HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2015.01.26Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, January 26, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 12, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga.
PC draft Minutes - 1.12.15.pdfAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period .
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak "
card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust
the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a
commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
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
a.
1813 Ray Dr - Staff Report
1813 Ray Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1448 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling (Peyling Yap, applicant and property owner; Jeff Chow, designer) (48
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (this item has been continued)
b.
3155 Frontera Way, zoned R -1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new
wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building
(Ashley Woods, applicant; V-One Design Group Inc., designer; Skyline Terrace,
property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
c.
3155 Frontera Way - Staff Report
3155 Frontera Way Attachments
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
2313 Poppy Drive - zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation
and a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a Special Permit
for Declining Height Envelope (Jonathan James, William Wood Architects, applicant
and architect; Edward Cho, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
a.
2313 Poppy Dr. Staff Report
2313 Poppy Dr. Attachments
Attachments:
1123 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single family dwelling and a Special Permit for height (Tim
Raduenz, Form + 1 Design, applicant and designer; Philippe Bachmann, property
owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
b.
1123 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report
1123 Lincoln Ave - attachments
Attachments:
2940 Dolores Way, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a major renovation including a first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling (Johnny Darosa, Darosa & Associates, applicant and
designer; Sanford Lau, property owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
c.
2940 Dolores Way - Staff Report
2940 Dolores Way - Attachments
Attachments:
1217 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
changes to the front facade of an existing storefront (Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer
Associates, applicant and designer; Green Banker LLC, property owner) (31 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
d.
1217 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1217 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1217 Burlingame Ave - Recvd After 1
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Commission Communicationsa.
City Council regular meeting January 20, 2015b.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on January 26, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 5, 2015, 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 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2015
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 12, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the January 12, 2015 meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.November 24, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
November 24, 2014 minutes with the following amendment:
>Agenda Item 8d (1547 Vancouver Avenue); note that Commissioner Yie was recused for
non-statutory reasons.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
b.December 8, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve minutes
of December 8, 2014 as submitted. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Kay Meskin, Graffeo Leathers:
Concerned that a number of businesses are only open certain days, others seem to be closed most of
the time, and still others appear closed even if open. This is not good for the rest of the businesses in
the area. Permits for new businesses should be for uses that include offices and showroom type
businesses that will contribute to the area. Many of the businesses do not bring people to the area.
6. STUDY ITEMS
None.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015
January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1209 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Kristin
Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor,
property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner DeMartini noted that he would recuse himself from voting on the Consent
Calendar item (1209 Mills Avenue) as he owns property within 500-feet of the property.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent
Calendar. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.Proposal to consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code,
Zoning Ordinance Section 25.30 C-1 District Regulations, to remove restrictions on
food establishments and health services above the first floor in the Broadway
Commercial Area. (1121 noticed and newspaper notice - The Examiner 1/9/15 and
e-newsletter notification) Contact: Catherine Barber
Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Why is there the requirement for a conditional use permit for health service uses on the second
floor? (Meeker - Uncertain why the requirement was imposed.)
>Why is there currently a restriction upon the number of food establishments allowed in the Broadway
Commercial District? (Meeker - the restriction was put in place as a means of ensuring that those uses
did not take over the retail presence in the District.)
>How are fast food restaurants and outdoor dining treated? (Meeker - fast food type restaurants are
covered in one of the categories of food establishments defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Outdoor
seating within the public right -of-way is allowed through approval of an encroachment permit granted by
the Public Works Department.)
>Did the survey regarding the Broadway Commercial District that preceded the October, 2014
community meeting lead to the suggestion to eliminate the conditional use permit requirement for health
services? (Meeker - the request to lift this restriction arose from the small group discussions held during
the event.)
>Noted that during the discussions regarding the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, the issue of
second floor uses was addressed; there was a desire to allow uses that add to the vitality of the district.)
>Is skeptical that lifting the food establishment restriction will alleviate the concern regarding vitality of
the district, but is not opposed to the change.
>Noted that second floor health service uses may bring more people into the district.
>Noted that uses that the City does not have the ability to impose operating hours upon uses that are
permitted by right.
>Suggested looking at the full range of uses allowed within the district to ensure that the proper mix is
achieved to enhance vitality. (Meeker - Agreed, and noted that this will become part of a larger
discussion that will occur during the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015
January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
Dave Simpson, Broadway property owner:
Retail sales in Redwood City have declined due to the existence of new restaurants within the downtown
area. This could happen on Broadway. His business services the restaurant industry. Understands the
restaurant industry. All restaurants want to be full at the same time; can create traffic problems .
(Commissioner - requested clarification that the retail uses do not do as well given the large number of
restaurants.) Noted that most of them do not exist anymore; there is very little retail remaining.
Betty Wolff, resident on Laguna:
All for making Broadway more vibrant, but it will never be like Burlingame Avenue. Is concerned with
parking if more restaurants are allowed. A lot of people who own businesses do not live in the
neighborhood. Notice a lot of people parking in the adjacent neighborhood due to the inadequate
parking. More restaurants may tax the existing sewer system in the area. Restaurants need to convey
to their people where to park.
Gunnell Bercholz, resident on Laguna:
Near her property people can park all night. Parking is not monitored by the police. People have been
known to sleep in their cars. More restaurants will exacerbate the rat infestation problem in the area .
Restaurant people have too much garbage outside; it is overflowing and creates a rat problem.
Ann Hinkle, owner of Earthbeam:
Is a healthcare provider. Is delighted to see the amendment lifting the requirement for a conditional use
permit for health services on the second floor. Former City Planner indicated that healthcare businesses
would occupy parking for a longer period of time than other forms of businesses. Will increase exposure
of other retail businesses on Broadway. The conditional use permit application fee caused another
individual that wanted to open such a business to be driven away.
John Kevranian, Chairperson of the Broadway Business Improvement District:
Hears some of the concerns regarding parking and the potential loss of retail. There are currently retail
vacancies on Broadway; more restaurants will bring more foot traffic to the area. The restaurant
moratorium creates a commodity; there is no flexibility in terms of moving a restaurant to another
property. Several of the parking lots in the area have long -term parking; some of these could be
converted to shorter term parking. Employees could be directed to park at more remote lots within the
area. If neighbors have concerns regarding parking on the residential streets, then the Traffic, Safety
and Parking Commission can be approached to impose restrictions that may alleviate the observed
problems.
Garbis Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway:
Feels it is fair to contact other restaurant owners on Broadway to see if they want more restaurants in
the area; the existing operators will not want more restaurants. Need different types of businesses that
can create more foot traffic. With respect to the survey, noted that a survey was completed a number of
years ago; noted the results of that survey. Feels the City's survey from 2014 was not accurate. Feels
that the staff is running the City, should be the City Council. How would someone go to a healthcare
business on the second floor if there is no elevator. Feels he has been discriminated against for the
past fourteen years; that leads for new tenants are sent elsewhere.
Ross Bruce, AVR Realty:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015
January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Have attempted to nurture retail in the district by restricting certain business types on Broadway, but it
has not been successful even with current restrictions. Feels that allowing the market to flex as the
culture changes may help to fill the vacancies on Broadway. Wants to see fewer vacancies.
Unidentified Broadway business owner:
There are four vacancies on the block where his business is located. Disagrees with staff's
representation of the vacancy rate. Feels that the Broadway District has been left behind and more
attention has been paid to Downtown Burlingame. The Broadway interchange construction will disrupt
the area for the next few years. There is inadequate parking; with more restaurants this will be
worsened and people will go elsewhere.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>How many properties are within the District; what is the vacancy rate? (Barber/Meeker - roughly 44
individual properties. There is a 1% vacancy rate which represents four tenant spaces.)
>Referenced the changing retail landscape, other options for such businesses. Can't conclude
necessarily that restaurants are the culprit in the downturn of retail on the street.
>Noted that he is frequently asked where employers can send their employees for meals.
>Is supportive of anything that can be done to invigorate the district.
>Is aware that there can be parking problems in the area.
>Has not perceived any preconceptions on the part of staff in the survey or the staff report.
>There may be other means of addressing the parking issues.
>There are also means of addressing the trash issues that have been raised.
>Lifting the restriction can allow the district to reach a state of equilibrium.
>There will be more people looking for places to eat as the Bayfront becomes more developed.
>May not be the silver bullet, but worth a chance. There may need to be adjustments made to other
uses in the area as well.
>Doesn't believe the proposed amendments will solve the problem, but likely will not make it worse.
>Broadway is not an easy place to get to; parking is problematic.
>If you provide businesses that people want, patrons will come, if you don't they won't.
>Not having parking isn't the worse thing in the world.
>Doesn't feel that this is a complicated problem. Investments made in properties (e.g. restaurants)
that need some work could go to help invigorate the district.
>The Broadway merchants need to look at their businesses to ensure that businesses that are there
are vibrant.
>Hears concerns regarding the number of nail salons on Broadway.
>Is imperative upon each landlord to consider the businesses that they bring in to the district.
>The individuals expressing reservations cause him pause. Should more research be done?
>Has seen the dramatic changes in Redwood City; it is largely a function of the vitality that the
restaurants bring to the area.
>Feels that the changes have been directed from the community through the elected body.
>A couple of the vacancies have been present for some time. Hard to believe that restaurants would
push out retail uses.
>Other issues raised regarding the trash, parking problems and people sleeping in the cars are
issues that will continue to exist and must be addressed.
>Has noticed that amongst the restaurants on Broadway, many are not open full time.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to recommend to the City
Council, adoption of an ordinance eliminating the limitation on the number of food
establishments within the Broadway Commercial District while retaining the requirement for a
conditional use permit for such uses, and eliminating the requirement for a conditional use
permit for health service uses above the first floor within the District. Chair Bandrapalli asked
for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015
January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.818 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (JoAnn Gann, applicant and
designer; Kevin Lake, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Ex-Parte Communications:
>Commissioner Loftis spoke to the property owners.
>Commissioner Gum spoke to the left and right side neighbors.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the property.
Community Development Director provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
JoAnn Gann represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Clarified that the entire home will be restuccoed. (Gann - yes.)
>Could some of the finer details be revisited, for example the a -braces. Could appear like a stucco
box; perhaps corbels under the bays.
>Clarified that the stoop will remain as is. (Gann - yes.)
>Noted the greater amount of windows on the rear. Looks like the scale is a bit different. (Gann - are
attempting to take advantage of the beautiful yard.)
>Noted that the concrete driveway on the left side tiers into the neighbor's yard. Clarify this detail.
>Noted an ambiguity in the drawing for the left rear roofline. (Gann - will correct.)
>Understands that all of the windows will be aluminum -clad wood windows with the existing windows
to be replaced to match the new.
>Would have preferred to have pages showing comparisons between existing and proposed
elevations.
>Likes the massing.
>Consider adding window grids to add to the bungalow feel. (Gann - will consider.)
>Very relieved at how the design fits in with the neighborhood, especially given the size of the home.
>Will there be plantings along the front to soften the appearance? (Gann - yes.)
Public Comments:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to direct that this
item be brought back on the regular action calendar when modified in response to the
Commission's direction. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015
January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
b.1512 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Environmental Review and Design
Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (James Chu,
Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Jim and Pei Lu, property owners )
(49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Ex-Parte Communications:
There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the subject site.
Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Chu - not at this time. A driveway separates it
from the apartment building next door.)
>Feels that the left window behind the chimney on the front elevation looks misplaced; consider a
different arrangement or a transom window and use that as the bed wall.
>Consider looking at improving the massing of the second -story dormer on the front above the entry
door. (Chu - noted that the living room has higher ceilings that restricts making a change in this area.)
>The front entry feels a bit closed off; perhaps because of the proximity to El Camino Real.
>The front bay on the second floor could climb up the roof a bit so that it can be centered.
>With respect to landscaping; revisit the use of Oak that is not accepted by the City Arborist.
>Assumes the planting area is owned by the City; work with the City to ensure that work that is done
doesn't impact the parking lot screening.
>Noted the fallen tree in the rear yard.
>Likes the design.
>Feels like there is a lot of hardscape; look at this. (Chu - will refer to the landscape architect. Lot is
deeper than normal. Could consider putting in a Hollywood driveway.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to direct that this item
be brought back on the regular action calendar when modifications have been made as
requested by the Commission. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015
January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner Loftis noted that he will forward an electronic copy of the Community Center presentation
to the Commission.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.FYI: 114 Howard Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved
Design Review project
Approved as submitted.
b.Commission Communications
Nothing to report.
c.City Council regular meeting January 5, 2015
>The City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element.
>The City Council considered adoption of the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance. Changes were
requested to be made to the text; therefore, the ordinance will be reintroduced by the City Council at its
meeting of January 20, 2015.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on January 12, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2015, 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015
PROJECT LOCATION
1813 Ray Drive
Item No. 8a
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1813 Ray Drive Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
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
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures
are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000
SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not
environmentally sensitive.
Project Description: The existing 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 2,891 SF (0.50 FAR) where 2,941 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project
is 50 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: January 14, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 11’-0” (to attached garage) 21’-4” 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’-11”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1844 SF
32%
2097 SF
36.4%
2302 SF
40%
FAR: 1744 SF
0.30 FAR
2891 SF
0.50 FAR
2941 SF 1
0.51 FAR
¹ (0.32 x 5754 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2941 SF (0.51 FAR)
Item No. 8a
Action Item
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
2
1813 Ray Drive
Lot Size: 5,754 SF Plans date stamped: January 14, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
# 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” 23’-3” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 10,
2014, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a
design review consultant (November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). A discussion of the
analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next
section.
The applicant submitted a response letter, dated January 15, 2015 and revised plans date stamped January 14,
2015 to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the attached meeting
minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer
and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised
plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated December 30, 2014,
for a detailed review of the project.
Several significant revisions were made to the project including changing the architectural style of the house to
craftsman, reducing the second floor plate height from 9’-1” to 8’-1”, changing the roof configurations on the first
and second floors, changing the window style throughout the house, changing the siding from stucco to
horizontal lap and board and batten wood siding, adding eave brackets and changing the design of the front
porch and garage door. The design review consultant concludes that based on the revisions made to the
design, she can support approval of the proposed project.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
3
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 14, 2015, sheets A-1 through A12 and L-1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of 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 October 3, 2014 and August 29, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s December 24, 2014 and September 3, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 9,
2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4,
2014 memo 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 or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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;
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
4
12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer
Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners
Attachments:
Design Review Analysis, dated December 30, 2014
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated January 15, 2015
November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kenton S. Wong, dated November 15, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design
Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1813 Ray Drive,
Zoned R-1, Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, 1813 Ray Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owners,
APN: 026-073-230;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January
26, 2015, 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 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt
from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than
10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which
the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording
of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 26th day of January, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review.
1813 Ray Drive
Effective February 5, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped January 14, 2015, sheets A-1 through A12 and L-1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of 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 October 3, 2014 and August 29, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s December 24, 2014 and September 3, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s September 9, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014
memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4, 2014 memo 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 or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review.
1813 Ray Drive
Effective February 5, 2015
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. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural
certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be
evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the
approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with
approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing
inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit
Address: 3155 Frontera Way Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an
existing residential apartment building.
Applicant: Ashley Woods, Agent for Verizon Wireless APN: 025-320-210 and -220
Property Owner: EQR Skyline Terrace LP Lot Area: 29,316 SF (APN: 025-320-210)
Architect: V-One Design Group, Inc. 147,122 SF (APN: 025-320-220)
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, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,
Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation
of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from
one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.
Background: The Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 6, 2012
(Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities is attached for review). The purpose of this ordinance is to
maintain and more importantly, to facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a
manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the City’s neighborhoods,
the City’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century and the visual quality in the non-residential
areas of the City. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal
law and regulations, the location of communications facilities in the City of Burlingame in a manner that
recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the
communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions.
Site Description: The site is located along the city limits between Burlingame and Millbrae. It is surrounded by
multifamily and single family residential uses and is bounded by Trousdale Drive, Frontera Way and Highway
280. The subject property contains two, three-story multifamily residential apartment buildings (3133 and 3155
Frontera Way). The development is considered to be nonconforming because it is a multifamily residential use in
an R-1 zone (single family dwelling). In 1964, the City Council granted a variance to construct the apartment
buildings in a single family dwelling zone (R-1).
Project Description: The applicant, Ashley Woods, agent for Verizon Wireless, is requesting approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless communications facility (wireless facility) on an existing
residential apartment building at 3155 Frontera Way. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required for
any new wireless communication facility where co-location is not proposed. The proposed wireless facility
consists of the following components:
Five (5) panel antennas on existing stairwell walls (three antennas on the south wall and two antennas
on the west wall).
Eight (8) radio remote units (RRU’s) (equipment associated with the panel antennas) on the inside face
of a stairwell wall (see Antenna Plan on sheet A-2 and North Elevation on sheet A-3).
An equipment enclosure (12’ x 18’ area enclosed by an 8’-0” tall CMU block wall) located on the ground
behind the parking area. The equipment enclosure would house equipment cabinets for the wireless
facility, an emergency generator and other associated equipment necessary for the wireless facility (see
Lease Area Enlargement and Elevation on sheets A-2 and A-6).
Power and fiber lines between antennas and equipment, located underground and in a cable tray.
Item No. 8c
Action Item
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
2
EQR Skyline Terrace LP owns the subject property containing the apartment buildings (APN: 025-320-220), as
well as a smaller vacant parcel south of the site along Trousdale Drive and Highway 280 (APN: 025-320-210).
The proposed antennas would be located on the main parcel and the equipment enclosure would be located on
the vacant parcel.
The applicant notes that “the development of this facility will further enhance Verizon’s Northern California
wireless network by allowing its customers seamless access to Verizon’s nationwide network of services”. For
more detailed information about the proposed project and why this location was chosen, please refer to the
attached Project Description submitted by the applicant, date stamped October 8, 2014.
Panel Antennas and Radio Remote Units: A total of five (5) panel antennas are proposed to be mounted on
the exterior walls of an existing stairwell, located on the west side of the building; three antennas on the south
wall and two antennas on the west wall. The proposed antennas would be concealed in stealth structures,
comprised of screening panels designed and painted to match the concrete building wall. The stealth panel
along the west wall measures 6’-9” tall x 8’-8” wide and measures 43’-0” above grade to its highest point; the
stealth panel along the south wall measures 8’-9” tall x 18’-4” wide and measures 45’-0” above grade to its
highest point. To show how the proposed stealth panels would screen the panel antennas, the applicant
provided existing and proposed photo simulations from three viewpoints (see attached).
A total of eight (8) radio remote units (RRU’s) (equipment necessary for the panel antennas) are proposed to be
installed on the inside face of the stairwell wall and therefore would not be visible to the public (see Antenna Plan
on sheet A-2 and North Elevation on sheet A-3).
Equipment Enclosure and Power/Fiber Lines: The project also includes installing a 12’ x 18’ equipment
enclosure located at-grade behind the parking area. Currently, this is a flat area consisting of soil and is not
being used by the apartment development. The enclosure would be constructed of an 8’-0” tall CMU block wall
and would house equipment cabinets, an emergency generator and other associated equipment necessary for
the wireless facility (see Lease Area Enlargement and Elevation on sheets A-2 and A-6). Previously, the
enclosure consisted of slatted chain link fencing. However, in order to mitigate any concerns regarding noise
emitted from the generator, the applicant is now proposing to construct the enclosure with a CMU block wall.
There are no existing trees to be removed or new trees proposed to be planted in the area of the proposed
enclosure. In addition, no existing parking spaces would be eliminated as part of this application.
In her letter dated January 6, 2015, the applicant notes that “Verizon plans to install faux ivy around the
equipment enclosure to compliment the surrounding area and tall trees that border Highway 280”. The applicant
plans to provide photos, a sample and supplemental information to the Planning Commission at the public
hearing.
All associated power and fiber lines for the wireless facility will be run underground and then up the building wall
by way of a cable tray along the south side of the stairwell, painted to match the building.
Public Outreach: Pursuant to the City’s ordinance, the applicant is encouraged to perform an early stage
outreach with residents and property owners near the proposed wireless facility in order to address and, if
possible, resolve any impacts of the proposed facilities on the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant notes that an open house informational meeting was held on September 11, 2014 at the site in the
Social Room of the apartment building (see attachments provided by the applicant). Emails were sent to
residents of the apartment building two weeks in advance of the meeting and fliers were posted on doors and
elevators the week of the meeting. The applicant reports that one person attended the meeting.
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
3
As requested by the Planning Commission, a second outreach and information session was held on Monday,
December 22, 2014. Both the residents of the apartment complex and all property owners within 300 feet of the
subject property were notified of this meeting. The notices were revised to more clearly explain the proposed
project, as suggested by the Planning Commission. A copy of the notice and meeting flyer is attached for
review. The applicant reports that three persons attended this meeting.
Planning staff posted a copy of the notice for the January 26, 2015 public hearing on site next to residents’
mailboxes and mailed the public hearing notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the property.
Radio Frequency Study: An evaluation of the proposed wireless facility was prepared by Hammett & Edison,
Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated June 26, 2014, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human
exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields (see attached full report). The report concluded that
operation of the proposed base station “can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to
radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment”.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Parks and Stormwater Divisions. The Building, Fire and
Engineering Divisions had no comment on the proposed application.
Study Meeting: At the November 24, 2014 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission asked the
applicant to provide responses to the questions listed below about the proposed application (November 24, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes attached). Response to these questions can be found in the attached response
letter, dated January 6, 2015. Revised plans, date stamped January 7, 2015 were also submitted to address the
Planning Commission’s comments.
Was the applicant involved with notification for the informational meeting? (Woods - yes, she was
in contact with the property owner; created an e -mail notification and posted notices on all
doors and in the elevators .) Concerned that the notice for the informational meeting makes
no reference that a wireless antennas structure is being proposed. In the future, there should be
more specifics regarding what is actually being installed.
With respect to the landscaping around the equipment on the ground, noted that when
touring the property that there is no landscaping present. Is the landscaping proposed?
(Woods - are not planning to install any additional landscaping other than that which is
already present along Interstate 280.) Should seriously consider adding landscaping as
indicated on the plans in the final design; it is encouraged when wireless facilities are
proposed in residential districts.
Feels that it is good that notification was provided, but in the public outreach section of the
zoning ordinance, also encourages that property owners in the area be noticed;
encouraged extending the noticing area outside of the apartment complex in the future.
Would like to know if there are any other options outside of the residential apartment
building that could work. Could the equipment be co -located with equipment installed by
another provider in the area?
The radio frequency (RF) study notes that the worst case scenario exposure to residents is
35% where 100% would be the maximum acceptable level; want know where that is
exactly and is that reading based on the resident being inside the apartment building all of
the time. The study is not clear whether it addresses impacts to residents inside or outside
the building. Is a resident sitting outside on their balcony for two hours a day exposed to hazardous
conditions?
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
4
Be clearer regarding the noise emitted from the generator.
Is there typically another meeting before moving forward? Encouraged conducting another informational
meeting to provide more information to the residents. Encouraged providing the residents with
some of the materials provided to the Commission.
Location Preference Order: The City’s ordinance requires that in determining the location of proposed wireless
communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order listed
below. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the locations listed below by
descending priority. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation of the reason that the proposed
facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location (please refer to the attached Project Description
submitted by the applicant for reasons this location was chosen).
1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five hundred (500) feet from
Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts and which are not within the
Burlingame Downtown Districts.
2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential Zoning Districts or the
Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame Downtown Districts.
3) Residential Zoning Districts. If located within a residential zoning district, the following guidelines apply:
Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or designed to blend in with
open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design,
stealth structures, architectural integration or screening.
Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provisions
of this chapter.
In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antennae,
and to the extent feasible, control equipment.
In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground,
if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure.
Design Criteria: The goal of the City’s regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts
resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth structures for
these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless communications facilities. Non-stealth
designs and structures shall not be approved without evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible
(using best efforts by applicant) to stealth such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance
with the following criteria. If the applicant’s proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the
application shall include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria
(please refer to the attached Project Description submitted by the applicant for an explanation of why some
criteria are not met).
(a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co-location does
not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing the bulk, the height or the
amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities.
(b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in Residential
Zoning Districts.
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
5
(c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that
minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless communication facilities shall blend
into the surrounding environment and/or shall be architecturally integrated into a structure, considering
the color, design and character of the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, flagpoles,
trees/vegetation, rocks, water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples).
Specifically, the proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following:
(1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding topography,
vegetation, buildings, or other setting.
(2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting structures and
ability for co-location by other providers.
(3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall be set back at
least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of antenna height and shall not exceed
ten (10) feet in height above the roof surface.
(4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the building, shall be flush
mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building more than twenty-four (24) inches and
shall be painted and/or textured to match the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires,
shall also be hidden.
(5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials.
(6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs and stealth
structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose) including, but not limited to,
promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and economic use of property, building
construction, civic service, activities and operations in conformity with and preserving the overall
aesthetics of City neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural
traditions.
(d) Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the proposed wireless
communication facilities.
(e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site.
(f) Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or hidden using
stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping and fencing.
(g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning and
informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact.
(h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City’s hillside
construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be avoided in the hillside
areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth design, stealth structures and
landscaping.
(i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged.
(j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized access.
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;
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
6
(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 conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility, consisting of five panel
antennas, eight radio remote units, an equipment enclosure housing equipment cabinets for the wireless
facility, an emergency generator and other associated equipment necessary for the wireless facility and
power and fiber lines between the antennas and equipment, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the
date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year
term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development
Director;
2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 7, 2015, sheets T-1, LS-1 through LS-3 and A-1 through A-7;
3. 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;
4. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of
Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist
between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall
apply;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval for the Administrative Use
Permit; 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 an amendment to the Administrative Use Permit;
6. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any
other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication
facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities,
the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such
revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and
regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal
agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall
constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation of any permit or
imposition of any other applicable penalty;
7. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted a non-reflective
material consistent with the color scheme on the building;
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
7
8. that any exterior lighting on the facility shall have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site;
9. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational
signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact;
10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall provide
verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of the facility complies
with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations;
11. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the
facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility’s compliance with federal and state
regulations and of the facility’s compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of
approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant
and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility;
12. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the
applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact;
13. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form
acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is
ceased or the approval is terminated;
14. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair
does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type,
dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment;
15. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the
facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department;
16. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls, fences, shields,
cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism,
and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as
soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti
shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business
days from the time of notification by any person or entity;
17. that backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages or for testing during a set
period;
18. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the
property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays;
19. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at
least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation;
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
8
20. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Conditional Use
Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period:
(1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed
operation; or
(2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider.
21. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the
Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of
the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall
remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original
condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond
or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide
written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is
completed.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Ashley Woods, applicant
Attachments:
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, letter dated January 6, 2015
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Application
Project Description, date stamped October 8, 2014
Photo Simulations
Proof of Outreach
Evaluation of Base Station, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated June 26, 2014
Coverage Maps
Existing and Proposed Facility Maps
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015
Aerial Photo
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 24, 2014
a.3155 Frontera Way, zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new
wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment
building (Ashley Woods, applicant; V -One Design Group Inc., designer; Skyline
Terrace, property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant and got a
tour of the property. There were no other ex parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
-Will this be a ten year lease? (Hurin - applicant can clarify the length of the lease.)
-Was staff involved in the notification of the neighbors of the public hearing or the informational
meeting? (Hurin - not for the informational meeting, but the City coordinated noticing for the public
hearing before the Planning Commission.)
Ashley Woods, for Verizon Wireless, represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
-Was the applicant involved with notification for the informational meeting? (Woods - yes, she was in
contact with the property owner; created an e -mail notification and posted notices on all doors and in the
elevators.) Concerned that the notice for the informational meeting makes no reference that a wireless
antennas structure is being proposed. In the future, there should be more specifics regarding what is
actually being installed. (Woods - made note of this comment.)
-Is the lease for ten years? (Woods - the is lease is for 25 years.)
-What will happen to the equipment at the end of the lease? (Woods - at that time Verizon would
review the installation and replace with new equipment.)
-The location is good and the antennas are blended well with the environment; doesn't seem to
obstruct views.
-With respect to the landscaping around the equipment on the ground, noted that when touring the
property that there is no landscaping present. Is the landscaping proposed? (Woods - are not planning
to install any additional landscaping other than that which is already present along Interstate 280.)
Should seriously consider adding landscaping as indicated on the plans in the final design; it is
encouraged when wireless facilities are proposed in residential districts.
-Noted that there are a good number of trees on the property; assumes there is no need to remove
the trees in order to get a better signal. (Woods - there will be no trees removed or pruned.)
-Feels that the notice for the informational meeting is confusing and reads more like an
advertisement; does not really read like a public notice.
-Feels that it is good that notification was provided, but in the public outreach section of the zoning
ordinance, also encourages that property owners in the area be noticed; encouraged extending the
noticing area outside of the apartment complex in the future.
-Would like to know if there are any other options outside of the residential apartment building that
could work. Could the equipment be co -located with equipment installed by another provider in the
area?
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/22/2015
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
-The radio frequency (RF) study notes that the worst case scenario exposure to residents is 35%
where 100% would be the maximum acceptable level; want know where that is exactly and is that
reading based on the resident being inside the apartment building all of the time. The study is not clear
whether it addresses impacts to residents inside or outside the building. Is a resident sitting outside on
their balcony for two hours a day exposed to hazardous conditions?
-Be clearer regarding the noise emitted from the generator.
-What was the concern of the person who attended the outreach meeting? (Woods - wanted more
information about the installation.)
-How many residents are there? (Woods - in this building there are approximately 180 residents.)
-Assumes that the study found that exposure is limited to the rooftop level. Did the study include
exposure below the roofline? (Woods - anywhere at the ground, one is around 4% below the maximum
exposure rate. The emissions to the residents of the building are around 1 to 2% of the maximum
exposure limit.) The hazardous area then is at the roof level? (Woods - the plans show where the
hazardous areas are on the roof level.)
-How is someone getting on the roof made aware of the presence of hazardous conditions. (Woods -
signage is placed on the door to the rooftop, within the rooftop area and on the equipment enclosure .)
Concerned that someone may not pay attention to the signs. (Woods - residents do not have access to
the roof for safety reasons. Only the property managers and maintenance personnel are permitted on
the roof.) Perhaps a perimeter fence could be placed around the area of hazardous exposure.
-Is the generator automated? (Woods - yes, Verizon can set so that it runs during the day to blend in
with ambient sound.) The residents need to be aware of the presence of the generator; could create a
disturbance when activated periodically.
-Is there typically another meeting before moving forward? (Woods - can do so if it is something that
the Commission wishes to occur.) Encouraged conducting another informational meeting to provide
more information to the residents. Encouraged providing the residents with some of the materials
provided to the Commission.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
No action was required of the Commission. The item will appear on the regular action calendar when
complete.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/22/2015
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE 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
Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless communication facility consisting of five panel antennas and
associated equipment at 3155 Frontera Way, Zoned R-1, Eqr Skyline Terrace Lp, P.O. Box 87407
Ledger #29266, Chicago, IL, 60680, property owners, APN: 025-320-210 and 025-320-220;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January
26, 2015, 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, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,
Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or
structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the
conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications
are made in the exterior of the structure, is hereby approved.
2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use 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 26th day of January, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
3155 Frontera Way
Effective February 5, 2015
Page 1
1. that the conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility, consisting of
five panel antennas, eight radio remote units, an equipment enclosure housing equipment
cabinets for the wireless facility, an emergency generator and other associated equipment
necessary for the wireless facility and power and fiber lines between the antennas and
equipment, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least one hundred
twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the applicant shall
complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development Director;
2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped January 7, 2015, sheets T-1, LS-1 through LS-3 and A-1 through A-7;
3. 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;
4. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable
provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications);
where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this
approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
for the Administrative Use Permit; 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 an amendment to the
Administrative Use Permit;
6. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA,
and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate
wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are
made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter
shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within
six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different
compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring
the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute
grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation of any permit or
imposition of any other applicable penalty;
7. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted a non-
reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the building;
8. that any exterior lighting on the facility shall have a manual on/off switch and be contained
on-site;
9. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and
informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
3155 Frontera Way
Effective February 5, 2015
Page 2
10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall
provide verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of
the facility complies with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations;
11. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of
commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the
facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with
the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also
provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable
confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility;
12. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for
the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency
contact;
13. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial
assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its
use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated;
14. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance
and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or
change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment;
15. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and
repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development
Department;
16. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls,
fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti
and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation from
wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize
occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any
facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from the
time of notification by any person or entity;
17. that backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages or for testing
during a set period;
18. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible
beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays;
19. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to
vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
3155 Frontera Way
Effective February 5, 2015
Page 3
20. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the
Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12)
month period:
(1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator
resumed operation; or
(2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service
provider.
21. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased
operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to
vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the
property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements
associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the
Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other
assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide
written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal
is completed.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.burlingame.org
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY,
JANUARY 26, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA:
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for installation of a new wireless facility (antennas
and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building (Skyline Terrace Apartments)
located at 3155 Frontera Way, Burlingame, CA.
Applicant: Ashley Woods, agent for Verizon Wireless
Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) APN: 025-320-210 and -220
Project Description:
The proposed application includes installing five (5) antennas mounted on the
exterior walls of an existing stairwell, concealed in stealthed screening panels
designed and painted to match the existing building wall (three antennas on the south
wall and two antennas on the west wall). The facility will also contain associated
equipment in a pre-fabricated equipment enclosure constructed of concrete block
wall, located on the ground behind an existing parking area. Power and fiber lines
between the antennas and equipment would be installed underground and in a cable
tray.
A copy of the site plan, floor plans, photo simulations and more detailed information will be available
at www.burlingame.org under the Community Development Department’s “Wireless Communications”
web page and may also be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department
at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this proposal or the review process, please contact the Planning
Division at (650) 558-7250.
William Meeker
Community Development Director Posted: January 16, 2015
City of Burlingame
Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review
Address: 2940 Dolores Way Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Request: Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review for a major renovation including a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Architect: Johnny Darosa, Darosa & Associates APN: 025-302-280
Property Owner: Sanford Lau Lot Area: 11,748
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The subject property slopes upward from the street and currently contains a single story
house with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The rear yard currently contains an attached trellis and a
swimming pool.
The applicant is proposing a major renovation to the house including a first floor addition and a new second
story. The total proposed floor area is 4,746 SF (0.40 FAR), where 4,859 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum
allowed. This total includes foyer area that is counted as two floors as per C.S. 25.08.065(b)(1), which requires
that open spaces within a structure that are higher than 12 feet in height be calculated as two floors. The
proposal includes demolishing the rear trellis and filling in the existing swimming pool.
The proposed addition will increase the number of be drooms from 3 to 4. The existing attached garage is
currently non-conforming at only 19 feet wide by 15 feet deep. As part of the proposed renovation, the applicant
will increase the garage depth from 15 feet to 20’6”, so the garage will meet the standards for two covered
parking spaces. There are two uncovered parking spaces (9’ x 20’) in the driveway leading to the garage. These
parking spaces meet the code requirement for on-site parking for a 4-bedroom house. No trees are proposed to
be removed with this application.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor addition (C.S. 25.61.020); and
Design Review for a second floor addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a)(2)).
2940 Dolores Way
Lot Area: 11,748 SF Plans date stamped: January 6, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
27'-0"
0'
No change- 27’-0"
27'-0"
15'-0" (or block average)
20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
17’-0"
8'-0"
17'-0"
8'-6"
7'-0"
7'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
57'-0"
0'-0"
No change- 57’-0”
57'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,667 SF
22.7%
2,960 SF
25.9%
4,699 SF
40%
Item No. 9c
Design Review Study
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2940 Dolores Way
-2-
EXISTING PROPOSED
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
FAR: 2,564 SF
0.22 FAR
4,746 SF
0.40 FAR
4,859 SF
0.41 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Parking: 1 covered¹
(19' x 15')
2 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(19' x 20'-6”)
2 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered²
(18' x 18' for existing)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.28.075
¹ Existing, non-conforming condition
² (0.32 x 11,748 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,859 SF (0.41 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division,
Parks Division, and Stormwater Division.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. Johnny Darosa, applicant and architect
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Staff Comments
Photos of neighborhood, date stamped October 21, 2014
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
1217 Burlingame Avenue
Item No. 9d
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Commercial Design Review
Address: 1217 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Request: Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing
commercial storefront.
Applicant and Designer: Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, designer APN: 029-204-040
Property Owner: Green Banker LLC Lot Area: 4,050 SF
General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Zoning: BAC
Current Use: L’Escape Spa, personal service use (spa and massage)
Proposed Use: Heavenly Couture, retail clothing store
Allowable Use: Retail apparel is a permitted use.
Summary: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing personal service business, L’Escape Spa (spa
and massage) with a new retail apparel business, Heavenly Couture, at 1217 Burlingame Avenue, zoned
BAC.
This application includes changes to the exterior facade of the commercial storefront along Burlingame
Avenue, which measures 9’-4” in width. The existing wood door, wood framed bay window and tile above
and below the bay window would be removed; the existing wood trim above and below the clerestory
windows would remain. The applicant is proposing to install a new polished white metal framed storefront
window and door system and to replace the existing wood framed clerestory windows with new metal
framed clerestory windows. The entry to the space would be recessed to match in the same way as the
existing front entry.
Retail uses located on the first floor within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan
shall be exempt from providing off-street parking (CS 25.70.090 (a)). Therefore, no additional off-street
parking is required for the proposed retail apparel business. The following application is required:
Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront in
the BAC Zoning District (CS 25.32.045).
Staff comments: See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Applicant’s Letters of Explanation, dated December 9, 2014
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015
Aerial Photo
Item No. 9d
Design Review Study