing all the bicycle routes through Burlingame would
go a long way toward making the City's system more user-friendly and safer. Also,
the signage would raise awareness of automobile drivers to look for bicyclists along
these routes. Since many of these local bicycle routes are through residential
neighborhoods, the option to mark some of the routes with street markings rather
than signs, where the situation warrants, should be considered.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 20
STATUS UPDATE: Comprehensive Bicycle Route signage has been implemented
for most of the bicycle routes throughout the Community.
As a part of this sign program, it is also recommended that signs be placed at the
prominent gateway entrances to Burlingame which include a statement which
identifies Burlingame as a bicycle friendly community. Possible locations for these
signs would be at the City limits on El Camino, California Drive, Rollins Road, Airport
Boulevard and Bayshore Highway.
8. Explore the possibility of adding "zebra crossings" (clearly marked
pedestrian crossings) across El Camino Real and California Drive at
intersections with bicycle routes. One of the impediments to bicycling to and
from parks, playgrounds and shopping areas in Burlingame is the ability to safely
cross these two busy arterial streets. Caltrans has recently completed the installation
of video bicycle detectors on signals at critical intersections along El Camino Real.
Where the video detectors work with the signals, the striped crossing would reinforce
and make the motorist aware to watch for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at the
bicycle route intersections.
9. Create handouts and an outreach program to make people aware of the
bicycle routes and provide guidance regarding bicycle safety. An important
element of creating a safe environment for bicycle riding is education. The public
needs to be aware of the routes which can be used to access our local facilities, and
both motorists and bicyclists can benefit from learning the rules of safe bicycle
riding. The handouts would be made available to schools through the Police
Department's School Liaison Officer and distributed at parks and libraries.
6. DESIGN STANDARDS
The proposed projects will be designed in accordance with the Design and Maintenance
Standards as outlined in Chapter 5.0 of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route
Plan. The general criteria outlined in the County Plan is that projects are to Conform to
Caltrans standards for bikeways. The following chart delineates the three types of bicycle
facilities, Class I, Class II and Class III. Specific details on the design standards for these
types of facilities may be found in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 21
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 22
PROJECT PRIORITY AND COSTS
Following is a prioritization of the proposed projects based on which projects provide the
most public benefit for safety and increased bicycle use.
1. Bicycle Detectors/Crosswalks and marked bike lane at the Cadillac Way/Rollins Road
intersection to access the new Broadway bicycle/pedestrian bridge. (part of the
Broadway Interchange Reconstruction project)
2. Bike Lanes on Carolan, California and Howard Avenue. (Bike lanes constructed on
Howard Avenue, signage and markings on California Drive; Carolan Avenue
Complete Streets project in the design phase)
3. Bicycle Route Signs along Local and Regional Routes. (Completed)
4. Explore the possibility of adding "zebra crossings" (clearly marked pedestrian
crossings) across El Camino Real and California Drive at intersections with bicycle
routes.
5. Place Bicycle Racks in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Districts.
(Completed)
6. Create Handouts and an outreach program to make people aware of the bicycle
routes and provide guidance regarding bicycle safety.
7. Explore the possibility of a local bicycle path between the Broadway and Burlingame
Commercial Areas and train stations using existing right-of-way along the Caltrain
tracks
8. Explore the possibility of creating a loop path connecting to the proposed creekside
paths in the Rollins Road area.
9. Provide a second bridge crossing of U.S. 101 in the vicinity of Winchester Drive to
connect to the existing bike and pedestrian path on the east side near Anza
Boulevard and Bayside Park.
The following is an estimate of the costs to complete the improvements discussed in the
plan. All costs estimated are in 2004 dollars.
PROJECT ESTIMATED COST
1. Bicycle Detectors/Crosswalks and marked bike lane at the
Cadillac Way/Rollins Road intersection to access the new
Broadway bicycle/pedestrian bridge.
$10,000
2. Bike Lanes on Carolan, California and Howard Avenue
Carolan bet California & Howard – 7,000 lineal feet
California bet Broadway & Murchison – 7,000 lineal feet
Howard bet Humboldt & El Camino Real – 5000 lineal ft.
TOTAL: 19,000 LF X $8/LF =
$56,000
$56,000
$40,000
$152,000
3. Signage for Local and Regional Routes
East of El Camino Real – 15,750 lineal feet
West of El Camino Real – 13,000 lineal feet
TOTAL: 28,750 LF X $5/LF =
$78,750
$65,000
$143,750
4. Zebra Crossings along El Camino Real & California Drive
(Seven)
$35,000
5. Bike Racks/Broadway & Burlingame Avenue (6 w/8 spaces
each)
$120,000
6. Create Educational Handouts $6,000
7. Study re: Bike Path between train stations* $25,000
8. Study re: loop path in Rollins Road Area* $25,000
9. Bridge Crossing of U.S. 101 at Anza/Winchester Drive $2,500,000
*cost shown is for the study only; study would identify costs for improvements.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Page 23
FUNDING SOURCES
There are several Federal, State and local Programs which provide funding for bicycle and
pedestrian projects. These projects are rated based on such criteria as the need of the
project to complete a regional bicycle route system, the increased safety that the project
will provide and the amount of the local match for the outside funding. Following are a list of
the primary funding sources available in 2004.
TEA-21 (Transportation Enhancement Activities): This is a federal funding
source which offers funding for projects which enhance alternative transportation
opportunities.
State Bicycle Transportation Account: An annual program through the State
which provides grants to local jurisdictions with an emphasis on projects which
benefit bicycling for commuting purposes.
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 (SB 821): These funds
originate from the state gasoline tax and are distributed to local jurisdictions
based on population. In San Mateo County, the distribution of these funds is
administered by the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG).
New Construction/Impact Fee: Any new development in Burlingame's
Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road areas will be required either to
install the planned bicycle improvements on their property and for area-wide
improvements to pay a Development Impact Fee which will fund the future
installation of bicycle lanes on a comprehensive basis.
Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance – This agency has a program which
provides funds to employers to place bike racks and lockers at their place of
business. The Alliance pays one-half the cost for purchasing and installing any
bike parking for up to a maximum of $500.00 per unit. The Alliance also has a
program that provides Bike and Pedestrian Safety workshops at an employers
work site.
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 24
IV. Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan –
Traffic and Circulation
On April 5, 2004, the Burlingame City Council, by Resolution No. 26-2004, adopted the
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan. Amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan were adopted
on August 21, 2006, by Resolution No. 58-2006 and on June 18, 2012, by Resolution No.
44-2012. Following is the Traffic and Circulation Chapter of the adopted Burlingame
Bayfront Specific Plan.
1. EXISTING ROADWAY CONFIGURATION AND CLASSIFICATION
Roadway Access: The following roadways provide access to and within the Bayfront
Planning Area. Table IV-1 provides an explanation of the roadway classifications, and Figure
IV-1 shows the circulation plan, including bicycle routes.
US 101 is a State Highway which provides regional access to this section of
Burlingame. This freeway travels in a north-south direction through the State of
California. In the planning area, four travel lanes are provided in each direction
with auxiliary lanes on some segments within Burlingame. The interchanges that
provide access to the Shoreline, Inner Bayshore, and Anza, Anza Extension and
Anza Point Areas are: Millbrae Avenue, Broadway, Anza Boulevard (northbound
only), Peninsula Avenue (northbound only) and Poplar Avenue (southbound
only).
Airport Boulevard is an arterial roadway which runs parallel to US 101, from
Bayshore Highway at Bayside Park to the City boundary and through
unincorporated San Mateo County to Coyote Point Drive. The width of this
roadway varies from two to four lanes. It provides access to office buildings,
hotels, restaurants, recreation facilities and a long-term airport parking lot. It has
direct access to US 101 at the Broadway interchange.
Bayshore Highway is a four-lane arterial roadway that parallels US 101 north of
Airport Boulevard at the Broadway interchange and extends to the Millbrae
interchange. It provides access to hotel, office, restaurant, light industrial, and
warehouse uses.
Anza Boulevard is a two- to four-lane collector roadway that connects Airport
Boulevard to northbound US 101. At its northern end, it provides access to office
and hotel uses.
Coyote Point Drive is a four-lane roadway that intersects Airport Boulevard
near the US 101/Peninsula Avenue interchange. It provides access to the Coyote
Point County Recreation Area and the City of San Mateo Poplar Creek Golf
Course.
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 25
Roadway Classification
Classification Description
Local Street Provides for local traffic circulation with direct access to adjoining
properties. Through traffic is deliberately discouraged.
Collector Provides for traffic movement between arterials and local streets. Provides
both access to adjoining properties and through routes within commercial
and industrial neighborhoods.
Arterial Provides service to trips of moderate length. Distributes travel to smaller
geographic areas than major arterials. May carry local bus routes and
provide intra-community continuity.
Major Arterial Carries the major portion of traffic entering and leaving the City, as well
as the majority of movements desiring to bypass localized areas and
travel through the community
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 26
Figure IV-1 – Bayfront Circulation Plan
Source: Burlingame Community Development Department, June, 2012
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 27
Federal Highway Administration Aid Roadways
In addition to the above classifications, roadways which are considered to be regionally
important have designations assigned by the Federal Highway Administration and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Federal Highway Administration
designates certain roadways as Federal Aid Routes. These routes can be eligible for federal
funding for improvements. Both Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard, including the
portion in San Mateo County between Lang Road and the Peninsula Interchange, are
designated as part of Federal Urban Aid Route No. FAU D466 and are eligible for some
federal funding. MTC is a regional transportation agency which oversees transportation
projects in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region. The MTC Metropolitan Roadway
System classifications are used to determining funding priorities for regional transportation
projects. The MTC's Metropolitan Roadway System (MTS) map designates US 101 as an MTS
Freeway, and Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard, including the section between Lang
Road and the Peninsula interchange, as MTS Local Roads.
Bicycle Access: Bicycle facilities in the planning area include bike paths, bike lanes, and
bike routes. Bike paths are paved and are separated from roadways by spaces or by
physical barriers. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated with special pavement
markings and signs for use exclusively by bicycles. Bike routes are roadways that are
designated for use by bicycles with signs and/or paint.
Bicycle facilities within the planning area include portions of the Bay Trail, a multi-use
recreational paved pathway along San Francisco Bay, Sanchez Channel and Burlingame
Lagoon; and bike lanes on Airport Boulevard (see Figure IV-2, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Circulation Map for existing and proposed bicycle routes). There are two bike routes in
Burlingame which access this area across US 101. Millbrae Avenue in Millbrae also provides
a bicycle route which crosses US 101 to serve this area. There is a bicycle over crossing of
US 101 south of the Broadway interchange, which was installed as a part of the auxiliary
lane project on US 101 which provided auxiliary lanes between the Millbrae interchange and
the 3rd Avenue on and off ramps in San Mateo. The auxiliary lane project also included
widening of the Peninsula Avenue overpass, to include bicycle lanes. Future bicycle and
pedestrian access to the Anza Extension recreation facilities should include a second bridge
over U.S. 101 in the vicinity of Morrell Avenue and Rollins Road.
Bus Service: The Burlingame Bayside Area Shuttle carries commuters between the Millbrae
Intermodal Station and Burlingame businesses along Bayshore Highway and Airport
Boulevard during morning and evening commute periods. The Burlingame Trolley operates
between Airport hotels and office areas and the Burlingame and Broadway shopping areas.
The shuttles are funded by the City of Burlingame, Peninsula Joint Powers Board, San Mateo
Transit District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County, the Downtown Burlingame Business Association, and
the Broadway Improvement District. The services are free to passengers.
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) operates fixed-route bus service to San
Mateo County. There is one bus route in the Bayfront Planning Area – Route 292. This route
operates between Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo and the Transbay Terminal in
downtown San Francisco. It operates within the planning area from the Broadway
interchange north on Bayshore Highway.
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 28
Figure IV-2 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
Source: Burlingame Community Development Department, June, 2012
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 29
In 2003 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service began from the new Millbrae Station. The
BART station and 3000-space parking garage are accessed from the Millbrae interchange at
the north end of the planning area. The station is about a mile from Cowan Road and
Bayshore Highway.
Pedestrian Facilities: The completed portions of the Bay Trail provide pedestrian access
along a major portion of the bay frontage throughout the planning area. There are only a
few gaps in the trail which are on private property. When these remaining parcels are
developed or redeveloped, the developer will be required to complete and maintain these
sections of the Bay Trail. Both Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard have sidewalks
along their entire length. Most large properties with trail improvements also have vertical
access from the Bay Trail to the public sidewalk, so users today can travel continually on
most of Burlingame's water frontages.
2. TRAFFIC PATTERNS – TRIP GENERATION AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY
There are limited access points to the Bayfront Planning Area. Therefore, it is important that
the main access intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service. Intersection
operations are described by standards known as "level of service" (LOS), which is a
qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and
freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined, ranging from LOS A, the best
operating conditions, to LOS F, where demand exceeds capacity and there is excessive
delay. LOS E normally corresponds to operation "at capacity".
The following table shows the existing intersection levels of service in the Bayfront Planning
Area, plus development approved and under construction. This establishes the baseline
conditions for the Specific Plan.
Table IV-1
Intersection Levels of Service
Baseline Conditions
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Percent of
LOS C
Capacity
Consumed
Level
of
Service
Bayshore Highway/Millbrae Avenue AM
PM
43%
59%
A
A
Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101 SB Off-
Ramp
AM
PM
143%
135%
F
F
Bayshore Highway/US 101 NB Ramps AM
PM
69%
66%
A
A
Bayshore Highway/Airport Boulevard AM
PM
65%
80%
A
B
Airport Boulevard/Anza Boulevard AM
PM
46%
52%
A
A
Airport Boulevard/Coyote Point Drive* AM
PM
33%
58%
A
A
Peninsula Avenue/N. Humboldt Street AM
PM
84%
91%
B
B
Source: Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. Analyzer Update, April 2003
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 30
The Traffic Analyzer
The 1981 Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan based the mix of land use designations
and densities on the traffic producing characteristics of each of the land uses. The impact of
each use on the key intersections which provide access to the area was critical. The traffic
analyzer model was first developed in 1979 and has been updated twice, most recently in
2002-2003. The distribution and intensity of development was determined for the Specific
Plan based on the assumption that all of the critical intersections, except Broadway on-
ramps, which are already operating at an "F" level of service in the PM peak hours, would
continue to operate at acceptable levels of service.
Different types of development generate traffic at different rates and at different times of
day. Trip generation rates for different types of land uses have been developed to look at
traffic during the evening commute period (PM peak hours), when traffic volumes are
generally highest. These trip generation rates are used to determine the worst case traffic
impacts of a proposed development, particularly on the critical intersections.
Using the Traffic Analyzer model, a new development proposal can be analyzed to
determine its incremental impact on the critical intersections. The analyzer looks at the
capacity of these intersections, consisting of existing traffic volumes plus approved projects,
to establish baseline conditions. The baseline conditions show how much capacity is still
available at each critical intersection (refer to Table IV-1). Using the analyzer tables, the
amount of capacity consumed by a new development project can be determined at each of
the nine key intersections. This provides a way to monitor the amount of intersection
capacity left for future development in the area, allowing for balanced growth and continued
maintenance of acceptable levels of service within the planning area.
Many jurisdictions consider LOS D to be the minimum acceptable level of service. However,
LOS C is considered the target level of service rating for planning purposes. Therefore, since
the traffic analyzer is a planning tool, the LOS C is used to evaluate Planning Area
intersections in the analyzer.
The original analyzer looked at six key intersections in the area, later expanded to nine
intersections:
• Bayshore Highway/Millbrae Avenue
• Broadway/Rollins Road
• Broadway/Bayshore Highway
• Bayshore Highway/Airport Boulevard
• Airport Boulevard/Anza Boulevard
• Airport Boulevard/Coyote Point Drive
• Peninsula Avenue/North Humboldt Street
• Airport Boulevard/Future 101 Ramps
• Coyote Point Drive/North Bayshore Boulevard
3. NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS
In order to ensure that the capacity of both the critical intersections and the connecting
roadways is maintained at an acceptable level of service, there are several roadway
improvement projects which should occur. Based on each project's impact on the critical
intersections in the Bayfront Area, they will be charged a Bayfront Development Fee to be
matched with City funds to make improvements to the roadway system. Some of these
projects were identified in the 1981 Bayfront Specific Area Plan. The improvements
identified at the time the Bayfront Development Fee was established in 1979 and which
were used as a basis for the original traffic analyzer are as follows:
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 31
Status of Bayfront Development Fee Projects
Project Status
A Install Signals at Bayshore Highway and Mitten Road Completed
B Install Signals at Bayshore Highway and Stanton
Road
Completed
C a. Add Second Left Turn Lane to Freeway on-
ramp northbound from Broadway;
Based on preliminary study, project
determined to be infeasible
b. Add Second Left-turn Lane to Bayshore
Highway northbound from Broadway
Completed
D Widen Airport Boulevard to four lanes Not Completed, still a valid project
E Construct Anza Boulevard connection to US 101
(northbound on and off-ramps; Anza Boulevard
Bridge)
Completed
F On and Off Ramps to Freeway at Humboldt/Howard
and Rollins Road
Based on preliminary study this
project was determined to be
infeasible
As noted above, three of the six projects have been completed. Engineering and
environmental studies have been completed for the proposal to widen Airport Boulevard to
four lanes and it is still a valid project for improving traffic flow in the Bayfront Planning
Area. This project should be included in the list of projects to be funded by the update of the
Bayfront Development Fee. Preliminary studies were also done on the proposal to build new
freeway on and off-ramps at Humboldt/Howard and Rollins Road and this project was
determined to be infeasible. It should not be included in future improvement plans to be
funded by the Bayfront Development Fee. In addition, the addition of a second left turn lane
to the northbound freeway on-ramp from Broadway was studied. The proposal was to move
the on-ramp to the north with the idea that it would provide for more storage capacity. In
fact, after study it was determined that this project would result in less storage capacity
than is available in the current configuration.
The Traffic Analyzer Update identifies the following additional roadway improvements
required to maintain an acceptable level of service within the planning area. It is proposed
that these roadway improvements would be funded in part by private development through
implementation of an updated Bayfront Development Fee as discussed in Chapter VII. –
Plan Implementation of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
Airport Boulevard Curve Realignment – Airport Boulevard has sharp curves (90º) at two
locations along its southern portion in the Anza Point Area. As traffic volumes increase,
these sharp curves will prove to be both capacity constraints and safety hazards. Therefore,
it is recommended that these curves be smoothed out to comfortably handle traffic along
Airport Boulevard at the roadway's design speed. A curve on this type of roadway with a 30
miles per hour (mph) design speed should have a radius of 300 feet.
Airport Boulevard Median Reconstruction/Site Access Plan – Currently, along Airport
Boulevard between Lang Road and Anza Boulevard, the median is intermittent with frequent
breaks. This median area will likely need to be reconstructed to allow for specific project
access to Airport Boulevard. Therefore, it is recommended that a comprehensive plan be
developed to strategically position the median breaks at appropriate locations along Airport
Boulevard to accommodate future projects. It is recommended that this median access be
planned, rather than designed and constructed on a project-by-project basis, to ensure that
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 32
project access locations are efficiently located with respect to each other and to Airport
Boulevard.
Airport Boulevard Bridge Widening (Sanchez Channel) – Airport Boulevard transitions
from four lanes to three lanes (one southbound lane and two northbound lanes) just north
of the Burlingame Lagoon bridge crossing, and continues with this configuration south of the
lagoon. Although the capacity of the roadway is expected to be adequate, providing a
second lane in each direction allows traffic to turn into and out of developed sites without
impeding through traffic and providing safe pedestrian separation. Therefore, it is
recommended that this roadway and bridge be widened to accommodate a four-lane cross
section, with full pedestrian access to the adjacent Bay trail.
Transition between New Broadway Interchange and Airport Boulevard – Airport
Boulevard, between its current intersections with the Bayshore Highway and Anza
Boulevard, is a two-lane facility. In the future, the Broadway interchange with US 101 will
be reconfigured and straightened to align directly with Airport Boulevard at Bayshore
Highway. Broadway is a four-lane facility. Therefore, in order to connect with the
straightened Broadway, it is recommended that Airport Boulevard be widened to four lanes
between the Bayshore Highway and Anza Boulevard. This widening, in conjunction with the
bridge widening described above, will create a continuous, four-lane Airport Boulevard from
its beginning at the Bayshore Highway to Beach Road, where Airport Boulevard transitions
to a two-lane facility in San Mateo County.
STATUS UPDATE: This transition will be completed as a part of the Broadway
Interchange Construction Project.
Airport Boulevard Bicycle Lanes – It is recommended that continuous bicycle lanes be
installed along Airport Boulevard to provide continuous bicycle access through the Anza
Area.
STATUS UPDATE: Bicycle lanes have been installed along Airport Boulevard between
Broadway and the Sanchez Channel bridge.
Bayshore Highway Median Reconstruction – Bayshore Highway is now a four-lane
roadway with median areas in some locations and continuous shared two-way left-turn
lanes in other areas. Similar to the recommended access plan for Airport Boulevard, an
improvement plan is recommended for Bayshore Highway, to determine the appropriate
locations of median breaks to serve existing and future development. As part of that plan,
the existing signals will need to be upgraded to provide for signal interconnect and
coordination. Where possible, the plan should provide opportunities for landscaping and
lighting within the median.
Local Roadway Signalization required with the Realignment of Broadway
Interchange – The reconstruction of the Broadway interchange will change the alignment
of the connecting roadways to "T" or full intersections where they connect with the
Broadway overpass. New signals will be required at these intersections.
STATUS UPDATE: These local roadway signals will be completed as a part of the
Broadway Interchange Construction Project.
Broadway Interchange: It should be noted that the Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101
southbound off-ramp is now operating at a Level of Service "F" and will continue to do so
with plan implementation. The levels of service for the intersections at or near the
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan – Traffic & Circulation Page 33
Broadway interchange will continue to function at this level until the Broadway intersection
is reconstructed. There are long range plans to improve the Broadway interchange, but that
project has not yet been funded. It will be a priority project when funding for regional
projects becomes available. The project would also include changes to the surrounding
intersections, which should ease the congestion on the on-ramps.
STATUS UPDATE: Broadway Interchange Construction Project is funded and
construction is underway.
There are also proposals to change the operation of Caltrain at the Broadway station (such
as relocation of the station platforms; fewer trains stopping at the station) which will lessen
the down-time for the Caltrain gates on Broadway. When the Broadway interchange project
is implemented, and when the proposed changes to the Broadway Cal train station and/or
the changes in operation of Caltrain occur, the traffic circulation in this area will improve.
However, because of the short distance between intersections and the location of the
Caltrain tracks, it may not be possible to bring these intersections at either side of the
interchange to a level of Service C.
4. LAND USE DENSITIES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
The updated traffic analyzer also looked at the proposed land uses and densities as outlined
in Chapter III. – Land Use of the Bayfront Specific Plan. The land use densities for each
subarea were selected based on the traffic generating characteristics of those uses. With the
land use densities identified in Chapter III, and the improvements outlined above, it is
expected that all intersections, except the Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101 southbound off-
ramp will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service after build-out of the plan.
The analyzer also looks at the way traffic trips are distributed as they come and go from the
area. These directions of approach and departure are determined using the traffic surveys
done in this area over the years. For instance, the hotel traffic comes predominately from
the north, to and from the airport. Office traffic, on the other hand, tends to come from
both the north and south, indicating more regional trips on U.S. 101 rather than local trips
from residential areas to the west. About 15 per cent of the restaurant trips were internal to
the Bayfront Area indicating that the restaurants serve the adjacent hotels and businesses.
Using all if this collected data, each land use and each subarea have been assigned a
specific "Capacity Consumption Rate" which assigns the new trips to the area's critical
intersections. Therefore, as each development proposal comes in, its traffic impacts
attributed to each intersection can be identified. In addition, this information will be used to
update the Bayfront Development Fee and to develop with the City a fair share allocation of
the costs for these public improvements. This will ensure that the circulation system
continues to provide acceptable levels of service. Chapter VII., Plan Implementation of the
Bayfront Specific Plan provides a discussion of the Bayfront Development Fee formula.
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 34
Circulation and Infrastructure
V. North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan –
Circulation and Infrastructure
On September 20, 2004, the Burlingame City Council, by Resolution No. 85-2004, adopted
the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was amended by the
Burlingame City Council on February 5, 2007, by Resolution No. 13-2007. Following is
Chapter 5 of the Adopted Specific Plan – Circulation and Infrastructure.
1. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
There are no intersection improvements needed to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins
Road Specific Plan, however, two roadway changes are proposed. They are not expected to
have an effect on roadway or intersection capacity and are discussed below.
New Connection between Rollins Road and Adrian Road – Part of the Specific Plan's
land use component suggests opportunity sites for new car dealerships on Adrian Road, just
west of U.S. 101. Existing access to this area fronting U.S. 101 is indirect via Adrian Road in
Millbrae or David Road from Rollins Road to the south. The two suggested sites would
provide increased visibility for these businesses locating there. To facilitate this visibility and
the accessibility of those sites, the Plan recommends that a road be constructed to improve
access to the auto dealerships from the Rollins Road area, by providing a more direct and
visible link to the potential auto dealership sites. The exact location of this road will be
determined as properties develop and opportunities arise. This new roadway connection is
not expected to have any effect on roadway capacity or operations.
Adjustment to El Camino Real Cross-section – Within the project study area, El Camino
Real is a six-lane facility with adjacent landscape berms and frontage roads. The North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan calls for adjusting this cross-section to remove the
frontage roads on either side of El Camino Real. In its place, the Plan calls for phased
development of a more pedestrian-friendly land use along the corridor. This phasing
scenario is described in Chapter 3 of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. In
addition, the Plan calls for enhancement to pedestrian and bicycle facilities along El Camino
Real, including wide sidewalks, streetscape improvements and on-street parking that would
improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation and safety. These improvements are not
expected to have an effect on traffic operations since, except for median strip
improvements, they will occur on City property adjacent to the Caltrans (State) right-of-
way. Three through traffic lanes in each direction should be maintained on El Camino Real.
STATUS UPDATE: Further study since the specific plan was adopted has shown that
this concept may be unworkable. The frontage roads are controlled by Caltrans, and in
some instances contain utilities. An alternative would be to design the frontage roads in
a multi-lane “boulevard” style, including on-street parking to serve businesses and wide
sidewalks to enhance the pedestrian environment.
2. STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan recommends the creation of cross-sectional
standards for El Camino Real, Trousdale Drive, California Drive, Magnolia Avenue and Rollins
Road. These standards will help to define the ambience for future development in each area.
These street standards are limited to streetscape improvements, such as bicycle lanes,
wider sidewalks, street furniture and trees. These improvements should enhance the
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 35
Circulation and Infrastructure
pedestrian and bicycle environment without significantly compromising the capacity of the
roadway network.
El Camino Real – The El Camino Real cross-section, shown in Figure V-1, would be
reconfigured to clarify pedestrian and vehicular travel patterns and facilitate greater
pedestrian circulation in North Burlingame on land that is currently dedicated to service and
frontage roads. The reconfiguration would create a substantial amount of new developable
land that can then be used to develop street frontages that are primarily upper level
residential uses over ground-floor retail with office uses above.
New buildings would frame a more deliberate pedestrian friendly and memorable entry to
Burlingame. Figure V-2 shows an overlay of the proposed change superimposed over an
aerial photograph of the existing El Camino Real to illustrate that there is essentially no
change to the existing travel lane configuration.
El Camino Real would become a vibrant and pedestrian friendly retail corridor to serve local
residents. Parking lanes would be included to buffer pedestrians from traffic lanes. The
improvements will include street trees at regular intervals that will supplement the existing
Eucalyptus canopy and provide shade for pedestrian areas. Street lights, benches and other
furnishings would be part of the streetscape improvements. The improvements would foster
safer and more spatially defined pedestrian circulation routes along El Camino Real and
strengthen connections between the Mills Peninsula Hospital, retail opportunities in
Burlingame Plaza and the Millbrae Intermodal station.
STATUS UPDATE: Further study since the specific plan was adopted has shown that
this concept may be unworkable. The frontage roads are controlled by Caltrans, and in
some instances contain utilities. An alternative would be to design the frontage roads in
a multi-lane “boulevard” style, including on-street parking to serve businesses and wide
sidewalks to enhance the pedestrian environment.
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 36
Circulation and Infrastructure
Figure V-1. Proposed El Camino Real cross-section and plan
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 37
Circulation and Infrastructure
Figure V-2.
Proposed
changes to
El Camino Real
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 38
Circulation and Infrastructure
Figure V-3.
Trousdale Drive
Trousdale Drive – Trousdale Drive is a busy four lane arterial, running east-west that
connects Interstate 280 with El Camino Real and California Drive. Streetscape
improvements on Trousdale Drive, illustrated in Figures 5-3 and 5-6, can enhance the
pedestrian environment while also contributing to the reduction of vehicular speeds and the
creation of a generally safer environment for pedestrians. The concepts illustrated anticipate
a new entrance to Mills Peninsula Hospital on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue and
reconfiguration of travel lanes to accommodate the shifted hospital-related traffic.
Curb extensions at corners, or "bulb outs," at the intersection of Trousdale Drive and El
Camino Real would help to reduce traffic speeds at this busy intersection while also creating
shorter crossing distances for pedestrians. The bulb out will delineate parking lanes, where
they exist, on Trousdale Drive. Tree wells will be cut into the existing ten foot sidewalks to
allow the planting of street trees at regular intervals. Pedestrian crosswalks would be added
at appropriate locations to facilitate greater and safer pedestrian use. Improvements will
include pedestrian-scaled street lighting. These amenities will also improve ped estrian
access to Mills Peninsula Hospital for people using BART and other public transit.
Figure V-4.
Intersection of
El Camino Real and
Trousdale Drive
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 39
Circulation and Infrastructure
Figure V-5.
California Drive
California Drive – Traffic volumes on California Drive are likely to increase with the
continued operation of the Millbrae Intermodal Station and as transit patrons south of the
Specific Plan area use California Drive to access the station via the Millbrae Avenue
underpass. Improvements to the streetscape, shown in Figure V-5, and low fencing with
landscaping set back from the edge of the sidewalk along California Drive combined with
greater pedestrian activity that will result from new development on California Drive parcels,
will calm vehicular traffic and contribute to a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment
along this route. Bike lanes in both directions will allow for bicycle access from the transit
facility to parts of the Specific Plan Area, including the hospital west of El Camino Real via
Murchison Drive or Trousdale Drive.
STATUS UPDATE: Although bike lanes have not been installed, bicycle route signage
and "sharrow" street markings have been added to California Drive to allow for bicycle
access to the Millbrae Intermodal Station and as a north-south connection through
Burlingame.
Magnolia Avenue – Magnolia Avenue is a very wide street laid over a 60-foot wide San
Francisco Water District easement. With the completion of the replacement hospital,
Magnolia will complete the intersection at the main entrance to the hospital. Magnolia
connects Trousdale Drive to Murchison Drive and provides the primary service access for
some of the retail establishments at the back of Burlingame Plaza and to the shops which
face El Camino Real. The service entries at the rear of the businesses facing El Camino
share the Magnolia Avenue street façade with the front doors of many other businesses.
Curb bulb outs could be added on Magnolia Avenue at the intersection with Trousdale Drive
to improve pedestrian access and safety. The bulbouts would narrow the perceived width of
travel lanes and contribute to the reduction of traffic speeds. The bulb outs would also
reduce pedestrian crossing distances. The current configuration of parallel parking on the
west side and a mixture of parallel and diagonal parking on the east side are proposed to
remain.
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 40
Circulation and Infrastructure
To break up the street parking visually, street tree bulb outs could be added at regular
intervals on the west side and tree wells could be cut into the existing walk on the eastern
side to avoid a conflict with the underground water main. Improvements will also include
pedestrian scale street lights and additional crosswalks at convenient locations.
Figure V-6.
Intersection of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue
Figure 5-7.
Magnolia Avenue
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 41
Circulation and Infrastructure
Rollins Road Gateway – The gateway, illustrated in the conceptual sketches in Figures V-
8 and V-9, will signal the entry into the Rollins Road industrial area. Utilizing the unused
shoulders of the El Portal Channel bridge the gateway will provide pedestrian seating areas,
entry signage and landscape elements. Improvements will include the refurbishments of the
bridge to include pilasters and upgraded security fencing and railings.
Figure V-8.
Cross-section through
northern
Rollins Road
Gateway
Figure V-9.
Proposed Gateway
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 42
Circulation and Infrastructure
Rollins Road – Improvements to Rollins Road, which are illustrated in Figures V-10 and V-
11, will include the installation of street trees in tree wells cut into the existing sidewalks. At
locations where the street trees are to be planted, the sidewalk will be reconstructed around
the tree locations. The goal of this street tree program is to calm traffic by narrowing the
perceived street width, which can cause drivers to reduce their speed. Therefore, it is
advantageous for the street trees to be as close to the travel lanes as possible. Rollins Road
is also a designated bicycle route in Burlingame’s adopted Bicycle Transportation plan.
Bicycle lanes have been installed along Rollins Road within the Plan area.
Additionally, a significant goal of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan is the
creation of a more aesthetically pleasing environment on Rollins Road, and the addition of
street trees will help to accomplish that goal. The trees will also shade large areas of the
Rollins Road pavement, reducing temperature and glare. The width of the City-owned right-
of-way on Rollins Road differs on either side of Easton Creek. South of Easton Creek, the
right-of-way is 75 feet, with a sidewalk of approximately 5 feet on either side. North of
Easton Creek, the right-of-way is 84 feet, including approximately 5 feet between the back
of the sidewalk and the property line. Therefore, as shown in Figures 5-10 and 5-11,
construction of the tree wells and realigned sidewalks in the section of Rollins Road below
Easton Creek will require the City to acquire an easement from property owners.
Construction of this street tree program in this more constrained section of Rollins Road
may be limited by other improvements on these properties and will need to be reviewed on
a parcel by parcel basis.
Figure V-10.
Rollins Road
North of
Easton Creek
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 43
Circulation and Infrastructure
Figure V-11.
Rollins Road
South of
Easton Creek
Street Tree Recommendations – Street trees are recommended with the goal of creating
a transition in scale between roadways and adjacent land uses as well as to provide a
comfortable pedestrian realm. Trees were chosen based on their long term appeal, however,
as with any tree species the interim look and growth pattern of the tree is dependent on the
City of Burlingame's tree maintenance program. It is suggested that at the time of planting,
steps to increase the future heath of the tree be taken. These efforts include proper soil
amendment to reduce soil compaction and water tubes to induce deep root growth. It
should be expected that during periods of a tree’s normal growth it will encroach on a
roadway. The pruning of trees in order to avoid conflicts with roadways will be necessary
during these initial periods of growth. Trees should be pruned to minimize this impact and
with the future appearance of the tree in mind.
Table V-1 indicates the recommended street trees to be used for streetscape improvements
in the Specific Plan Area. Most trees are listed in the City of Burlingame's Planning
Department Tree List. The Accolade Elm has been considered as a replacement tree for
sections of El Camino Real south of the Plan Area. It is very similar to Elm trees that were
historically planted on El Camino Real and is one of the best Elm species for resisting the
attack of Dutch Elm disease.
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 44
Circulation and Infrastructure
Table V-1 Street Tree Recommendations
Street Area Proposed Alternate
El Camino Real Ulmus Accolade/
Accolade Elm
Ulmus Americana
'Princeton'/
Princeton Elm
Trousdale Drive
California Drive
Fraxinus oxycarpus/
Raywood Ash
Acer Rubrum/
Red Maple
Koelreuteria
paniculata/
Golden Rain Tree
Magnolia Avenue Magnolia g. ‘St. Mary’/
St. Mary Magnolia
Magnolia g.
'Samuel Sommer'
Rollins Road Quercus rubra/
Red Oak
Acer Rubrum/
Red Maple
Murchison Drive
Ogden Drive
Marco Polo Way
Adrian Road
Acer Rubrum/
Red Maple
Pistacia chinensis/
Chinese Pistache
Platanus acerfolia/
London Plane
Accent Tree Prunus cerasifera/
Purple Leaf Plum
Lagerstoemia indica/
Crape Myrtle
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 45
Circulation and Infrastructure
3. PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
In the Rollins Road area, a creekside open space and pedestrian trail system would provide
amenities and pedestrian and bike facilities for area businesses as well as recreation
opportunities Rollins Road workers and Burlingame residents. These open space areas,
combined with streetscape improvements on Rollins Road, will facilitate safer and more
attractive non-vehicular connections between Rollins Road employment destinations and
transit opportunities to the north in Millbrae and to the south on Broadway. The proposed
network is shown in Figure V-12 and a conceptual illustration of these creekside areas is
shown in Figure V-13.
The gradual development of a trail network will occur over time as opportunities arise to
acquire access by purchase or gift. Except where necessary to mitigate impacts of a
particular project, no conveyance of public access rights is intended to be imposed on
projects in the area.
Figure V-12. Creekside Network Plan
Figure V-13. Creekside Network
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Page 46
Circulation and Infrastructure
4. PARKING
As shown in the design guidelines in Chapter 6, on-site parking throughout the Specific Plan
area should be encouraged to be located behind buildings in order to adequately define the
pedestrian realm and create safe and aesthetically-pleasing environments on Burlingame
sidewalks and streets. However, on parcels with lot frontage on El Camino Real at grade
parking visible or accessed from El Camino should be discouraged. This parking will be
supplemented by on-street parking, including some portions of El Camino Real, on which
parallel curb parking should be provided as part of its redesign.
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 47
VI. Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan –
Circulation and Parking
On October 4, 2010, the Burlingame City Council, by Resolution No. 73-2010, adopted the
Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Following is Chapter 7 of the Adopted Specific Plan –
Circulation and Parking.
1. RECOMMENDED ROADWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
The Downtown Specific Plan includes a series of roadway projects intended to either
mitigate existing or anticipated traffic conditions, or otherwise satisfy urban design
objectives for streetscapes, pedestrian and bicycle access and open space.
Existing Roadway Network – Regional access to Downtown Burlingame is provided via
Highway 101 freeway. The closest interchanges with the freeway are located at Peninsula
Avenue (southern edge of the plan area) and at Broadway (north of the plan area). The
Peninsula interchange provides access in the northbound direction only, while the Broadway
interchange provides access for both northbound and southbound traffic. A system of major
arterials accommodates the longer distance local trips and connects Burlingame with
adjacent communities. These include El Camino Real (State Highway 82) and California
Drive providing north-south access. Other major arterials include Peninsula Avenue and Oak
Grove Avenue. These arterials carry the major volume of east-west trips and connect with
State highways and freeways. The other elements of the street system are secondary
arterials, such as Howard Avenue, that connect collector and local access streets to the
major arterials. Collector streets feed traffic to the arterials and major centers of activity i n
Burlingame.
Based on existing travel patterns, the majority of project-traffic would occur along California
Drive heading towards Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue from the north and south.
Additional project-traffic would occur along Howard Avenue, Burlingame Avenue, and
Peninsula Avenue, and Primrose Road.
Traffic bound for downtown on El Camino Real is expected to exit from El Camino Real at
the first opportunity and utilize the east-west collector roadways. As such, traffic not bound
for downtown will likely bypass and continue traveling along El Camino Real, while the
majority of downtown-related traffic will likely enter via Park Road, Primrose Road,
Bayswater Avenue, Howard Avenue, and Burlingame Avenue. In addition, on- and off-street
parking facilities are primarily located along these local roadways, which would attract
patrons to exit El Camino Real to access the parking.
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 48
Considering location and types of development projected in the plan, traffic generated by
future downtown development is expected to primarily affect the following intersections:
• El Camino Real/Howard Ave
• Burlingame Ave/Park Rd
• Primrose Rd/Chapin Ave
• Primrose Rd/Bellevue Ave
• Primrose Rd/Douglas Ave
• California Dr/Lorton Ave
• El Camino Real/Peninsula Ave/Park Rd
• California Dr/Peninsula Ave
• California Dr/Howard Ave/Highland Ave
Traffic mitigation measures, such as signalization and signal timing adjustments have been
proposed in order to reduce potential impacts to these intersections. Traffic calming could
also be implemented in surrounding neighborhoods if necessary to address cut-through
traffic.
California Drive/Lorton Avenue Intersection – The California Drive/Lorton intersection
needs improvement, regardless of possible future development. The unconventional layout
of the intersection is inefficient, and is confusing for both vehicles and pedestrians.
The Downtown Specific Plan includes two alternative reconfigurations for the California
Drive/Lorton Avenue intersection. Both would be acceptable choices for improving vehicle
and pedestrian circulation through the intersection, and both could accommodate traffic
from anticipated future development as described in this specific plan.
Option 1: Signalized Intersection
Option 1 would refine the current configuration with a more straightforward intersection
design, and the addition of a traffic signal. With this improvement, the intersection will have
an improved level of service and reduce vehicle delays significantly. The intersection could
also be configured to create a small usable open space, as described in Chapter 4:
Streetscapes and Open Space of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Option 2: Roundabout
City engineering staff has been actively studying the possibility of a roundabout design to
mitigate existing and future traffic conditions. This would improve traffic safety and act as a
traffic calming measure. In addition, the traffic circle at the center of the roundabout would
have attractive landscaping and could have a prominent design element such as flowers or a
monument, as described in Chapter 4: Streetscapes & Open Space of the Downtown
Specific Plan. Traffic would enter the roundabout and circulate one-way around a center
circular island, typically in a counterclockwise direction. On California Drive, travel lanes
would be reduced from two lanes to one lane at the roundabout entrance in order to allow
orderly traffic flow into the circle. Crosswalks would extend around the outer circle of the
roundabout, with refuge islands at intermediate positions.
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 49
Civic Center Circle – The intersection of Primrose Road,
Bellevue Avenue and Douglas Avenue between the Library
and City Hall currently is complex, inefficient, and confusing.
The existing divided traffic islands could be replaced with a
single traffic circle, with crosswalks connecting each corner
of the streets leading to the circle. The circle could provide a
small open space, as described in Chapter 4: Streetscapes
and Open Space. This reconfiguration would improve the
function of the intersection and provide an additional open
space amenity.
Highland Avenue – The last block of Highland Avenue
between California Drive and Howard Avenue is a one-way
street and primarily serves to provide access and parking to
the businesses fronting the street, and also provides a short-
cut for vehicles turning right from southbound California
Drive onto Howard Avenue. Even with this short-cut
function, however, there are minimal traffic volumes along
this block during the peak hours.
Given the limited function of the street segment and its
potential to complicate traffic patterns, there could be
justification for narrowing or closing the street segment to
improve the streetscape and increase the size of the
adjoining open space. Depending on the mix of businesses
alongside, closing the street and replacing it with open space
frontage could either be an asset to the businesses or be
detrimental. Uses such as restaurants may appreciate
frontage on an open space, but retailers may value the
proximity of parking and access more than open space.
Since the majority of traffic would travel through on
California Drive and would not turn onto Highland Avenue,
the closure or narrowing of the roadway would not impact
the traffic operations at the California Drive/Howard Avenue
intersection.
Narrowing the segment and redesigning it to create a more
unified composition with the adjoining open space could be a
satisfactory option that would retain traffic circulation and
parking, but be more oriented to the adjacent businesses
rather than to traffic making a short-cut to Howard Avenue.
The street could be redesigned with a “flexible zone” where
the parking area and traffic lane would be shared by
pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles. This concept would
involve special paving and flush integrated curbs, a greater
number of trees, street furniture, and bicycle parking. The
intention would be to create a more seamless transition
between the street area and the open space area.
California Drive/Lorton Avenue
Option 1: Signalized Intersection
California Drive/Lorton Avenue
Option 2: Roundabout
Civic Center Circle
Highland Avenue Plaza
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 50
California Drive Reconfiguration – A concept that merits further study beyond the scope
of the Downtown Specific Plan would be to reconfigure the California Drive traffic lanes to
better serve traffic flow and accommodate bicycles. Currently California Drive has two traffic
lanes in each direction, but due to the large number of turns in center lanes, the center
lanes effectively do not function for through traffic. A reconfiguration could have one clear,
through traffic lane in each direction, together with a center median/turn lane to
accommodate turns. The traffic lanes would remain clear of obstructions so traffic flow
would be steady (but calm), while turns would be accommodated separately from the
through traffic. The redesign would provide enough room for generous bicycle lanes on each
side, so California Drive would become a convenient and effective bicycle route through
Burlingame and to Downtown. Existing on-street parking would also be accommodated.
This approach, sometimes referred to as a "road diet," has been demonstrated to be very
effective elsewhere in the Bay Area on streets with comparable traffic volumes and
characteristics to California Drive. Further study would need to consider impacts along the
length of California Drive to ensure that traffic does not spill into adjacent neighborhoods.
However, with the functional and aesthetic improvements, the expectation would be that
California Drive would become a preferred access route into Downtown, as well as between
Downtown and the Broadway commercial district.
Currently California drive has two traffic
lanes in each direction, but due to the large
number of turns in center lanes, the center
lanes do not function for through traffic.
Reconfigured California Drive with one travel
lane in each direction, center median/turn
lane, and bike lanes.
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 51
El Camino Real/Peninsula Avenue/Park Road Signalization – Traffic analysis has
projected that the El Camino Real/Peninsula Avenue/Park Road intersection could
experience a potentially significant reduction in level of service depending on amount of
downtown development in the future. However, even with a relatively high level of
development in the future, these impacts could be reduced with changes to the traffic signal
timing. By increasing the signal green time by ten seconds in the Peninsula Avenue
westbound approach and Park Road southwest approach, and removing ten seconds of
green signal time in the northbound and southbound El Camino Real approaches, the
potential impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
California Drive/Howard Avenue Signalization – Traffic analysis has projected that the
California Drive/Howard Avenue intersection could experience a potentially significant
reduction in level of service depending on amount of downtown development in the future.
However, even with a relatively high level of development in the future, these impacts could
be reduced with changes to the traffic signal timing. By increasing the signal green time by
five seconds in the California Drive northbound and southbound directions and removing
five seconds of green signal time in the Howard Avenue eastbound and westbound
approaches, the potential impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
2. TRANSIT
The following discussion includes descriptions of each transit service provider that serves
Downtown Burlingame. System-level ridership, performance measures, and planned transit
improvements specific to transit stations and stops in Burlingame are further reviewed.
Caltrain - Caltrain provides local and
commuter train service between San
Francisco and San Jose, with weekday
commute-hour service to Gilroy. The main
objectives of the Caltrain Short Range
Transportation Plan (2008) included
addressing station needs, coordinating
service with connecting transit operators
throughout the Bay Area, improving station
access for all passengers, and enhancing
system performance. Over the long-term,
Caltrain patronage has risen and is
anticipated to continue to do so. Station
improvements were completed at the
Burlingame station to allow trains traveling in
opposing directions to serve the same station
simultaneously without incurring delay.
Appropriate fencing has also been installed at
the station.
Compared to other Caltrain stations, passenger boardings and capacity utilization rates at
the Burlingame Station are relatively moderate-to-low. However, the land use plan for the
Downtown Specific Plan encourages more intensive development in many of the blocks
within close proximity to the train station, which should allow more people to take
advantage of the train for some of their transportation needs. The plan encourages more
frequent stops at the Burlingame Avenue station to encourage ridership and capitalize on
more intensive development downtown near the train station.
The Downtown Specific Plan encourages more
intensive development in many of the blocks
close to the Caltrain station, which should
allow more people to take advantage of the
train for some of their transportation needs.
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 52
The Burlingame Downtown Shuttle
provides access to Downtown Burlingame
from the City's bayfront hotel area east of
the Bayshore Freeway.
Key SamTrans Improvements relative to
Downtown Burlingame include
prioritization of service improvements in
areas where high density and mixed-use
developments are provided.
Burlingame Downtown Shuttle – This local
service provides access to Downtown
Burlingame from the City’s bayfront hotel area
east of the Bayshore Freeway. There is a
scheduled stop downtown at the Burlingame
Caltrain Station. If there is further
development in the bayfront area in the
future, there may be potential to expand the
patronage and extent of service of the shuttle.
This could be a benefit to downtown
businesses with additional customers, as well
as downtown residents who could use the
shuttle to access bayfront recreational
facilities.
SamTrans – SamTrans provides bus service
throughout San Mateo County as well as to
San Francisco and Palo Alto. There are several
major transit routes which have stops in the
Downtown area, on El Camino Real and
California Drive, with connections to Caltrain
and to the Millbrae BART station. Based on
SamTrans Short Range Transportation Plan
(SRTP), there are several planned
improvements to enhance system
performance, increase ridership, and improve
accessibility. Key improvements relative to
Downtown Burlingame include prioritization of
service improvements in areas where high
density and mixed-use developments are
provided.
In addition, the SRTP states that transit
service along El Camino Real experiences
significant demand and SamTrans has
therefore added an express bus service along
the corridor. The land use plan for the
Downtown Specific Plan encourages more
intensive development in many of the blocks
close to El Camino Real, which should help
increase transit demand along the corridor.
In order to increase intercity transit use, and
to accommodate the growing aging
population, Samtrans plans to increase the
use of community-based shuttles throughout
the transit network.
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 53
California High Speed Rail –The California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) is a rail line in the
planning stages that will provide a high-speed link between San Francisco and Los Angeles,
as well as a number of other key destinations. Though the CHSR will not stop in Burlingame,
the proposed corridor for the project runs north-south through the city along the existing
Caltrain right-of-way.
Given that the CHSR alignment is proposed to pass through Burlingame and its downtown,
there is concern over the potential for the rail line to create a physical barrier through the
city if it involves bridging, elevated tracks, or the use of retaining walls. Like other peninsula
cities, Burlingame has indicated a preference for having the rail line in an underground
tunnel rather than at surface or above grade Having the line underground would be more
compatible with the continued economic vitality and quality of life of Burlingame and its
downtown. It would also be more compatible with the preservation of valuable historic
resources such as the eucalyptus grove and the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway train
stations. If all rail lines are accommodated underground along the length of the peninsula
alignment, it will enable dozens of surface crossings to be relieved of train conflicts, thereby
easing access at many scales and reducing congestion throughout the peninsula.
While the CHSR is beyond the scope of the Downtown Specific Plan, the project will have an
important impact on Downtown Burlingame. It is essential that the CHSR planning process
thoroughly investigate and mitigate impacts on Caltrain service, utilities, and effects that
may concern schools, residents, and businesses.
3. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
Most of Downtown Burlingame is highly
pedestrian-oriented and has a high amount
of pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian activity is
primarily the result of the amount of retail,
office, and restaurant land uses in the heart
of Downtown, as well as the proximity to
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Increasing pedestrian convenience and
safety is an objective in Downtown
Burlingame, and several actions are
proposed to improve pedestrian conditions.
These include implementing traffic-calming
measures (mid-block crossings, traffic
circles, paving variations), increasing
sidewalk “linkages” to improve connectivity
to and within downtown, and widening
sidewalks. These measures are more
thoroughly described in Chapter 4:
Streetscapes and Open Spaces of the
Downtown Specific Plan. Overall, these
measures would improve pedestrian safety
and encourage residents and visitors to
patronize Downtown Burlingame.
Increasing pedestrian convenience and safety is
an objective in Downtown Burlingame.
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 54
4. BICYCLES
An objective of the Downtown Specific
Plan is for bicycles to be a viable choice
for getting to downtown. Safety, ease of
access, and parking must all be carefully
considered so that people are able to
consider bicycling as an appealing and
realistic means of transportation. If people
are able to swap automobile trips for
bicycle trips, not only would there be
environmental advantages in terms of
reduced greenhouse emissions, but there
would be less of a need for the City to
provide additional, costly parking facilities
for autos over the long-term.
Bicycles can be a viable choice for getting to
and around downtown.
Bicycle Routes - Bicycle routes in Downtown Burlingame include:
• Primrose Road – from Oak Grove Avenue (north) to Howard Avenue (south).
• Highland Avenue – from Howard Avenue (north) to Peninsula Avenue (south) and
continues south of Peninsula Avenue.
• California Drive – from Burlingame City Limits (north) to Howard Avenue (south).
Within Downtown, this route intersects with Burlingame Avenue.
• Howard Avenue – from Humboldt Road (east) to Occidental Avenue (west). Within
Downtown, this route intersects with El Camino Real, Primrose Road, Park Road,
Lorton Avenue, and Highland Avenue. Howard Avenue also includes a bicycle lane.
If California Drive is reconfigured as described in Section A, it offers the potential to be a
significant bicycle route into Downtown from neighborhoods to the north, south, and east.
Cyclists can then access Howard Avenue to reach the side streets, and the side street s to
reach the center of the downtown district. As streetscape improvements are implemented
along Howard Avenue and the side streets, accommodations for bicycles should be a key
design consideration. Lanes should provide adequate clearances, and intersecti ons should
be designed to minimize automobile and bicycle conflicts. Side streets can be designed and
clearly signed as "sharrows" where it is clear that the roadway are to be shared by bicycles
and automobiles, and to alert motorists of the presence of bicycles.
Downtown Specific Plan – Circulation & Parking Page 55
Bicycle Strategies and Guidelines
The desirability and effectiveness of bicycles to
serve Downtown can be improved with the
following enhancements:
Short-Term Parking – Public Bike Racks:
Individual bike racks are part of a two-tier bicycle
parking strategy for Downtown. Generally, bike
racks are useful for short-term parking (from a
few minutes to a few hours), and should be
provided throughout the redesigned streetscapes
to be convenient to businesses and attractions.
Figure 7-1 shows existing locations of bike racks
throughout Downtown.
Long-Term Parking – Central Bike Parking
Facility. A centrally-located, convenient, and
highly visible facility should be established for
longer visits downtown (from a few hours to a full
day or work shift). As opposed to sidewalk bike
racks, which are provided for short-term
convenience, the central facility would appeal to
those wanting to store their bicycles for a longer
period of time. The concept would be that
someone cycling to Downtown could proceed
directly to the central parking facility with
knowledge that they would be able to find
convenient and secure longer term parking.
Ideally, the parking facility would offer some
protection from weather, and could offer a choice
of racks and electronic lockers.
The facility should be located in a visible, central
location so that it serves as a social hub and
offers a measure of security. Initially the facility
could be established in one of the central public
parking lots, and over time could grow and be
located in the Lot E signature open space, or in a
nearby parking lot or structure.
“Sharrow” markings can alert motorists to
the presence of bicycles where there is
not sufficient space for a dedicated bike
lane.
Bike racks interspersed along sidewalks
throughout downtown are useful for
convenient, short-term parking.
Downtown Specific Plan Circulation and Parking Page 56
Downtown Specific Plan Circulation and Parking Page 57
Bicycle Accommodations in New Developments: New development should provide safe,
secure facilities for bicycles. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, depending on
the type of development. Where possible, secured, indoor parking space (i.e. lockable,
caged space) for bikes should be provided in all new residential and commercial buildings.
New projects should include bike stalls to allow users the opportunity to securely store their
bicycles. These can include racks or hooks on walls in front of parking spaces in residential
buildings, and designated and secure bicycle storage areas in commercial buildings.
Modest locker facilities in new, larger Commercial/Mixed Use projects should also be
provided. Lockers should be sufficient to store helmets and other necessary equipment.
A centrally-located bicycle parking facility
would be intended for protected long-term
parking and also serve as a social hub.
Downtown Specific Plan Circulation and Parking Page 58
7.
Downtown Specific Plan Circulation and Parking Page 59
5. PARKING
This section outlines the parking supply plan for the Downtown Burlingame municipal
facilities. It is expected that the parking supply for future development will be met by a
combination of on-site parking and an enhancement of the existing public parking facilities
in the Downtown area. Parking requirements for development are outlined in Chapter 3:
Land Use of the Downtown Specific Plan. Generally, retail, restaurant and personal service
uses on the ground floor are exempt from parking requirements within the Downtown
Parking Sector. For commercial uses that are required to provide parking (upper floors
within the Parking Sector, and all floors outside the Parking Sector) requirements can either
be met on-site or through payment of an in-lieu fee. In-lieu fees will be used to build
structured parking at existing public parking lots in the Downtown areas.
Shared Parking Concept
The vision for Downtown Burlingame is a mix of uses. A mix of uses, as opposed to a
predominance of a single use, has positive implications on parking demand. For example,
retail land uses tend to experience peak hour parking demand between 3:00 PM and 4:00
PM during the weekday and between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM during the weekend. Office land
uses experience 100 percent parking occupancy between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM during
the weekday, but very little demand on weekends. Hotel uses experience peak parking
demand between 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM during the weekday and weekend. Residential uses
experience peak hour parking demand between 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM during the weekday
and weekend.
As a result of the different times of peak parking demand by these complementary uses,
demand is overlapping rather than additive. Thus less parking is required. The ability for
different uses to share the common parking areas at different times of day reduces the
overall parking demand. However, as Downtown grows, there will be near-term and longer-
term parking needs to accommodate.
The Downtown Specific Plan recognizes the opportunities for shared parking. For projects
with off-street parking included on site, different uses with different peak demands can
utilize the same parking spaces at different times of day, allowing fewer parking spaces
than if each use were fully parked. The parking standards outlined in Chapter 3: Land Use of
the Downtown Specific Plan include provisions to reduce on-site parking when the mix of
uses is complementary and can share parking spaces.
The municipal lots also benefit from the shared nature of parking, on a larger scale. The
ratios for off-site parking (whether exempt or provided through an in-lieu arrangement)
account for the different peak demands for different uses, as well as the ability for patrons
to visit more than one use without re-parking. Over the long term, the overlapping demands
of different uses and the ability to share the same spaces in the municipal facilities will
require fewer new public parking facilities than if each use had its own designated parking.
Make Better Use of Existing Parking Facilities
Downtown Burlingame consists of 20 City-owned off-street parking facilities as well as
metered on-street parking located on most local roadways (as shown in Figure 7-2). While
parking can be tight in some areas of Downtown (particularly near active shopping and
dining areas), as a whole there is available parking supply that can be better utilized to
serve near-term needs.
Downtown Specific Plan Circulation and Parking Page 60
In order to make best use of existing facilities to serve current and near-term demand,
strategies can include adjusting parking pricing and time restrictions, implementing
valet/attended parking operations, modifying parking enforcement strategies, implementing
parking permits for residents/employees, introducing a car-share arrangement, and
improving wayfinding and signage for parking facilities. Many of these measures have been
implemented in the past with success, and could continue to be adjusted for further
optimization of existing resources.
Expand Parking Facilities
As Downtown grows, there may be upper limits to how much optimization can be gained
from the existing parking facilities. In order to accommodate some of the demand from new
development (since some will be met on-site), as well as to be able to provide amenities
such as the signature open space proposed for Lot E, one or more parking structures may
be necessary.
Several studies have been completed to determine which city-owned parking lots could
most efficiently accommodate parking structures, and there are several options available. A
couple of choices are discussed below, although the final decisions should be made when
funding is available based on development patterns and projections at that time.
Lot J
Because it is one of the larger lots, Lot J has been recommended for structured parking by
the city’s parking consultants. This location makes sense because it is centrally located, and
because a structure on Lot J could most easily provide the parking that will be needed to
compensate for the loss of Lot E, when it is converted to community open space. In fact,
constructing a parking structure on Lot J and creating a new open space on Lot E should be
thought of as one project with two phases, the first being the construction of the parking
structure. While Lot J is closed during construction, downtown Burlingame would lose 69
parking spaces. However, there is sufficient capacity in Lots L, W and C to temporarily make
up for this loss.
Lots A and A-3
Another potential site for a parking structure is to combine Lots A and A-3 along Donnelly
Avenue, and add an additional story on to the combined structure. At least half of Lot A
should be usable during construction, and the other spaces lost during construction can be
accommodated through existing capacity in Lots C, O, V, M, J, and L.
Howard Avenue Focus Area
The Downtown Specific Plan provides incentives to encourage new mixed use development
along the Howard Avenue. Similar to the parking requirements that have been in place
along Burlingame Avenue, the Specific Plan would exempt ground floor retail, personal
service and restaurant uses on Howard Avenue from on-site parking requirements, and
would allow parking for upper floor commercial uses to be provided off-site through an in-
lieu fee arrangement.
Howard Avenue has on-street parking along its length, and there are four off-street parking
facilities in the vicinity. Lots F and N have traditionally experienced high parking demand
during the weekday peak, whereas Lots G and W have experienced more moderate demand
during the weekday peak and could absorb the additional parking demand associated with
new development. During the weekend peak, all four lots have traditionally been
underutilized, so the additional parking demand associated with new development could be
Downtown Specific Plan Circulation and Parking Page 61
accommodated. If all residential parking is provided on-site, anticipated parking demand
along Howard Avenue can be fully accommodated within existing parking lots.
Ongoing Monitoring and Adjustments
As development occurs in the downtown area, parking and circulation should be regularly
monitored so that adjustments can be made to city regulations and/or facilities as
necessary.
Next Steps Page 62
VI. Next Steps
Begininning in early 2015 the community will be embarking on a comprehensive update of
the General Plan. This will provide an opportunity to consider circulation and transportation
issues in context with any changes to land use and other elements of the General Plan. Any
changes to circulation and transportation policies will be incorporated into the full General
Plan update.
Current Circulation Element Page 1
I. Current Circulation Element
On October 20, 1969, by Resolution No. 87-69, the Burlingame City Council adopted the
Burlingame General Plan, which included the following Circulation Element.
OVERVIEW
An integrated system is proposed including the present Southern Pacific Railroad (primarily
forincluding both passenger service and through movement of freight), a rapid transit line
adjacent to the Southern Pacific rail line, local transit, and four categories of streets and
highways. The street and highway system would accommodate private passenger automobiles,
trucks and local transit vehicles. The integrated system is proposed to include all modes of
travel, including walking, bicycling and transit, allowing users of all ages and abilities to reach
destinations in the community and region safely and directly.
POPULATION
In 1970, 27,3202000, 28,128 people lived in the City of Burlingame. About 2320.6% of these
people were under the age of 1820 and 1415.2% were over 6465. By 19802010 the city's
Population had declinedincreased by 2.4% to 26,173. But the most dramatic28,806. There was
a minor change was in the age composition. By 19802010 about 1623% of the city's residents
were under 1820 and about 2014% were over 64. Fewer children were also reflected in
changes in average household size65. In 19702000 there were 2.4122 persons per household
on the average. This had declined by 14%increased slightly to 2.09 in 1980. The impact of the
declining29 persons per household size is particularly dramaticin 2010. These minor changes in
a community likepopulation and composition reflect the fact that Burlingame is a built out
community where there are no large vacant tracts of land suitable for residential development.
The inevitable result, when housing stockAny new development is more or less fixed and
expected to replace existing development, primarily in areas that are near the number of
persons in a household is declining, is that the total population declinescommunity's two major
transit hubs (Burlingame Caltrain Station and Millbrae Intermodal Station) and along transit
corridors such as wellEl Camino Real and California Drive.
Population projections for Burlingame are based on build-out of vacant and underused
residential land to the densities given in the General Plan. Projections of household size reflect
a continuation but gradual leveling off in of the declineminor increase of average household
size. However, the critical factor in the population range given is the rate of new residential
construction. The lower end of the range assumes a holding capacity will be reached between
2000 and 2010. The high end of the population range assumes holding capacity will be reached
close to 1995.The following projections are derived from Projections 2013, published by the
Association of Bay Area Governments:
Population 1970-19802000-2010, Projected to 19952030
2000 City of Burlingame28,128 Sphere of Influence*
19702010 27,32028,806 n.a.
19802020 26,17331,700 11100
19852030 25,890-27,54034,800 810-1,160
1995 25,240-27,980 760-1,020
*Burlingame Hills
Source: City of Burlingame Planning Department, Preliminary ABAG Projection '83Projections
2013
Household size assumptions for the population projections were:
Current Circulation Element Page 2
City of Burlingame Sphere of Influence*
19802010 2.0833 2.95
19852020 2.06-2.0833 2.06-2.95
19952030 1.92-2.6034
*Burlingame Hills
Source: City of Burlingame Planning Department, Preliminary ABAG Projection '83Projections
2013.
TRANSIT
An integrated system of regional rapid transit and local transit should behas been developed to
serve Burlingame residents and workers and to provide for the high volume through-
movement that will haveneeds to be accommodated in this corridor in the future. The rapid
transit line. If determined appropriate, grade separations should be completely grade
separated, designedconsidered to minimize noise and prevent adverse visual impact on the
community, and have sufficient grade separatedaccommodate local street crossings to keep
the line from being a barrier.
No specific recommendation is included regarding station location; however, an opportunity
exists to include the station as an integral element of a complex of service and shopping
facilities, together with office and high density residential accommodations. Consideration
should be given to developing a mega-structure - a complex of buildings - that would bridge
over existing streets and rights-of-way, using air rights, to provide a focal point in the
community and serve to connect and link together portions of the City lying on different sides
of the transit and rail lines.
Advantage should be taken by the 300 foot strip occupied by Carolan Avenue, the Railroad and
California Drive. This strip linking Burlingame Avenue-Park Road shopping area with the
Broadway shopping center provides an opportunity for exciting visual design and the
development of an efficient local transportation system to provide the backbone of a local
distribution and feeder transit system. Mini buses and small electric drive-yourself vehicles
designed strictly for local travel could become important parts of the local transit system.
Innovative use of existing and new types of vehicles would make possible higher density
development around the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway centers with increasing amenity
rather than the greater congestion that would result from continued exclusive dependence on
the private automobile.
The Caltrain commuter line has been established along the existing Southern Pacific Railway
right-of-way along the California Drive/Carolan Avenue corridor. This line also connects to the
Millbrae Intermodal Station with connections to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system and
SamTrans Bus lines. Opportunities exist for Complete Streets projects along this corridor. A
Complete Streets project is proposed for Carolan Avenue between Oak Grove Avenue and
Broadway, to accommodate bicycle lanes and pedestrian improvements. This project is now in
the design process, and is expected to be under construction in 2015. These projects will
enhance the use of the transit facilities and reduce reliance on private automobile travel. There
are also opportunities near the transit stations identified in the Downtown Specific Plan and the
North Burlingame Rollins Road Specific Plan for higher density development that will benefit
from proximity to public transit and to the Complete Streets amenities.
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101) and Junipero Freeway (280 Freeway) are recognized in the
plan. The main proposals affecting the freeways are additions and improvements to the
interchanges at Millbrae Avenue, Broadway, and Peninsula Avenue to provide for full directional
movement at each of these interchanges and to accommodate the increasing volumes of traffic
Current Circulation Element Page 3
that will be generated, particularly from the industrial areas. The Millbrae Avenue and
Peninsula Interchange improvements have been completed, and the Broadway interchange
project began construction in 2014. These interchange improvements include facilities for
bicycles and pedestrians using the overcrossings of US 101.
A system of major arterials is proposed to take care of longer distance local trips and to
connect Burlingame with adjacent communities. These include El Camino Real (a State
highway), California Drive, and Bayshore Highway and its extension through the Anza Pacific
development (Airport Boulevard) for major north-south movements. The latter route would
connect with the San Francisco Airport on the north and with the major street system in the
City of San Mateo on the south. The relationship of this route to Burlingame's Bayside Park is
unfortunate but, with existing conditions, there does not seem to be any practical solution that
would avoid separating the park from the Bay. Special care will be needed in designing this
street between the Airport and San Mateo. The portion abutting the City Park should be located
outboard of the present bulkhead to avoid reducing the park area. Particular attention should
be given to visual quality, provision of pedestrian crossings, and minimizing the impact of
industrial traffic on the recreational use of the park and the waterfront.Airport Boulevard has
been completed to provide through traffic in the Bayfront area, and a Bayfront trail system has
been developed adjacent to Bayside Park to provide pedestrian and bicycle travel through this
area. In addition, bicycle lanes were recently added to Airport Boulevard. Other major arterials
include Millbrae Avenue (in the City of Millbrae), Trousdale Drive, Carmelita Avenue from El
Camino Real to California Drive,, and a connection to a grade separation at Broadway and the
railroad, Oak Grove Avenue and Peninsula Avenue. These arterials would carry the major
volume of east-west trips and connect with State highways and freeways.
The other elements of the street system are secondary arterials connecting collector and local
access streets to the major arterials, and collector streets to feed traffic to the arterials and
major centers of activity in Burlingame. The systems of streets proposed around the Broadway
shopping center and the Burlingame Avenue shopping center are of particular importance.
These are intended to provide movement around the centers, connect to parking lots, and
permit the central portions of these shopping centers to be freed of all or mostprovide for
limited vehicular traffic and turned over primarily to pedestrians.
GRADE SEPARATION STRUCTURES
Railroad grade separations are recommended at Broadway, Oak Grove, Howard, and Peninsula
Avenues. A highway overpass is needed across Bayshore Freeway to connect Millsdale and
East Millsdale Industrial areas. (See also proposals under the heading, Broadway-Bayshore
Interchange Area.) In addition, an overpass to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists is
recommended to connectA bicycle pedestrian overcrossing of Highway 101 has been
constructed adjacent to the Broadway interchange to provide access to Bayside Park from the
vicinityneighborhoods south of Winchester DriveBroadway.
PARKWAY
In addition to the other elements of the circulation system, it is recommended that a parkway
be established along the Bayfront connecting Burlingame's Bayside Park with San Mateo
County's Coyote Point Park. No specific location is proposed. This should be worked out in
developing more specific plansProvisions for the waterfrontBayfront trail system are included in
the Bayfront Specific Plan, using the Bay Conservation and Development Commission Plan as a
guide. Portions of the trail have been developed in conjunction with development projects
along the Bay shoreline. However, there are gaps in the trail system that will only be
completed when the remaining properties with Bay frontage are developed.
BROADWAY-BAYSHORE INTERCHANGE AREA
Current Circulation Element Page 4
Major changes are needed in the circulation system around the Bayshore-Broadway
interchange and the proposed grade separation at Broadway and the railroad. The changes
should be designed to:
1. Reduce the congestion at the present intersection at Rollins Road and Broadway by
providing other means of access to Millsdale and by reducing points of conflict.
2. Provide as much flexibility as possible so that future changes in travel patterns can be
accommodated within the system.
3. Provide alternative routes of travel so that individual drivers have some options to
permit them to avoid points of congestion. (Traffic flow tends to be somewhat self-
adjusting where alternative paths of travel are available.)
4. Increase capacity throughout the Broadway-Bayshore Area by reducing conflicts
through traffic control measures, providing added lanes at critical points, and grade
separating turning movements wherever feasible.
More specific proposals are:
1. Grade separate Broadway and the Southern Pacific Railroad.
2. Provide two completely new links to permit some traffic to avoid the Broadway-Rollins
Road intersection. One of these should connect the Millsdale and East Millsdale
Industrial areas with an overpass on Bayshore Freeway. The other link proposed is a
new street southeast of Cadillac Way extending from Bayshore Boulevard to Carolan
Avenue. This new street should be obtained when the presently vacant land is
developed.
3. On Bayshore Freeway, move the entrance to the southbound off-ramp as far north as
possible and provide connections to Marsten Road, Broadway and Cadillac Way.
Many of these issues will be resolved by the construction of the Broadway Interchange. The
improvements at the interchange are expected to increase the capacity of the
Broadway/Rollins intersection and provide for less delays due to congestion. Any remaining
issues can be evaluated as a part of the upcoming General Plan update.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Please Refer to Chapter II, Complete Streets Policy of the City of Burlingame, and Chapter III,
Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan for more information regarding bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
RESOLUTION NO. __-2014
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN TO COMPLY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA COMPLETE STREETS ACT OF 2008
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, the term "Complete Streets" describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with
infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of
public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame acknowledges the benefits and value for the public health and welfare of
reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing transportation by walking, bicycling, and public transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame recognizes that the planning and coordinated development of Complete
Streets infrastructure provides benefits for local governments in the areas of infrastructure cost savings; public
health; and environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has initiated amendments to its General Plan Circulation Element for the
purposes of compliance with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, to maintain eligibility for the next cycle of
One Bay Area Grant federal roadway monies administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and to
demonstrate its commitment to form a comprehensive and integrated transportation network promoting safe,
equitable, and convenient travel for all users while preserving flexibility, recognizing community context, and using
the latest and best design guidelines and standards; and
WHEREAS, a draft of the proposed Circulation Element amendments was released for public review on
November 6, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Circulation Element is a compilation of existing goals, policies and programs,
each adopted separately as part of previous planning efforts, which taken together represents a program for
Complete Streets in compliance with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, and that the proposed Circulation
Element makes no changes to any existing goals, policies or programs. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title
14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption
and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November
10, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report, the Draft Circulation Element and all other
written materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. It is recommended that the Council of the City of Burlingame approve amendments to the Circulation
Element of the Burlingame General Plan to Comply with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008. Findings for
the recommendation to the City Council regarding the ordinance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of
said meeting.
________________________
CHAIR
Planning Commission Resolution Circulation Element Update
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 10th day of November, 2014 , by the following vote:
Secretary
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit
Address: 1262 Balboa Avenue Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in a detached garage.
Applicants and Property Owners: Anna Clevenger APN: 026-151-190
Designer: Bottarini Construction Lot Area: 9,485 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) which states that interior or exterior alterations
involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveniences are exempt from environmental
review.
Project Description: The site currently contains an existing two-story story house (2,852 SF). A building permit
was issued in October for a new detached one-car garage (486 SF) and construction is underway. The new
detached garage complies with all accessory structure development guidelines. With the recently approved
detached garage, the floor area ratio increased from 3,176 SF (0.33 FAR) to 3,338 SF (0.35 FAR) where 4,535
SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed (1,197 SF below the maximum allowed floor area).
With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install a toilet and sink
in an enclosed room within the detached garage (see sheet 3). The property owner submitted a letter dated
October 15, 2014, which provides a background for this request.
Two off-street parking spaces (1 covered and 1 uncovered) are provided and required for the existing four-
bedroom house (office on the second floor does not qualify as a bedroom because it is less than 7’-0” wide).
With this application, there is no increase in the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling. All other zoning code
requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:
Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in a detached garage (Code Section 25.60.010 (j)).
1262 Balboa Avenue
Lot Area: 9,485 SF Plans date stamped: October 17, 2014
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Lot Coverage:
2416 SF
25.4%
no change 3794 SF
40%
Floor Area Ratio:
3338 SF
0.35 FAR
no change 4535 SF ¹
0.48 FAR
Use in Accessory
Structure:
one-car garage one-car garage with a
toilet and sink ²
Conditional Use Permit
required for a toilet in an
accessory structure
# of bedrooms: 4 no change ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(10' x 22'-6” clear
interior dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
no change
1 covered
(10’ x 20' clear interior
dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
¹ (0.32 x 9,485 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,535 SF (0.48 FAR)
² Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in an accessory structure.
Item No. 8b
Action Item
Conditional Use Permit 1262 Balboa Avenue
-2-
Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that since this request for Conditional Use Permit is limited to
adding a toilet and sink in a detached garage, the application was placed directly on the action calendar. If the
Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a
second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Parks and Stormwater Divisions.
Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
October 17, 2014, sheets 1-9;
2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use
Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
3. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 20, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s October
28, 2014 memo, the Parks Division’s October 29, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 20,
2014 memo shall be met;
4. that any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and
such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District;
5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit; and
6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
Conditional Use Permit 1262 Balboa Avenue
-3-
c. Anna Clevenger, applicant and property owner
Bottarini Construction, designer
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Letter of Explanation dated October 15, 2014
Conditional Use Permit Application
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 31, 2014
Aerial Photo
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(d)
1
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2308 Hillside Drive
APN: 027-166-110
APPLICANT/ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: Mike Ma/March Design
PROPERTY OWNER: Harumitsu Inouye
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Low Density Residential/R-1
LOT AREA: 6,000 SF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small
facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt
from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or
converted under this exemption.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single story house on the property with a detached
garage, to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage and to convert the
existing detached garage into a secondary dwelling unit. The proposed house, attached garage and
secondary dwelling unit will have a total floor area of 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) is
the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions).
Staff notes that the application includes a new secondary dwelling unit, and that the design of the unit
remains unchanged from the previous plan submittal. Per State law, review of the secondary dwelling
unit application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff will review
the design of the secondary dwelling unit for conformance with the City’s Secondary Dwelling Unit
ordinance (C.S. 25.59) requirements. The ordinance includes a number of performance standards,
including the requirement that the secondary dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar
architectural features, building materials and colors as the primary dwelling located on the property.
The new single family dwelling will contain five bedrooms and the new secondary dwelling unit will
contain one bedroom. The main dwelling requires three parking spaces, two of which must be covered,
and the secondary dwelling unit requires one parking space. Two covered spaces will be provided in the
attached garage (20’ x 20’ clear interior measurements) and two uncovered parking spaces are provided
in the driveway (each space measures 9’ x 20’). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010);
and
Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035, (a)).
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(d)
2
2308 Hillside Drive
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: October 15, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(attached garage):
20'-2”
26'-9”
26’-9” 1
19'-10” (block average)
20'-0”
25’-0” (for side by side)
Side (left):
(right):
4'-2"
4’-2”
4'-0"
4’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
52’-8”
63’-4”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,283 SF
38%
2,400 SF
40%
FAR: 3,020 SF
0.50 FAR
3,020 SF 2
0.50 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 (in main dwelling)
1 (in 2nd unit) ---
Parking: 2 covered + 1 uncovered
(main dwelling)
1 uncovered
(2nd unit)
2 covered + 1 uncovered
(main dwelling)
1 uncovered
(2nd unit)
Height: 25’-3” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075
¹ Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035, (a)).
2 (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR)
OCTOBER 27, 2014 ACTION MEETING
At the Planning Commission meeting on October 27, 2014, the Commission had overall favorable
comments on the modifications made to the design from the previous Design Review Study meeting.
However the commission was evenly split in whether or not it could make the findings for the Special
Permit for attached garage (October 27, 2014 Planning Commiss ion minutes and staff report attached).
The Planning Commission voted to continue the item.
In the discussions of the attached garage, some commissioners expressed uncertainty concerning
direction that may have been given in earlier Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Meeting
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(d)
3
minutes from the September 8, 2014 and February 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting s are
attached, as well as minutes from the March 3, 2014 City Council meeting. Letters from the design
review consultant are also attached for reference.
At the October 27th meeting the applicant expressed an interest in adding an additional window to one of
the upstairs bedrooms (Bedroom #4). The applicant brought exhibits to the meeting for the
commissioners to review. Commissioners expressed concern that the adjacent neighbor would not have
had the opportunity to review the proposed window, and explored a number of options for how the
window could be added subsequently and also ensure that the neighbor would have the opportunity to
review the proposal. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped October 30, 2014 that show
the additional window. Public notice cards were sent on October 31st.
STAFF COMMENTS
See attached memos from the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, Parks Supervisor, Fire Marshal and
Stormwater Coordinator.
DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20,
1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
FINDINGS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist
on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition
are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure
or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(d)
4
c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is
proposed is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should continue the public hearing on the application, and consider public
testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings
supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. The secondary
dwelling unit is not subject to Planning Commission review and should not be discussed.
At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped October 30, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A3.2, sheet C.0, and landscape plans sheets 2,
5 and 8;
2. that the secondary dwelling unit shown on the plans for reference requires separate
administrative review, and is not included in this permit;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division
or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 11 and September 9, 2013 memos,
the City Engineer's September 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 9, 201 3 memo, the
City Arborist's December 16 and March 13, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's
December 17 and September 11, 2013 memos shall be met;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(d)
5
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is
required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit
is issued;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional,
that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
REGULAR ACTION
Item No: 8(d)
6
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
c. Michael Ma / March Design, 20660 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA ., 95014, architect.
Harumitsu Inouye, property owner
Attachments:
October 27, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes
Design Review Consultant letter (Jerry Winges) dated October 23, 2014
September 8, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes
Design Review Consultant letter (Jerry Winges) dated August 14, 2014
March 3, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes
February 10, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application and accompanying documents, date stamped December 18, 2013
Secondary Dwelling Unit Application, date stamped September 4, 2013
Staff Comments
Planning Commission resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed October 31, 2014
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
2308 Hillside Drive
Item No. 8d
Regular Action
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design
Review and Special Permit for a new, two-story house with an attached garage at 2308 Hillside Drive,
Zoned R-1, Harumitsu Inouye, 2308 Hillside Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owner, APN: 027-
166-110;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October
27, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit
in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth
in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 27th day of October, 2014, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
2308 Hillside Drive
Effective November 6, 2014
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped October 15, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A3.2, sheet C.0, and landscape
plans sheets 2, 5 and 8;
2. that the secondary dwelling unit shown on the plans for reference requires separate
administrative review, and is not included in this permit;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 11 and September 9, 2013
memos, the City Engineer's September 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's September
9, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's December 16 and March 13, 2013 memos, and the
Stormwater Coordinator's December 17 and September 11, 2013 memos shall be met;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
2308 Hillside Drive
Effective November 6, 2014
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural
certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be
evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the
approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with
approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing
inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
PROJECT LOCATION
770 Walnut Avenue
Item No. 8e
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 770 Walnut Avenue Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and basement ceiling height
for a new two-story single family dwelling and attached garage.
Applicant and Architect: Randy Grange, TRG Architects APN: 028-141-190
Property Owners: Jon and Tamar Miller Lot Area: 9,204 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential
zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing an existing two-story house and detached garage to build
a new, two-story single family dwelling with a basement and detached garage. The proposed house and detached
garage will have a total floor area of 4,033 SF (0.44 FAR) where 4,045 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including covered porch and basement exemptions). The proposed project is 12 SF below the maximum allowed
FAR and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR.
The proposed two-story house will have a 679 SF basement. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for a
basement ceiling height of greater than 6'-6", where the proposed basement ceiling height is 10'-0". The top of the
finished floor above the basement is less than 2’-0” above existing grade and therefore the basement floor area
exemption applies to this space. A total of 679 SF has been deducted from the FAR calculation (the maximum
allowable exemption is 700 SF).
The proposed attached garage provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom
house (three off-street parking spaces are required for a five-bedroom house, two of which must be covered).
There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have
been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1));
Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)); and
Special Permit for a basement ceiling height that is greater than 6'-6" (10’-0” ceiling height proposed) (CS
25.26.035 (f)).
Intentionally left blank.
Item No. 8e
Action Item
Design Review and Special Permits 770 Walnut Avenue
-2-
770 Walnut Avenue
Lot Area: 9,204 SF Plans date stamped: October 29, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(attached garage):
32'-6"
32'-6"
46’-8”
32'-0" (block average)
32'-0" (block average)
25’-0” for two single-wide garage doors
Side (left):
(right):
4'-0"
4'-6" to porch posts
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
70'-11"
78'-5"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2462 SF
26.7%
3682 SF
40%
FAR: 4033 SF
0.44 FAR
4045 SF 1
0.44 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Basement: basement with a ceiling height
greater than 6'-6" (10’-0” ceiling
height proposed) ²
Special Permit required per C.S.
25.26.035 (f)
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered, attached ³
(20' x 20' clear interior dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20' clear interior dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building Height: 26’-3" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Complies using window enclosure
exception along right side of house.
C.S. 25.26.075
¹ (0.32 x 9204 SF) + 1100 SF = 4045 SF (0.44 FAR)
² Special Permit requested for a basement ceiling height that is greater than 6'-6" (10’-0” ceiling height proposed).
³ Special Permit required for an attached garage.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Design Review and Special Permits 770 Walnut Avenue
-3-
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find
that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on October 14, 2014,
the Commission had several comments regarding the proposed project and voted to place this item on the regular
action calendar when all of the required information has been submitted (see the attached October 14, 2014,
Planning Commission Minutes).
Please refer to the attached applicant’s response letter dated October 31, 2014 and revised plans, date stamped
October 29, 2014, for responses to the Commission’s comments and a detailed list of changes made to the project
since the design review study meeting.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
October 29, 2014 sheets A1.1 through A4.0, L1.0 and L2.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch,
and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission
review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 23, 2014 and August 7, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s August 12, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s August 25, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s
August 11, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 23, 2014 and August 8, 2014 memos
shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon
the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
Design Review and Special Permits 770 Walnut Avenue
-4-
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall
be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission,
or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the
construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval
shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on
appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a W aste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require
a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO
THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates
that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set
the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the
top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural
details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and
bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance
with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be
scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge
and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant
Design Review and Special Permits 770 Walnut Avenue
-5-
Attachments:
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, letter dated October 31, 2014
October 14, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter Submitted by Susan Lauren, dated October 10, 2014
Letter Submitted by Anonymous Walnut Avenue Resident, dated October 15, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Applications
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 31, 2014
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND SPECIAL PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a Design
Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and basement for a new, two-story single family
dwelling with an attached garage and basement at 770 Walnut Avenue, Zoned R-1, Jonathan and
Tamar Miller Tr, 770 Walnut Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owners, APN: 028-141-190;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 10, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit
in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three
single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby
approved.
2. Said Design Review and Special Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permits are set forth
in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 10th day of November, 2014, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits.
770 Walnut Avenue
Effective November 20, 2014
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped October 29, 2014 sheets A1.1 through A4.0, L1.0 and L2.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or
garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an
amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 23, 2014 and August 7, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s August 12, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s August
25, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 11, 2014 memo and the Stormwater
Division’s September 23, 2014 and August 8, 2014 memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a W aste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits.
770 Walnut Avenue
Effective November 20, 2014
Page 2
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans;
this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential
designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
PROJECT LOCATION
1813 Ray Drive
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1813 Ray Drive Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Minereva Abad, MDA Design APN: 025-212-120
Property Owners: Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang Lot Area: 5754 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
History: This application was continued from the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting because the
applicant was not present.
Project Description: The existing one-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 1,744 SF (0.30
FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the front and right
sides of the house and a second floor addition at the rear of the house. With the proposed project, the floor area
will increase to 2,903 SF (0.50 FAR) where 2,941 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project
is 38 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR.
W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of
which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached garage complies with current code
standards for a covered parking space (12’-5” x 21’-0” clear interior dimensions provided where 9’ x 18” is the
minimum required for an existing garage). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway.
All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:
Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
1813 Ray Drive
Lot Size: 5,754 SF Plans date stamped: October 1, 2014
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 11’-0” (to attached garage) 20’-1” (to addition) 16'-8" (block average)
(2nd flr): n/a 39’-4” 20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
4'-11"
3’-6”
no change
6’-0”
6'-0"
6'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
37’-5”
n/a
39’-5”
37’-5”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1844 SF
32%
2097 SF
36.4%
2302 SF
40%
FAR: 1744 SF
0.30 FAR
2903 SF
0.50 FAR
2941 SF 1
0.51 FAR
# of bedrooms: 2 4 ---
Off-Street
Parking:
1 covered
(12’-5” x 21’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
no change
1 covered
(9' x 18' for existing)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 15’-8” 24’-1” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
¹ (0.32 x 5754 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2941 SF (0.51 FAR)
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
2
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer
Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 17, 2014
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
1444 Cortez Avenue
Item No. 9b
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1444 Cortez Avenue Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Jeff Chow, Innovative Construction Engineering APN: 026-014-330
Property Owner: May Ying Li Lot Area: 6000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage
to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The proposed house (3,019 SF) and
detached garage (308 SF) will have a total floor area of 3,327 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,328 SF (0.55 FAR) is the
maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 1 SF below the
maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR.
Based on a four-bedroom house, a total of two off-street parking spaces are required on site, one of which must
be covered (office/study on the first floor does not qualify as a bedroom because 50% of one of its walls is open
to the foyer). The proposed detached garage provides one covered parking space (13’ x 21’ clear interior
dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code
requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1)).
1444 Cortez Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: October 29, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
21'-6"
23'-6"
21'-6" (block average)
21'-6" (block average)
Side (left):
(right):
5'-0"
11'-0" (to second floor)
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
38'-2"
38'-2" (to balcony)
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2089 SF
34.8%
2400 SF
40%
FAR: 3019 SF (house) + 308 SF (garage)
3327 SF (0.55 FAR)
3020 SF (house) + 308 SF (garage)
3328 SF (0.51 FAR) ¹
# of bedrooms: 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(13' x 21' interior dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered
(10' x 20' interior dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 29'-2" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: window dormer enclosure applies CS 25.26.075
¹ 3020 SF (house) + 308 SF (garage) = 3328 SF (0.55 FAR)
Item No. 9b
Design Review Study
Design Review 1444 Cortez Avenue
-2-
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Jeff Chow, Innovative Construction Engineering, applicant and engineer
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Information Sheet for Milgard WoodClad Series Fiberglass Windows
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 31, 2014
Aerial Photo
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,
DESIGN REVIEW, AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW
THREE-STORY, 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
Item No: 9(c)
1
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 21 Park Road
APN: 029-223-130
APPLICANT/ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: SDG Architects
PROPERTY OWNER: Dana Denardi Tr
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Medium High Density Residential;
Downtown Specific Plan Bayswater Mixed Use District (BMU)
LOT AREA: 8,800 SF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a new, three-story, 8-unit residential condominium building with enclosed at-
grade parking at 21 Park Road, zoned BMU. The project site currently contains a house that has been
converted to commercial use, and a large detached garage. These would be demolished to build the
proposed 8-unit residential condominium building. The existing buildings were not identified on the Draft
Inventory of Historic Resources of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The site is bordered by a
three-story multifamily building to the north, a one-story office building to the south, two-story office
buildings across Park Road to the east, and three-story multifamily buildings across El Camino Real to
the west. It is a “through lot” with frontages on both Park Road and El Camino Real. For the proposed
project, the Park Road frontage is considered the front of the lot.
The proposed building would contain eight residential units in two floors above an enclosed at-grade
parking garage. Each of the units will contain an entry, living and dining areas, kitchen, one or two
bedrooms, bathrooms and a space for a washer/dryer. The average unit size proposed is 1,056.5 SF
(1,250 SF average maximum unit size permitted). Bicycle parking and an area for trash receptacles is
provided in the garage.
The code requires 11 parking spaces for the residents of the units (1 space for each one -bedroom unit,
1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit) and an area for on-site deliveries; there is no guest parking
required on-site for sites located within the Downtown Specific Plan. The enclosed garage provides a
total of 11 parking spaces (6 standard spaces, 4 compact spaces and 1 accessible space). Access to
the garage would be from Park Road. There would be no vehicle access from El Camino Real.
The application was last reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 14, 2014 meeting. Please
refer to the staff report for that meeting (attached) for a complete project description.
DISCUSSION
Previous Planning Commission Meetings. The Planning Commission reviewed the application as an
Environmental Scoping and Design Review item at its October 15, 2013 and April 14, 2014 meetings
(see attached October 15, 2013 and April 14, 2014 meeting minutes). Issues raised by the
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,
DESIGN REVIEW, AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW
THREE-STORY, 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
Item No: 9(c)
2
commissioners and neighbors at those meetings included side setbacks, design of side elevations, sun
access and shading, quantity of parking provided, and coordination with neighbors to develop alternative
designs. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to meet with the adjacent neighbors prior to
returning with a revised design.
The applicant has provided a timeline outlining meetings held with neighbors (attached). The timeline
indicates that meetings were held on December 23, 2013 and May 21, 2014.
Design Alternatives. On August 22, 2014 the applicant met with Planning Division staff to review two
different design alternatives being considered. The applicant was hoping to get direction on which
alternative to pursue prior to investing in revising the plans.
Typically the Planning Commission does not review design alternatives or concept plans. However, given
the unique design and planning issues with the proposed project, staff is suggesting that the Planning
Commission review the two alternatives and provide feedback to the applicant. While unconventional,
staff believes this exercise can be productive for considering options, receiving public input, and
providing direction to the applicant.
The applicant sent design alternatives to the neighbors via email on October 23, 2014 to review prior to
presenting them to the Planning Commission. Plan sets were received by the Planning Division, date
stamped October 31, 2014. A public notice has been sent for this item, and neighbors may wish to
provide further input to the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing to review the design alternatives and
consider public testimony. No action shall be taken; the discussion is advisory.
Alternatives the Planning Commission may consider include but are not limited to:
A. Designation of one of the design alternatives for the applicant to develop further and
return to the Planning Commission;
B. Suggestions of alternative approaches not represented in either alternative;
C. Referral of the application to a design review consultant for a third-party review .
The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character).
Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) provides design guidelines specifically for residential projects
within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general
Community Development Department
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,
DESIGN REVIEW, AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW
THREE-STORY, 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
Item No: 9(c)
3
design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential and mixed use areas.
The relevant pages of the plan were included as an attachment in the April 14, 2014 staff report and may
be useful for commissioners to review in evaluating the alternatives.
Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
c. SDG Architects, Inc., 3361 Walnut Blvd Suite 120, Brentwood, CA ., 94513, architect.
Dana Denardi Tr, property owner
Attachments:
Park Road Timeline, provided by the applicant
Transmittal email from applicant delivering plan alternatives to neighbors, dated October 23, 2014
April 14, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 14, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report, including full project description
Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed October 31, 2014
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
21 Park Road
Item No. 9c
Design Review Study
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 6, 2014 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a first floor addition with a 9’-6” plate height to
an existing single family dwelling at 1153 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the
Planning Commission on November 25, 2013 (see attached November 25, 2013 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued on April 21, 2014 and construction
has been completed.
The original approval included a new front porch with square wood columns. Instead, the
columns were built with a cement plaster finish to match the cement plaster finish on the house
(see attached explanation letter dated October 29, 2014 and revised building elevations, date
stamped October 30, 2014).
The architect submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed building elevations,
date stamped October 29, 2014, to show the changes to the previously approved design review
project.
Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other
changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing
with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the project architect, dated October 29, 2014
November 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped October 30, 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 6, 2014 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1435 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review and Special Permits for building height and
basement ceiling height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1435
Benito Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2013 (see
attached June 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued
in January 2014 and construction is complete.
An application for FYI for changes to the material and configuration of the originally approved
landscaping and drystack stone retaining wall at the rear of the property was approved by the
Planning Commission in August 2014.
Upon inspection of the final construction, Planning staff noted several as-built changes to the
project. Please refer to the attached letter submitted by the project designer, dated November
4, 2014, for a complete detailed explanation of the as-built changes. In summary, the changes
include the following:
Window Sills:
1. Shape and material of windows sills does not match approval.
Front Elevation:
1. Door and sidelight design does not match approval.
2. Opening at front entry does not match approval (stucco wall/beam across top of opening
extends down further than what was approved).
3. Simulated stone band is missing on second floor cantilever along right side of house.
Right Side Elevation:
1. Simulated stone band is missing on second floor cantilever along right side of house.
2. Column at family room porch is missing (instead of installing a porch, space between
family room and column was filled in by extending the stucco wall along right side of
house).
Rear Elevation:
1. Simulated stone band is missing on second floor cantilever along rear of house.
Community Development Department Memorandum
November 6, 2014
Page 2
Landscaping:
1. Walkway and landing at front entry is concrete instead of approved stone walkway.
2. Area along left side of house is concrete instead of granite fines path with vines.
The designer submitted the originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped November 4,
2014, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the
changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes
proposed to the design of the house.
Planning staff would note that because of the minor revisions to the exterior elements of the
house, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item.
If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by project designer, dated November 4, 2014
June 10, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped November 4, 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 6, 2014 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: FYI – REQUESTED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN
REVIEW PROJECT AT 1225 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3.
Summary: An application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Parking
Variance, Design Review, and Tentative Condominium Map for construction of a new, six-unit
residential condominium at 1225 Floribunda Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission
on September 9, 2013 (September 9, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A
building permit was issued on March 18, 2014 and the project is currently under construction.
The applicant is requesting approval for a change to an upper floor balcony railing on the front
elevation. The change is requested to resolve an ambiguity in the plans regarding whether the
railing detail was intended to be comprised of cut-out masonry elements as opposed to a relief
motif on a solid masonry base. The proposal is to replace the detail with ceramic tiles.
The applicant submitted a letter accompanied by the proposed revised building elevation and
landscape plan, date stamped October 14, 2014, to explain the proposed changes to the
previously approved Design Review project. Other than the proposed revisions listed above,
there are no other changes proposed to the design of the building.
Planning staff would note that because of the minor revisions to the exterior elements of the
house, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item.
If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Kevin Gardiner
Planning Manager
c. Zers Floribunda Llc, property owner
Attachments:
Explanation letter from applicant, dated October 14, 2014
September 9, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed Building Elevations, date stamped October 14, 2014