HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2015.02.09Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 9, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 26, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga.
Draft PC MeetingMinutes 01-26-15Attachments:
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
1811 Adrian Road, zoned RR - Application for Environmental Review, Conditional Use
Permits for use, floor area ratio and building height and Parking Variance for a self
storage use within an existing commercial building (Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage Inc .,
applicant; Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc ., designer; Public Storage Inc ., property
owner) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
a.
1811 Adrian Rd - Staff Report
1811 Adrian Rd - Attachments
1811 Adrian Rd - Plans
Attachments:
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a
commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
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:
1512 Ralston Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Negative Declaration 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
b.
1512 Ralston Ave - Staff Report
1512 Ralston Ave - Attachments
1512 Ralston Ave - Initial Study 2015
1512 Ralston Ave - Historic Resource Study
Attachments:
1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration, Design
Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design,
applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
c.
1516 Howard Ave - Staff Report
1516 Howard Ave - Attachments
1516 Howard Ave - Initial Study
1516 Howard Ave - Historic Resource Study
Attachments:
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
d.
818 Crossway Rd - Staff Report
818 Crossway Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
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
e.
1448 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1448 Laguna Ave - Attachments
1448 Laguna Ave - Proposed Plans
1448 Laguna Ave - Original Plans
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
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
f.
1217 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1217 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
1260 California Drive - zoned Unclassified- Application for a Conditional Use Permit for
vehicle storage and new fence for Rector Motors at the corner of California Drive and
Broadway (E. James Hannay, Rector Motor Car Co ., applicant; City and County of San
Francisco- Public Utilities Commission and San Mateo County Transportation
Authority, property owners) (209 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
g.
1260 California-Staff Report
1260 California Dr - attachments
1260 California Dr - 02.09.15 - rec after 1.pdf
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
225 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Design Review for a first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc .,
applicant and designer; Sinhad and Medina Begic, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Barber
a.
225 Dwight-Staff Report
225 Dwight - Attachments
225 Dwight Rd - 02.09.15 - received after 1.pdf
Attachments:
1364 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage (Nenad Vukic
Tr, applicant and property owners; Behravesh & Associates Architecture, architect) (55
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
b.
1364 Vancouver - Staff Report
1364 Vancouver - Attachments
1364 Vancouver Ave - 02.09.15 - recd after.pdf
Attachments:
1504 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for a new two-story single family dwelling with a basement and attached garage (TRG
Architects, applicant and architect; Joseph and Shannon Paley, property owners) (55
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
c.
1504 Drake Ave - Staff Report
1504 Drake Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1500 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage
(Hamed Balazadeh, BOD Design, designer; Shahram Zomorrodi, Zomorrodi Corp .,
applicant and owner) (35 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit
d.
1500 Los Altos Dr Staff Report
1500 Los Altos Dr - Attachments
1500 Los Altos Dr - 02.09.15 - recd after 1.pdf
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Commission Communicationsa.
City Council regular meeting February 2, 2015b.
FYI: 1545 Los Montes Drive - review of proposed changes to previously approved
Design Review project
c.
1545 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report
1545 Los Montes Dr - Recvd After 1
Attachments:
FYI: 1321 Paloma Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
d.
1321 Paloma Ave - Memorandum
1321 Paloma Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
FYI: 2747 Burlingview Drive - review of proposed changes to previously approved
Design Review project.
e.
2747 Burlingview Dr - Staff ReportAttachments:
FYI: 1011 Morrell Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design
Review project.
f.
1011 Morrell Ave - Staff ReportAttachments:
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on February 9, 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 19, 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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 26, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the January 26, 2015 meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.January 12, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
PC draft Minutes - 1.12.15.pdfAttachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
minutes with the following amendments:
>Item 7a (1209 Mills Ave) clarification that Commission DeMartini does not live within 500 feet
of the subject property, but has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet;
>Item 9b (1512 Ralston Ave), second bullet, edit to indicate Perhaps" a transom window;
>Item 9b, fourth bullet, add word "intentionally" between "perhaps" and "because".
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
None
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
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
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1813 Ray Dr - Staff Report
1813 Ray Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
Ex-Parte Communications:
There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the subject site.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Minerva Abad represented the applicant:
>Addressed integration of the addition by changing scale, massing, and building materials.
>Scale: retained plate height on first floor and lowered pate height on second floor. Result is window
heights are more proportional.
>Massing: Move second floor addition to the center of the first floor.
>Craftsman columns to enhance entry rather then taller plate height.
>Craftsman architectural style with horizontal and and board and batten siding, brackets, corbels,
exposed roof rafters, double-hung windows.
Commission questions/comments:
>Rear elevation sliding door grid pattern looks odd. Refer to previous plan set with grids on sides.
>Shared revised plans with neighbors? (Abad: Not yet.)
>Good changes, but still looks like a big house behind a small house. Garage is very deep - is it
possible to have it not stick out as much? (Abad: Changed the doors of the garage to add details, but it
is an existing garage.)
>Windows on the front elevation on the left - why not larger windows in the bedroom? Long horizontal
windows look odd together. (Abad: Bedroom already has windows on two sides. Having larger windows
facing the front would be too much window area for a small bedroom.) Perhaps swap one of the
horizontal windows with one of the larger side windows.
>Property is not well maintained currently.
>Massing still looks odd. There were opportunities to move second story forward - why is it at the
back? (Abad: Situated at back to have view of yard. If it is in the front there will be a view of the roof.)
>Details are good, and though the massing has not changed the proportions are better. A lot of the
detailing works. Prominent front gable works well.
>Massing has been improved with lower plate height on second floor.
>Long side wall of garage could be helped with added window to left side of garage.
>Details of rear patio doors hard to tell what would be a door and what would be a window.
>Are railings in the back wood railings? (Abad: Yes.)
Public comments:
None.
Commission discussion:
>Significantly improved.
>Window in Bedroom #3 should be revised - swap out window.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Garage is prominent. Perhaps relocate utilities to shorten garage by a few feet.
>With a few changes it can be a better project.
>Doesn't accept argument to have massing at back to have view of yard.
>Not a clear consensus. Makes sense to try one more time.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to approve the project with added condition that changes to the
bedroom windows, garage, and rear doors come back as an FYI. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Yie.
Discussion:
>Sometimes Commission encourages massing to be pushed to the back so it does not intrude onto
the street as much. Concerned if massing is moved to front, would end up with a different problem.
>There are several houses on the block where the massing is at the back, but it is handled differently.
>Could push garage back 2 1/2 feet. Would need to maintain 20-foot depth since garage would be
altered.
>If changing landscaping to front yard, take care to not disturb neighbor's landscaping.
>Too many changes for an FYI, and could end up being pulled.
Commissioner Terrones withdrew the motion.
Chair Bandrapalli reopened the public hearing:
Judith Downing, east side of 1813 Ray Drive, spoke on this item:
>Details are really lovely.
>Plans show two magnolia trees to be planted. One will replace the former City tree. The other is
shown closer to her driveway than her own tree. Had previously had problems with tree roots raising
driveway. Location of proposed tree could cause problems to driveway, as well as sewer lateral. A
Crape myrtle or smaller tree with a different root system would be preferred.
>Has extensive garden in the back. Would like a little more foliage for privacy. Perhaps a flowering
plum or Lavatera for privacy and screening.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission comments:
>Possibilities for relocating the water heater could include under the stairwell, or a tankless water
heater outside the garage.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised with changes to revisit the Bedroom #3
windows, the garage (pull back and add a window), the rear patio doors, and the landscaping per
the neighbor's concerns.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
b.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
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1448 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1448 Laguna Ave - Attachments
1448 Laguna Ave - Proposed Plans
1448 Laguna Ave - Original Plans
Attachments:
This item was continued.
c.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
3155 Frontera Way - Staff Report
3155 Frontera Way Attachments
Attachments:
Ex-Parte Communications:
Commissioner DeMartini met with with the property owner. He also reported that he previously was
previously recused because he owned stock in a company that is considered a competitor to the
property owner's apartment rental business, but he no longer owns that stock so no longer needs to be
recused.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the subject site.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Ashley Woods, for Verizon Wireless, represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Resident concerns at meeting? (Woods: Concerned with appearance, where antennas would be
located, how far equipment would be located from complex.)
>Signage on roof to advise workers on roof of existence of equipment? (Woods: There will be
signage on the roof.)
>What is faux ivy? (Woods: Initially had chain link fence but revised to have CMU wall for appearance
and sound buffering. Faux ivy proposed - low to no maintenance, does not use water, fire retardant,
mold resistant. Believes CMU wall is sufficient but can specify faux ivy if desired.)
>How much coverage of faux ivy would be on the wall? (Woods: Not proposing covering entire wall
unless requested. Could be all the way to the top if desired.)
>When were notices to second open house mailed to surrounding property owners - with how much
advance notice? (Woods: Two weeks prior to the meeting.) Notice should have been more explicit with
what was being proposed, and not focus on service coverage in the first line of the letter. Point is not to
advertise coverage, it is to advise on proposed installation of antennas.
>Are roofers at risk if they do not access the roof from stairs?
>Are there other options for co -locating on the other side of freeway? (Woods: Does not recall facility
on the other side of freeway.)
>If there are residents near the new generator, will the property owner be willing to move tenants if
requested? (Woods: The sound levels of the generator will be consistent with ambient noise existing .
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Runs at 60 dBa - comparable to indoor speech at 3 feet indoors, without enclosure.)
>Not supportive of artificial ivy. CMU wall will be sufficient.
>Noticing - glad it said explicitly that 5 antennas would be on the existing building. Will help team
moving forward to be explicit and say what they are doing.
>Concern with any potential risks to resident sitting on balcony.
Bill Hammett, Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers, spoke on the application:
>Bottoms of antennas are 8 feet above the roof. There are no fields on the roof exceeding public limit,
no access restrictions for workers on the roof. Only issue would be someone painting the surround
around antennas, so signs would be posted next to the antennas. Most roof vendors and HVAC people
know what antennas are and are trained accordingly.
>All balconies are lower than the equipment. Signal goes out to the horizon. 1000 times less goes
down than out. Will never be at the standard on the balcony - it is not additive, it is a threshold.
Commission questions:
>What if someone needs to paint? (Hammett: Will shut site down when needing to paint.)
Public comments:
None.
Commission comments:
>Approve without artificial ivy.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the item.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.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
2313 Poppy Dr. Staff Report
2313 Poppy Dr. Attachments
Attachments:
Ex-Parte Communications:
Commissioner Gum met with Peggy Grier (neighbor to the right side). Commissioner Bandrapalli met the
applicant.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the subject site.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Bill Wood represented the applicant:
>The owners purchased the home in 2014. Had thought property to right was part of property, but is a
10-foot city-owned easement.
>Easement results in narrow house - limited to 28 feet in width.
>Entry statement from street, rather than side as currently exists.
>Previous addition to rear of house does not relate to original house. Rear storage building takes up
most of back yard and will be removed.
>10-foot easement creates distance between neighboring home.
>Could add additional landscaping along the back property line if desired.
Commission questions/comments:
>House has a nice quiet aesthetic. Fits in great with neighborhood.
>Shutters look odd. Are they functional? (Wood: They are decorative, intended to create a more
inviting entrance, frame the entrance.)
>Arches/curved top windows and round window in back are superfluous. Design is otherwise simple,
arches are distracting.
>Right elevation is very impressive. Reminiscent of Gunnar Asplund or Mackintosh. Nice how it does
not stack windows.
>Arch over stairway on left is distracting.
>Deep recessed windows on elevations works well on elevations, but not showing on floor plan. Deep
shadow lines are critical for making it work. Otherwise will be very plain. (Wood: Will use thicker 2 x 6 or
2 x 8 walls with window framed on inside.) Otherwise will look very flat.
>Should include schematic wall detail when plans return.
>Front door entry seems small and dark. It is a really good street - would be great to have a front
porch.
>Office is very long and narrow - should consider recessing it back to have an enclosed porch .
(Wood: Considered a porch but it would change the front character of the house.)
Edward Cho spoke as the property owner:
>The initial design was a craftsman -style house with front porch, but it would not fit the character of
the rest of the street. Thought cottage look would fit better with street.
Commission comments:
>Could have a front porch but keep same pattern of windows on elevation. Would help widen the
single-file entry. (Wood: Would be too shallow for office if porch is very deep. Wants sitting area and
retain existing fireplace.)
>Porch does not need to be 6 or 7 feet deep. Just needs to be 4'-6" or so, just enough to have a
couple of chairs. Could retain symmetry and appearance of facade by retaining opening as designed on
facade, but have it as a porch opening with rail. Would also function as a mud room/transition space.
>Applicant should study porch suggestion but decide if it works for their family. Don't give up facade
just to get porch. (Wood: Porch would be facing north. Intent was to get as much yard area to south, and
make a statement on the front .)(Cho: Activity will be focused at back. Would not be using porch. Prefers
to have a big office to be used as kids' play room.)
>There is a justification for the Special Permit. If easement were part of the property the house would
comply.
>Sheet L-1 shows no trees in front, just lawn and small plants and groundcover. Seems to be missing
something - does not need to be a big tree.
>If there is interest in having more landscaping at rear, should meet with neighbors now and show
proposal so Commission knows what to expect.
>Can applicant plant a large tree in the easement? (Gardiner: No.)
>Anderson vinyl clad window 400 Series is specified. Commission has approved this window
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
previously, but should be specific. (Wood: Can have aluminum-clad if preferred.) Commission prefers
aluminum-clad.
>Flat roof flashing detail is important - should roll roofing to inside. Should provide detail. (Wood: Will
take slate and bring it around so see roof only, not flashing).
Public comments:
None.
Commission comments:
>Initially concerned with declining height envelope, but given the easement and space between
buildings it is OK. Neighbor is fine with it.
>Plans need to specify recessed windows, aluminum -clad wood windows, and possibly any changes
to front if there is a porch.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, 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, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
b.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
1123 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report
1123 Lincoln Ave - attachments
Attachments:
City Attorney Kane was recused from this item because she lives within 300 feet of the subject property .
Commissioner Terrones noted that he rents an office near the subject property but is a tenant and does
not have a financial interest in the property.
Ex-Parte Communications:
Commissioner DeMartini met with the neighbor across the street at 1124 Lincoln Avenue.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the subject site.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Tim Raduenz, represented the applicant:
>Existing house is in good shape. Much of first floor is well done. Trying to keep most of first floor
intact, except for front bedroom.
>House was built 3'-9" off grade, with 9-foot ceiling on first floor.
>Thought lower roof pitch on second story addition would look odd.
>Will add trees in back for privacy as requested by neighbors.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission questions/comments:
>Garage to remain? (Raduenz: Yes. Initially proposed to be replaced, but budget considerations have
it remaining. Will be corrected on plans.)
>Needs to have good justification for why roof needs to have such steep pitch, even if it is not much
of an encroachment. It is not a Tudor, but not a Craftsman either. Looks like a big house about to
overtake the front porch. Needs justification for why it is so steeply pitched. Houses in the neighborhood
tend to have less steeply pitched roofs. The pitch does not exist anywhere else in the house. (Raduenz:
Walls come down on sections to 5 feet to reduce volume.)
>Spacing on board and batten is very wide, could be more delicate. (Raduenz: Could make it a bit
tighter.)
>Could lower belly band to bring down feel of height and massiveness. As shown it looks like a lot of
stucco and accentuates the height.
>Detailing is handsome.
>The addition dwarfs the original house. Roof pitch and materials make it feel like a three -story
house. If it is simplified will integrate better with the original house. Original house was horizontal with
low-slung roof, bungalow character. Needs attention on the material choices and proportions.
>On either side of the house are two bungalows same size as existing house.
>Feels like too much going on. Tripartite division of materials does not help. (Raduenz: Can lower the
banding, but thinks three materials works - it is a signature of the higher -pitch roof. If the pitch were
lower, would need to raise the side plate height and encroach into declining height envelope. Wants to
retain newly-installed first-floor furnace and install a second furnace in the attic for the upstairs.)
>Needs to better demonstrate why a Special Permit is needed for this house. Attic does not need to
be so tall to accommodate an HVAC unit.
>Gable end treatment could be retained with a lower-pitch roof.
>Design does not work in this neighborhood. Tallest house in neighborhood is 25 feet. Special Permit
requires compatibility with neighbors. Special Permit findings require massing and scale to fit in with the
neighborhood.
>Neighborhood is predominantly single story. Not saying can only build a single -story house, but
height of nearly 34 feet is surprising.
>Existing gravel driveway is messy - gravel on the sidewalk. (Raduenz: Can change to pavers.)
>Approval letters seem a bit "forced" or leading - would be better in their own words. (Raduenz: Most
neighbors want a form letter. Needs to be easy for them.)
>Sheet A3.1 shows three windows on upstairs bathroom, but A 2.1 shows two (Raduenz: It will be
two.)
>Sheet A3.0 right top window will be split by a wall? Concern space between walls could end up
widening and look odd. (Raduenz: No. There will be a 2 x 6 divide wall.)
>Will Master Bathroom windows be obscured? (Raduenz: Bottoms will be frosted, top clear.)
>Discrepancy in window grids on elevations. (Raduenz: Believes they are open on the bottom. Will
verify.)
>Existing chimney looks odd, gets lopped off. (Raduenz: Could stucco it. Would prefer to retain
mantle. Would have to dismantle it if changing it substantially. Hard to see from the street.)
Public comment:
John Gouws, property to rear, spoke on this item:
>Appreciate neighbors working on obtaining neighbor feedback, sensitivity to privacy concerns.
>Look at options for how views from second story windows on rear could be addressed with
landscaping in the rear yard, trees, etc.
Commission comments:
>Needs a reason why it deserves additional height. This is not just aesthetic, there needs to be a
defensible reason for making a determination.
>Would like to see renderings to see how layers would work.
>Designer is talented so does not need to go to design review consultant.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
c.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
2940 Dolores Way - Staff Report
2940 Dolores Way - Attachments
Attachments:
Ex-Parte Communications:
Commissioner Gum reported that he spoke with the neighbor at 2950 Dolores Way, Commissioner Loftis
spoke to a neighbor several houses down the street, and Commissioner DeMartini spoke to the neighbor
at 2930 Dolores Way.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the subject site.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Johnny Darosa represented the applicant:
Commission comments/questions:
>House does not seem to be taking advantage of the views. Windows facing Bay view have obscured
glass. (Darosa: Original design took advantage of the views, but downhill neighbors are concerned
about privacy. Wants to fit into neighborhood.)
>Proportions need to be worked on. Entry element is too high, lacks human element, extends too far
beyond door. These elements may be trying to hide that building is too tall. This is a neighborhood with a
lot of Eichlers, so houses tend to be lower. (Darosa: Building is tall, so has utilized a 3:12 roof pitch to
reduce height. Also hip roof rather than gable to lower bulk and mass, and brackets to soften the look,
make it look not as tall. Can lower the porch roof and window treatment to blend together better.)
>What are the plate heights? (Darosa: 10 feet first floor, 9 feet second floor.)
>While it is below the maximum height, the plate heights need to be looked at.
>There is a lot of solid wall area; proportions seem odd. Low roof pitch exacerbates this.
>Adjustments to the plate heights could be a quick fix.
>Neighbors are concerned with first floor windows looking down, but could have a solid fence with
lattice and/or landscaping. Upstairs windows are so much higher than neighbors, there will not be an
angle where there will be a view into the neighbor's house.
>Could need story poles - there are a couple of houses that might be impacted. Should take into
account neighbors further away as design changes are considered.
>Big tree in front (Darosa: Owner would like to remove the tree, neighbors too.)
>Good that massing was stacked to the right, so that if owner next door to left builds up her view will
not be obstructed.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Too much stucco in relation to trim - is further highlighted by contrast in colors.
>Not sure if this style fits in this neighborhood. There are not a lot of timber /craftsman-style homes
with stone bases. Ranch houses have brick bases and Eichlers have CMU coursing, but stone is out of
place.
>Scale and heights are out of proportion compared to others in neighborhood.
>Windows need to have simulated true-divided lites; not just grid between glass surfaces.
>Rear elevation looks more consistent with rest of neighborhood. Stone and timbers on front
elevation don't seem to work with the neighborhood.
>Would previous design been more consistent with comments? (Darosa: Will revisit it.)
Public comment:
Patrick Chow, 2930 Dolores Way, spoke on this item:
>Privacy is major concern, so does not want big window openings on his side.
>There are no views to right. View is to the front.
Mary Chen, 2950 Dolores Way, spoke on this item:
>Proportionn and scale of house does not feel right for neighborhood.
>Could expand house to accommodate his needs including adding another story, but give thought to
neighborhood, mostly Eichler homes. Very few houses this large; all one-story houses across the street.
Commission comments:
>Would benefit from design review consultation.
>Story poles, but not yet. Should wait for potential design modifications.
>Simpler approach used on rear elevation would be more in keeping with the neighborhood.
>Areas of concern: massing, plate heights, front entry element, massing of fireplace chimney.
>While most of the neighborhood is single -story Eichlers, there are two -story houses on each side .
The existing house is situated down in a hollow, so could support a two-story house.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
d.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
1217 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1217 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1217 Burlingame Ave - Recvd After 1
Attachments:
Ex-Parte Communications:
There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the subject site.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that an email had been
received after the staff report was published.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of staff:
None.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant:
>Facade change.
>Just received copy of letter from Historical Society. Some of the elements mentioned in letter will be
moving in direction already. Transom window will be replaced.
>Adjacent Sole Desire space is vacant, will be rented. Wood panel over the transom windows on that
space likely to be removed. Would be relatively easy over time to restore lower facade of entire building .
Would depend on tenant; this tenant is in agreement to restore transom windows.
>Newspaper article shows 16 spaces in transom window. Could try to match that configuration.
>Wants lots of glass on storefront, as much as structure would allow given narrow space. In historic
photos looks like glass extends up to transom windows already. Will leave existing wooden door leading
up to upstairs residential space.
Commission comments/questions:
>Should bring transom windows back to original design. On storefronts typically keep traditional
configuration above the trim or awning line, but can be more flexible with storefront design below trim
line. Still needs to have good human scale at storefront level.
>The datum is the trim level that extends across all three storefronts.
>Why are the transom windows being replaced? (Meyer: They have textured glass that obscures
most of the light. Will try to duplicate original transom design including wood material.)
>Is the neighboring space leased? Would like to see the two proposals together. Having the two
spaces restored could be good publicity for the owner.
>Existing sign is very high; sign in new design would be even higher. Does not seem to be human
scale.
>Mingalaba awning and signage is very busy, would want this to be simpler and have more of a retail
character. (Meyer: No awning is being proposed for this space. Could consider a blade sign.)
>Existing maroon ceramic tile is in poor condition. Would it be possible to replace it? (Meyer: Tile on
right side wraps around into the adjoining doorway. On left side the tile is painted over.) Maybe just clean
it and reseal.
Public comments:
None.
Commission discussion:
No further discussion.
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, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.Commission Communications
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Loftis reported that the Citizens' Advisory Committee for the new community center met
last week with the design team for a visioning session. There will be a series of meetings coming up for
outreach from the design team. He will forward the schedule to the Commission.
Commissioner DeMartini reported that the Bike Fair being organized by BPAC will wait until 2016 to
resolve traffic and safety concerns with the interchange construction, etc. Also BPAC is putting together
a master list of grant opportunities for both bicycles and pedestrians.
Commissioners expressed interest in reconvening the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee.
b.City Council regular meeting January 20, 2015
Planning Manager Gardiner reported that the Residential Density Bonus Ordinance was reintroduced at
the January 20th City Council Meeting. It will move to adoption at the February 2nd meeting. The
Council will also consider the Broadway Commercial Area zoning amendments on February 2nd.
Also noted was that the Peninsula Health Care District will be having a neighborhood meeting to discuss
the “Marco Polo Project” as well as the 1600 Trousdale assisted living facility. The meeting is being
hosted by the District, not the City. Once an application has been submitted, the City will lead its own
review process, with involvement by the Planning Commission. The meeting will be on Tuesday,
February 3rd from 5- 7 PM at the PHCD offices, 1819 Trousdale Drive.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:20 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 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 2/5/2015
City of Burlingame
Environmental Review, Conditional Use Permits and Parking Variance
Address: 1811 Adrian Road Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
Request: Environmental Review, Conditional Use Permits for use, floor area ratio and building height and
Parking Variance for an addition to an existing commercial building for a self-service storage use.
Applicant: Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage, Inc. APN: 025-169-050
Designer/Engineer: Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. Lot Area: 5.82 acres
Property Owner: Public Storage, Inc.
Zoning: RR, Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area
General Plan: Industrial and Office Use
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan – Adrian Road Auto Row District
Environmental Review : Environmental review is required because the proposed project includes adding more
than 10,000 SF to an existing commercial building (61,945 SF addition proposed, mostly within a new second
floor within the existing building), and therefore does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act). As a part of preparing the Initial Study for the environmental document for this
project, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission comment on any potential environmental effects which
you feel should be investigated. Potential environmental effects identified by staff include on-site
parking/circulation and site access/safety issues.
The issues identified by the Commission will be incorporated into the Initial Study for the project. The standard
list of items investigated in an Initial Study is attached for reference. At this time, staff notes that based on
preliminary analysis, it appears that the type of CEQA document required will be a Negative Declaration.
However, the type of CEQA document will be finalized during the environmental review process. During
preliminary review Planning staff identified the following applications required for this project:
Conditional Use Permit required for a self-service storage use located within the Automobile Sales and
Service Overlay Area (Code Section 25.44.050 (b) (2));
Conditional Use Permit to exceed 0.50 FAR for an industrial use (0.85 FAR proposed where 1.0 FAR is
the maximum allowed) (Code Section 25.44.030 (a));
Conditional Use Permit for building height (37’-0” proposed where 35’-0” is the maximum allowed) (Code
Sections 25.44.080 and 25.44.030 (s)); and
Parking Variance for number on-site parking spaces (167 on-site parking spaces provided where 218
parking spaces are required for the intensification of use; 51 space deficiency) (Code Section 25.70.010
(b)).
Project Description: The subject property contains two commercial buildings; a vacant 80,377 SF
office/warehouse building at the front of the site (1811 Adrian Road) and a 74,675 SF warehouse building at the
rear of the site (1801 Adrian Road), which is currently occupied by Goodwill (donation center). The most recent
use at 1811 Adrian Road was a warehouse supplying products for virtual sales. There are no changes proposed
to the building at the rear of the site (1801 Adrian Road).
Public Storage, Inc., a self-storage facility, is currently located on the adjacent property at 1761 Adrian Road.
With this application, the applicant is proposing to add a second floor within the existing commercial building
located at 1811 Adrian Road (subject building is located at the front of the site), as well as some minor additions
on the ground floor. A Conditional Use Permit is being requested for the proposed self-storage use because the
site is located within the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area in the RR Zoning District (Code Section
25.44.050 (b) (2)).
Item No. 8a
Environmental Scoping
Environmental Review, Conditional Use Permits and Parking Variance 1811 Adrian Road
2
The proposal includes alterations to the existing building and adding a new 61,495 second floor within the
existing building. The applicant notes that the proposed renovations would accommodate 436 storage units on
the first floor and 692 storage units on the new second floor, for a total of 1,128 storage units within the self-
storage facility. The proposed floor area on the site (including both buildings at 1801 and 1811 Adrian Road)
would increase from 0.61 FAR (155,052 SF) to 0.85 FAR (216,157 SF) where 1.0 FAR (253,519 SF) is the
maximum allowed. A Conditional Use Permit is being requested because with the proposed project the FAR on
the site will exceed 0.50 FAR.
A new front office and merchandise area for the self-storage facility is located at the front, left corner of the
building. This new entry is identified by a tower element with an aluminum storefront system, clear glazing and a
metal canopy. The overall height to the top of the tower element is 37’-0” above average top of curb (the existing
building measures 28’-8” above average top of curb). The project also includes adding a new loading area near
the front, right corner of the building and would contain four loading spaces and five parking stalls. Access to
this loading area would be through new vehicular entry off Adrian Road. The existing loading dock at the rear of
the building will be eliminated and replaced with additional parking stalls. The existing loading dock along the
left side of the building will be upgraded to include a covered loading area leading to a secured lobby with an
elevator. The applicant has been working with the various City divisions to ensure that the proposed project will
comply with all exiting and disabled-accessible requirements.
As shown on the proposed building elevations, there are façade changes primarily along the front and left sides
of the building. However, Commercial Design Review is not required for the proposed project since the exterior
alterations do not exceed 50% of the building façade (changes to more than 50% of the façade would require
Commercial Design Review). Therefore the Planning Commission’s review is limited to the Conditional Use
Permit and Variance requests.
Off-Street Parking: The existing parking demand for the storage and office/warehouse uses within both
buildings at 1801 and 1811 Adrian Road is 196 parking spaces. Since there are currently 135 parking spaces
provided on-site, the existing site is nonconforming in parking. With the proposed modifications to 1811 Adrian
Road, the proposed parking demand (including both buildings at 1801 and 1811 Adrian Road) is 218 parking
spaces, which includes 139,329 SF of self-storage on the first and second floors (1:1000 SF parking ratio) and
1,655 SF of lobby/retail space (1:400SF parking ratio) at 1811 Adrian Road and 74,656 SF of existing storage
space at 1801 Adrian Road. With this application, the applicant is proposing site improvements which will
increase the number of parking spaces on-site from 135 to 167 spaces where 218 spaces are required.
Therefore, a Parking Variance is being requested for the difference of 51 parking spaces.
The applicant prepared a Parking and Trip Generation Analysis for the proposed project, dated August 19, 2014
(see attached). The City’s Engineering Program Manager reviewed the analysis and notes in his memorandum
dated November 18, 2014, that “the Public Works - Engineering Department is in concurrence with the
conclusions and justifications as presented in the analysis” and had no further comments. This information will
be provided to the environmental consultant for preparation of the on-site parking and circulation analysis in the
environmental document.
Landscaping: When the use in a building is intensified, in this case by adding a second floor within an existing
building, on-site landscaping must be provided to current code standards. The RR zoning district regulations
require that a minimum of 10% of the total area of the property be landscaped and that a minimum of 60% of the
front setback be landscaped. However Planning staff would note that since the setback requirements of the RR
zoning district require buildings along Adrian Road to have a zero front setback, the front setback landscaping
requirement is not applicable.
The existing landscaping, consisting of trees, shrubs and turf complies with the minimum required on-site
landscaping and amounts to 11.8% of the site (29,923 SF). Some existing landscaping will be removed to
accommodate walkways at the front, left corner of the building as well as the new loading area at the front of the
building. However, new landscaping is proposed along the left side property line and at the rear of the building.
With the proposed modifications, the site will be in compliance by providing 10.7% (27,191 SF) of total on-site
landscaping proposed where 10% (25,352 SF) is the minimum required.
Environmental Review, Conditional Use Permits and Parking Variance 1811 Adrian Road
3
Planning staff would note that although the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Area Plan recommends
planting Eucalyptus ficifolia (Red Flowering Gum) along Adrian Road, the Parks Supervisor recommends
planting Acer rubrum (Red Maple) trees instead, noting that it is a better species for this location and that the
Parks Division has had good success in planting them along Rollins Road. The applicant is proposing to install
five, 24-inch box Red Maple trees are recommended by the Parks Supervisor. Planning staff would note that the
Community Development Department and Parks Division will be reviewing the recommendations in the Specific
Area Plan in the near future and will process a request to make amendments as necessary.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions.
1811 Adrian Road
Lot Area: 5.82 acres Plans date stamped: January 13, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Use: warehouse
(1801 Adrian Road)
office/warehouse -
vacant
(1811 Adrian Road)
no change
(1801 Adrian Road)
self-story facility ¹
(1811 Adrian Road)
self-storage use
requires a Conditional
Use Permit
Floor Area Ratio: 80,377 SF (1811 Adrian)
74,675 SF (1801 Adrian)
155,052 SF
0.61 FAR
141,482 SF (1811 Adrian)
74,675 SF (1801 Adrian)
216,157 SF
0.85 FAR ²
126,760 SF
0.50 FAR
253,519 SF
1.0 FAR max. w/CUP
Lot Coverage: 149,284 SF
58.8%
149,166 SF
58.8%
152,111 SF
60%
Building Height: 28'-8" 37’-0” 35'-0"
Front Setback: 35’-5” 101’-8” to addition at
ground floor
at least 20% of the
building to have a zero
setback – not applicable
since addition at front is
minor
Side Setback (left):
(right):
89'-8"
20'-3"
100’-6”
no change
10'-0"
10'-0"
¹ Conditional Use Permit requested for an addition to an existing commercial building for a self-service storage
use within the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area.
² Conditional Use Permit to exceed 0.50 FAR for an industrial use (0.85 FAR proposed where 1.0 FAR is the
maximum allowed).
Table continued on next page.
Environmental Review, Conditional Use Permits and Parking Variance 1811 Adrian Road
4
1811 Adrian Road
Lot Area: 5.82 acres Plans date stamped: January 13, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Off-Street Parking: 135 spaces
167 parking spaces ³
(65 standard)
(12 truck loading)
4 disabled-accesible)
218 parking spaces
Total On-Site
Landscaping:
11.8%
29,923 SF
10.7%
27,191 SF
10%
25,352 SF
³ Parking Variance requested for number on-site parking spaces (167 on-site parking spaces provided where
218 parking spaces are required for the intensification of use).
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the proposed project and the areas of
potential significant environmental effects suggested by staff. The Commission should add any additional
effects of the project that it anticipates might be potentially significant. The areas of investigation for
environmental evaluation as defined by CEQA are listed on the attached sheet for your reference.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage, Inc., applicant
Scott Mommer and Art Lucas, Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc., design professional
Attachments:
Environmental Checklist – CEQA Guidelines
Application to the Planning Commission
Project Description submitted by the applicant, date stamped November 12, 2014
Conditional Use Permit Applications
Variance Application
Commercial Application
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 31, 2015
Aerial Photo
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FROM APPENDIX G OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in '15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
'15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
-2-
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
b) Strong seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
-3-
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
2b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
-4-
RECREATION.
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that
it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 2313 Poppy Drive Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
Request: Design Review for a major renovation and a second story addition and a Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope.
Applicant and Architect: Jonathan James, William Wood Architects APN: 027-163-160
Property Owner: Edward Cho Lot Area: 5,280 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in
an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Project Description: The existing house is single story with a detached garage. There is an existing 294
SF storage room attached to the garage was approved by Special Permit in 1999. There are two City-
owned rights-of-way adjacent to the property, a 10-foot wide access lane to the right of the property and a
6-foot wide sewer line right-of-way at the rear of the property.
The applicant proposes a major renovation and first and second story additions to the existing house. The
total proposed floor area is 3,088 SF (0.38 FAR), where 3,190 SF (0.60 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including ceiling heights greater than 12 feet and covered porch and lower level exemptions).
The width of the property narrows from 52 feet at the front of the property to a width of 43 feet at the rear of
the property. The right side walls of the existing house are not parallel to the side property line; the side
setback to the first floor is 5'-4" at the front of the house and 2'-11" at the rear of the house. The setback to
the proposed second floor also varies, with a 5' -2 ½ " setback at the front of the house and a 4'-8" setback
at the rear of the house. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to allow the proposed second floor to
encroach into the Declining Height Envelope by 141 SF on the right side.
The proposed addition will increase the number of potential bedrooms on site from 3 to 5. The existing
detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (18' x 18') and there is a single uncovered parking
space (9' x 20') in the driveway leading to the garage. The three existing parking spaces meet the code
requirements for on-site parking for a 5-bedroom house. The attached 294 SF storage area adjacent to the
garage will be removed. There is existing attic storage, accessed by a pull-down ladder, above the parking
spaces in the garage that is being retained. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The
applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and
Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)).
2313 Poppy Drive
Lot Area: 5,280 SF Plans date stamped: January 28, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
19'-11"
---
No change
25'-7"
16'-8" (the block average)
20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
12'-0"
2'-11" *
14'-10"
4'-2"
4'-0"
4'-0"
Item No. 8a
Regular Action
Design Review and Special Permit 2313 Poppy Drive
-2-
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
35'-10"
---
24'-8"
35'-10"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,077 SF
39%
1,982 SF
38%
2,112 SF
40%
FAR: 2,031 SF
0.38 FAR
3,088 SF
0.58 FAR
3,190 SF 1
0.60 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 5 ---
Parking:
2 covered
(18' x 18')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
No change
2 covered
(18' x 18')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 23'-11" 29'-8 1/2 " 30'-0"
DH Envelope: --- 141 SF encroachment
on the right side 2
Special Permit requested per
CS 25.26.035,c
* Existing, non-conforming right side setback.
¹ (0.32 x 5,280 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,190 SF (0.60 FAR)
² Special Permit requested for 141 SF encroachment on the right side.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division,
Parks Division, and Stormwater Division.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on January 26,
2015, the Commission asked for several construction details for the proposed project and suggested some
minor changes to the design. The Commission voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when
all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached January 26, 2015
Planning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped January 28, 2015, to address the
Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Listed below are some of the Planning Commission’s
comments and the applicant’s responses. Please refer to the minutes included in the staff report for a
complete list of Planning Commission questions and comments.
1. The deep recessed windows are critical to the design; a schematic wall detail should be included
in the plans;
▪ See Sheet A-5 for the window and sill detail.
2. Provide a detail of the roof flashing to show that it will not be visible;
▪ See Sheet A-4.
3. Please clarify the window type- will they be Anderson vinyl-clad or aluminum-clad wood?
▪ The elevations and response letter call out the windows as aluminum-clad wood with simulated true
divided lites.
Design Review and Special Permit 2313 Poppy Drive
-3-
4. The landscaping in the front yard looks bare. Can you add a small or medium-size tree?
▪ A Crape myrtle has been added to the front setback.
5. The applicant should consider a covered porch element at the front, left side of the house- the
office room could be made smaller to accommodate this feature.
▪ After consideration, the owner has elected to keep the floor plan as originally proposed. Please see
the letter of explanation for full details.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by
the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that
the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition
are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure
or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is
proposed is appropriate.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public
testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings
supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 28, 2015, Sheets CS1, A1 through A11, L1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey;
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);
Design Review and Special Permit 2313 Poppy Drive
-4-
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 Engineering Division's September 29, 2014 memo, the Building Division's
September 29 and December 10, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's October 31, 2014 memo, the
Fire Division's September 29, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Division's October 9, 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 project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
Design Review and Special Permit 2313 Poppy Drive
-5-
c. Jonathan James, applicant and architect
Attachments:
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments
Minutes from January 26, 2015, Design Review Study Meeting
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Form
Staff Comments
Photographs of Neighborhood
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 30, 2015
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
1512 Ralston Avenue
Item No. 8b
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Negative Declaration and Design Review
Address: 1512 Ralston Avenue Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
Request: Application for Negative Declaration and Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc. APN: 028-285-030
Property Owners: Jim and Pei Lu Lot Area: 7,962 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review : An application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new two-story
single family dwelling at this site was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2014. At that
time, the Commission continued the item with direction to the applicant. Since then, the property sold and that
application was withdrawn.
The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were
submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire
Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have
historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing
on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these
subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being
proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or
California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 1, 2012.
The results of the evaluation concluded that 1512 Ralston does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in
the National or California Registers under any criteria.
Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. Based
on the analysis by Page and Turnbull, it was determined that there would be no adverse environmental impacts,
and a Negative Declaration has been prepared (see attached ND-580-P).
The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the
initial study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and
Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental
impact.
Project Description: The subject property is located on Ralston Avenue, adjacent to Public Parking Lot H at the
corner of Ralston Avenue and El Camino Real. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single story
house to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The proposed house and detached
garage will have a total floor area of 4,041 SF (0.50 FAR) where 4,048 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 7 SF below the maximum allowed
FAR and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR.
A total of three off-street parking spaces are required for a five-bedroom house, two of which must be covered.
The proposed detached garage provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces (20’ x 20’ clear interior
dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code
requirements have been met.
Item No. 8b
Action Item
Negative Declaration and Design Review 1512 Ralston Avenue
2
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Negative Declaration, a determination that there are no significant environmental effects as a result of
this project; and
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1)).
1512 Ralston Avenue
Lot Area: 7,962 SF Plans date stamped: January 15, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
28'-0”
40'-6”
27'-9” (block average)
27'-9”
Side (left):
(right):
10'-0"
4’-0” to 5’-6”
4'-0"
4’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
70’-1”
68’-1”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2624 SF
32.9%
3185 SF
40%
FAR: 4041 SF
0.50 FAR
4048 SF 1
0.50 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Parking: 2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 27’-3” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: window enclosure exemption along
left side (CS 25.26.075 (b) (2)) CS 25.26.075
1 (0.32 x 7,962 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,048 SF (0.50 FAR)
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 January 12,
2015, the Commission had several comments and suggestions concerning the proposed project (see attached
January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted a response letter dated January 21, 2015 and revised plans date stamped January 15,
2015 to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s
response letter for a summary of changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s concerns.
Negative Declaration: Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, the proposed project is
subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an
environmental scoping session for this project on January 12, 2015. An Initial Study was prepared by the
Planning Division staff. It has been determined that the proposed project can be covered by a Negative
Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts from the proposed construction of the new
single family dwelling and detached garage (please refer to the attached Negative Declaration No. 580-P). The
Negative Declaration was circulated for 20 days for public review on January 20, 2015. The 20-day review period
Negative Declaration and Design Review 1512 Ralston Avenue
3
ends on February 9, 2015; as of the printing date of this staff report (February 2, 2015), no comments have been
submitted on the Negative Declaration.
Required Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review
and approve the Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in
writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
(negative) effect on the environment.
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.
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 and within the Negative
Declaration. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution including
conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be
clearly stated.
1. Negative Declaration.
2. Design Review.
At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 15, 2015, sheets A.1 through A.6, N.1, L1.0, L2.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 5, 2014 and October 24, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s December 12, 2014 and October 31, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s October 28,
2014 memo, the Fire Division’s October 30, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 8,
2014 and October 29, 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;
Negative Declaration and Design Review 1512 Ralston Avenue
4
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;
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. James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer
Jim and Pei Lu, property owners
Negative Declaration and Design Review 1512 Ralston Avenue
5
Attachments:
Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, dated January 21, 2015
January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 31, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-580-P), dated January 20, 2015
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 1, 2012
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 12, 2015
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, perhaps 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 intentionally 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 Laurel that is not accepted by the City Arborist, as it
may carry the sudden oak death fungus that could transfer to nearby Oaks.
>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.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2015
January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2015
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING
THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST
FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED
GARAGE LOCATED AT 1512 RALSTON AVENUE WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as
follows:
Section 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 a Negative Declaration, per Negative Declaration ND-580-P, is hereby
approved.
Section 2. 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 9th day of February, 2015
by the following vote:
Secretary
Secretary
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, APPROVING A
REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW
DETACHED GARAGE AT 1512 RALSTON AVENUE, ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN
THE R-1 ZONE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, an application has been made for Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling
and new detached garage at 1512 Ralston Avenue, Zoned R-1, Jim and Pei Lu, 555 Barbara Way,
Hillsborough, CA, 94010, property owners, APN: 028-285-030;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 9, 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. 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.
2. 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 9th day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review
1512 Ralston Avenue
Effective February 19, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped January 15, 2015, sheets A.1 through A.6, N.1, L1.0, L2.0 and Boundary
and Topographic Survey;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 5, 2014 and October 24, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s December 12, 2014 and October 31, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s October 28, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s October 30, 2014
memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 8, 2014 and October 29, 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 Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review
1512 Ralston Avenue
Effective February 19, 2015
Page 2
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.
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
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame
County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-580-P)
Project Title: 1512 Ralston Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
Project Location: 1512 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Description: The proposal is to construct a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1512
Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 32.9% (2,624 SF) of the 7,962 SF
lot, where 40% (3,185 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 4,043 SF
(0.50 FAR) where 4,048 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The new detached garage will provide two code-
compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house (three off-street parking spaces required for a
five-bedroom house, one of which must be covered). One uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway.
The applicant has applied for Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling.
This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a
Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3,
Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that
properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical
Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that
it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places.
In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby
given of the City’s intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is
prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and
there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on
the basis of an Initial Study, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has
prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California, 94010.
As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on January
20, 2015. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on
February 9, 2015. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination
set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and
factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning
Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial
Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period
described above.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Design Review for a new, two-story single
family dwelling at 1512 Ralston Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been
tentatively scheduled for February 9, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California. Posted: January 20, 2015
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
1512 RALSTON AVENUE
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
1. Project Title: 1512 Ralston Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William Meeker, Community Development Director
(650) 558-7250
4. Project Location: 1512 Ralston Avenue
Burlingame, California 94010
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jim and Pei Lu
1512 Ralston Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
6. General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 028-285-030
8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to construct a new, two-story single family dwelling and
detached garage at 1512 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house and detached garage would
cover 32.9% (2,624 SF) of the 7,962 SF lot, where 40% (3,185 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed.
The house would have a total floor area of 4,043 SF (0.50 FAR) where 4,048 SF (0.50 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The new detached garage will provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces
for the proposed five-bedroom house (three off-street parking spaces required for a five-bedroom
house, one of which must be covered). One uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the
driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling.
This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the
Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame
Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have
historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has
been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision,
in the southern portion of Burlingame west of El Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in
1922) and the garage remain on the property today. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as
neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908.
The area to the west is primarily made up of single family residential properties. However, the
adjacent property to the west contains an existing nonconforming multifamily residential building.
The adjacent property to the east is a public parking lot (Lot H). The Town of Hillsborough lies three
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
blocks to the west of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies one
block to the east of the subject property.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public
agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the
Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
The site currently contains a one-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The proposed project
consists of demolishing the existing single story house and building a new, two-story single family dwelling and
detached garage in its place. The project is subject to residential Design Review to be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 32.9% (2,624 SF) of the
7,962 SF lot, where 40% (3,185 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor
area of 4,043 SF (0.50 FAR) where 4,048 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The height as measured from
average top of curb, will be 27’-3” where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed. The proposed exterior materials
include composition shingle roof, stucco siding, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided
lites, wood window trim and stone veneer at the front of the house. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will
be required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be
directed onto the site.
With the proposed single family dwelling and fifteen new landscape trees, views from surrounding properties
will be minimally impacted. In addition, there are six large existing trees on the adjacent property to the east,
running along the right side property line which will screen the new house from El Camino Real. The
neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are one and two-story dwellings. The proposed
massing of the new two-story single family dwelling will be consistent with the development in this area.
While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site
compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing
houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 – Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010
edition.
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
Site Visit, January, 2015.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion
The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include
active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not
convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a
Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion
The proposed application is to demolish an existing one-story single family dwelling to build a new, two-story
single family dwelling in its place. While this project will accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation,
the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development
and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will
not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the
existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected
wetlands, through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
The subject property is located in a heavily urbanized area which supports no riparian habitat or sensitive
natural communities. The nearest creek segment to the proposed project is an open earth segment of
Burlingame Creek located approximately 200 feet to the south of the site. Burlingame Creek is separated from
the project site by Ralston Avenue and existing single family residential buildings. Therefore, the proposed
project would have no impact on Burlingame Creek.
The site currently contains an existing single family residence and detached garage. There are no existing
landscape trees on the property. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed
with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit
tree, for every 1,000 SF of habitable space. The landscape plan indicates that fifteen landscape trees will be
planted throughout the site. These include two, 36-inch box Victorian Box trees; one, 24-inch box Swamp
Myrtle tree; eleven, 15-gallon Fern Pine trees; and one, 24-inch box Japanese Maple tree. Therefore, the
proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
9
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated December 12, 2014 and October 31, 2014.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 – Zoning, Burlingame, California
Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State
Department of Fish and Game.
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
10
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that
were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the
entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions
may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property
located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant
development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible
for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 1, 2012.
The results of the evaluation concluded that 1512 Ralston does not appear to be individually eligible for listing
in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Those four criterion include Events, Persons,
Architecture and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that
was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.:
“The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National
Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or
evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not
currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally.
Constructed in 1922, the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in
the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence
associated with the development of Burlingame Park, however, the property is one of many residences
constructed between 1905 and the 1930s in this area, and does not have individual distinction within this
historic context. Therefore, the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion
A/1.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
11
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or
California Registers under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people
significant in local, state or national history. Historically, the property was associated with the San Francisco
attorney Theodore Breslauer, as well as his wife, Alice, and daughter Ann B. Adler. Subsequent
owners/residents include a retired nurse; an accountant and his wife; Casey Keating, whose occupation is
unknown; and Rajiv Gujral, a real estate agent and current property owner. None of these owners/residents
appear to be significant to local, state, or national history.
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or
California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The building is a typical example of the residences
constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood in the 1920s and displays architectural features identified
with the Mediterranean Revival style, but it is not a distinctive or prominent example of that style. The
architect and builder are unknown, but it is not likely that the property represents the work of a master.
Furthermore, it does not appear to be an influential or noteworthy example of residential construction in the
neighborhood. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not
appear eligible for listing in under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per
National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically
reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue for eligibility under
California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report.
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue is situated on its original lot within the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and
it therefore retains integrity of location. Though Burlingame Park remains a residential neighborhood
characterized by single-family houses, several buildings in the vicinity of the subject property have been
demolished or heavily altered, and integrity of setting has been compromised. The property has experienced
some alterations, including the partial enclosure of the front porch and reroofing. Despite these changes, it
retains integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. It remains in use as a single-family residence
associated with the development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains integrity of
association. The property retains integrity of feeling as an early twentieth-century residence in the Burlingame
Park neighborhood development. Overall, the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does retain historic integrity, and
conveys contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the early development of the
Burlingame Park neighborhood.
1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California
Registers under any criteria. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned
to 1512 Ralston Avenue, meaning that it was “found ineligible for National Register, California Register or
Local designation through survey evaluation.” This designation is based on the property’s lack of significance
under the California Register eligibility criteria.
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic
district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century
residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole
would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district.”
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
12
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
1512 Ralston Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 1, 2012
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
13
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as
it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
The site is flat and located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential
dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity over 7,000 SF in area. There will be less
seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the new single family dwelling will comply
with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San
Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the
California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
14
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps,
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/, accessed March, 2014.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map
MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 5, 2014 and October 24, 2014.
Project Plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
15
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality
standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its
very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result
in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to
existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative
impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance
for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be
expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG
emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above
the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be
considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG
reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e;
or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include
residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and
equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If
annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project
would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively
significant impact to global climate change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project
meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria,
then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
16
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and
Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family
residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit.
On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed
to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines
(BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality
thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining
information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures.
However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that
these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may
continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the
significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that
project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in
the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are
the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project.
First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA
and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are
lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is
more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this
analysis.
In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the
56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential
development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions.
Climate Action Plan. Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term
solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful
consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major
sources of emissions from Burlingame’s Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include:
energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs.
Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce
emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame’s Green Building
Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1 (15% above Title 24) of the Green Building
Ordinance or LEED Silver shall be accepted as the methods of meeting compliance with this ordinance. By
complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would it conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
17
Sources
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related
Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 12, 2014 and October 24, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
18
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this
project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any
emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known
health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by
the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or
potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site
does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
19
Sources:
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February,
2012.
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
20
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion
The proposed application is to demolish an existing one-story single family dwelling to build a new, two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage in its place. The nearest creek segment to the proposed project is
an open earth segment of Burlingame Creek located approximately 200 feet to the south of the site.
Burlingame Creek is separated from the project site by Ralston Avenue and existing single family residential
buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on Burlingame Creek.
The Public Works Department – Engineering Division requires that all storm drainage from the site, including
roof and surface drainage, be designed to drain towards the street frontage along Ralston Avenue. Storm
drainage from the site would be directed out to the street and would then flow along Ralston Avenue (by
gravity) to El Camino Real, then to a catch basin at the intersection of El Camino Real and Howard Avenue.
This catch basin is connected to 12-inch storm drain main which ultimately directs storm water out to San
Francisco Bay.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
21
This proposed project is a residential infill development project and it is not located adjacent to an open
waterway. The project site is shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 06081C0153E. The site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the
100-year flood zone, and is not a Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone X is described as an area of moderate risk to
flooding (outside of the 100-year flood but inside the 500-year flood limits) (determined to be within the limits
of one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain).
The ground floor of the project (elevation 45.00’) is proposed to be constructed about 2'-1” above average top
of curb (elevation 42.90’). The subject property is relatively flat, and all of the surface water will be required to
drain to the street frontage. As required by the Public Works Department – Engineering Division, roof and
surface water will not be allowed to drain onto adjacent properties. Water will either be absorbed by soft
landscaping or be collected and directed out to the street.
The site is tied into an existing 6-inch water main and an existing storm water collection distribution lines
which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain
to the street. There will be a no increase to the amount of impervious surface area since the entire site is
either covered by buildings or paving, with the exception of the front yard which will continue to be planted
with soft landscaping. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water
conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met.
The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by
groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of
the site is anticipated.
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP’s during
construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance;
compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and
landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter 26.16 – Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame,
California.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood
Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012.
City of Burlingame, Water and Storm Drain Maps, Sheet F6
City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated October 28, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated December 8, 2014 and October 29, 2014.
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
22
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
The subject property is currently occupied by a one-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The
Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame
Ordinance No. 712. This existing lot measures 7,962 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed
subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is
subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the
acres and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.18 acres, a density of 1.46 units per acre. Therefore,
this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements.
The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to
the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding
properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city
limits.
The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result
in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would
be no impact from the project on land use and planning.
The proposed residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code. The Planning
Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
23
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Discussion
According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain
any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
24
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
12. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. There are also some
nonconforming multifamily residential uses in the neighborhood. With the new single family dwelling, there
will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area. The noise in the area will be general
residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the residents when using the
backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new structure will be compliant with current
construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation.
Construction of the proposed single family dwelling will not require pile driving or other significant vibration
causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the
municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International
Airport.
The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible
vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than
significant.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
25
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 5, 2014 and October 24, 2014.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012.
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
26
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses to the north, south and west
and medium high-density to the east. The proposed new single family dwelling conforms to the City of
Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned
land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will not
create any more housing because it is consists of replace an existing single family dwelling with a new single
family dwelling on the same parcel. Since the subject property currently contains a single family dwelling, the
project would not displace existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other
infrastructure is not required for the new single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce
substantial population growth. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
27
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes
replacing an existing single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling on the same parcel, which
represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and
governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the new single family dwelling.
Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which
also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California
Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process,
the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure
compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety
measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety
regulations. A residential fire sprinkler system will be required to be installed in the new single family dwelling.
Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services,
and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project’s potential impact on fire
protection services would be less than significant.
Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located
at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of replacing an existing single family dwelling with a
new single family dwelling in its place. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for
police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project’s potential impact on
police services would be less than significant.
Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for
grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would
not add any additional residential units; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children
would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be
accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
28
The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds,
an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential
units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated October 30, 2014.
City of Burlingame Website, www.burlingame.org
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
29
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
15. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any
proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project
are not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of replacing an
existing single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling in its place, the project would not generate
additional demand for parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
30
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
The site is on Ralston Avenue, a collector street that provides access to El Camino Real, a regional arterial. This
project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local
roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic
or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities.
The existing one-car detached garage will be replaced with a new two-car detached garage for the proposed
five-bedroom house (20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions). Three off-street parking spaces are required
for a five-bedroom house, one of which must be covered. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20')
provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-street parking requirement established in the
zoning code.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February,
2012
Project plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
31
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject
property by an existing 6-inch cast iron pipe along Ralston Avenue. The existing residence is connected to an
existing 6-inch sewer main along Ralston Avenue. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device is
required to be installed. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage, where it will
flow along Ralston Avenue to El Camino Real, then to a catch basin at the intersection of El Camino Real and
Howard Avenue. This catch basin is connected to 12-inch storm drain main which ultimately directs storm
water out to San Francisco Bay. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary
sewer, water and storm drainage systems to accommodate the new single family dwelling. Therefore, the
project’s impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant.
The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to
these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be
installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure
will be checked and replaced if necessary.
The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San
Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain
Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
32
existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable
regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be
required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste
separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the
project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated October 28, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Water, Sewer and Drainage Maps, sheet F6
City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated December 8, 2014 and October 29, 2014.
Recology San Mateo County, www.recologysanmateocounty.com , site accessed January, 2015.
Project Plans date stamped January 15, 2015.
Initial Study 1512 Ralston Avenue
33
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term
increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant
level, as described throughout the Initial Study.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was
conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No
project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed
project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial____________________________________
NRHP Status Code _6Z______________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page _1_ of _12_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ⌧Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999
*c. Address 1512 Ralston Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-285-030
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1512 Ralston Avenue is located on a roughly rectangular-shaped lot measuring 36’ x 70’on the northwest side of Ralston
Avenue, between El Camino Real and Crescent Avenue. Built in 1922, 1512 Ralston Avenue is a one-story, wood-frame,
single-family residence designed in the Mediterranean Revival style. The building is generally rectangular in plan, though the
rear (west) façade is characterized by a series of ten-foot setbacks, with the south façade being 20 feet longer than the north
façade. The front (east) portion of the building is capped by a combination hipped and gabled roof covered with clay tiles, and
the rear (west) portion is capped by a shallow hipped roof of unknown material. The front (east) portion of the building is clad in
stucco, while the rear (west) portion is clad in wood shiplap siding. The foundation is concrete.
The property features a landscaped front yard with brick and concrete walkways. The front yard is defined on its south and east
sides by a stone-faced concrete wall with brick piers. The property is separated from the neighboring residence to the south by
a paved driveway that continues to the rear of the lot, which is paved with brick and concrete that is scored to appear like stone
pavers. The north, west, and part of the south property lines are defined by a tall wood fence. At the northwest corner of the
building, a wood security fence encloses an area roughly 700 square feet in size with a concrete pad and a small garden.
(See continuation sheet.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: ⌧Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View of primary (east) façade,
8/1/2012
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: ⌧historic
1922 (original building permit)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Rajiv Gujral
Rockridge Lending Group, Inc.
3550 Mowry Avenue
Fremont, CA 94538
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc. (JMK & AGC)
1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
*P9. Date Recorded:
August 1, 2012
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter
“none”) None
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map ⌧Continuation Sheet ⌧Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description: (continued)
The primary façade faces east toward Ralston Avenue and is divided into two portions. A water table extends across the entire
façade, which is clad in stucco. The south portion includes a partially enclosed porch with two segmentally-arched openings.
The southern opening has been infilled with a fixed, multi-light wood-frame window with a brick sill below the window frame.
The northern opening leads to the porch, which features a ceramic tile floor and is accessed by brick steps with metal railings.
Beyond the arched opening, two pairs of French doors open onto the porch. The primary entrance faces south onto the porch
and consists of a paneled wood door with circular and segmented round beveled lights. The south portion of the façade
terminates in a molded cornice and the eave side of the clay tile roof. The north portion of the façade features a fixed wood-
frame window flanked by multi-light, wood-sash casement windows with a single continuous wood sill. It terminates in a
molded cornice and the gable end of the clay tile roof.
The south façade faces the driveway and is divided into two portions. The west portion is clad in wood shiplap siding and
features six double-hung, wood-sash windows with lambs tongues and one vinyl replacement window. The west portion
terminates in a wood soffit with a metal gutter that obscures the low-pitched roof above. The east portion projects
approximately two feet to the south and is clad in stucco. It features a stuccoed chimney that widens at the base flanked by
two multi-light, wood-sash casement windows. East of the chimney, a water table extends to the eastern edge of the façade,
where a segmentally-arched opening has been infilled with a pair of multi-light, wood-sash casement windows with a brick sill
below the window frame. The east portion of the façade terminates in a molded cornice and the eave side of the clay tile roof.
The west (rear) façade is clad in wood shiplap siding. It is divided into three portions. The north portion features a partially
glazed and paneled wood door obscured by a metal security gate and two double-hung, wood-sash windows with lambs
tongues. The north portion also features a deck constructed of wood and Trex® components, which is accessed by steps with
railings on the west side. The center portion projects approximately ten feet to the west and features no fenestration openings.
The south portion projects approximately ten feet to the west and contains a set of three double-hung, wood-sash windows
with lamb tongues. The entire façade terminates in a wood soffit with a metal gutter that obscures the low-pitched roof above.
The north façade consists of four portions. The first (easternmost) portion is clad in stucco, and the base of the wall rests on a
raised concrete curb. It features two pairs of multi-light, wood-sash casement windows and a fixed wood-frame window flanked
by multi-light, wood-sash casement windows. It terminates in a molded cornice and the eave side of the clay tile roof. The
second portion continues in the same plane as the first portion. It is clad in wood shiplap siding and features two louvered
vents with wood surrounds and four double-hung, wood-sash windows with lambs tongues. The first and second portions face
a narrow concrete walkway and chain-link fence. The third portion is recessed approximately ten feet and features one double-
hung, wood-sash window with lambs tongues at deck level and a paneled wood door at ground level. The fourth
(westernmost) portion is recessed approximately ten feet and features two double-hung, wood-sash windows with lambs
tongues. The second, third, and fourth portions terminate in a wood soffit with a metal gutter that obscures the low-pitched roof
above.
The interior of the 1512 Ralston Avenue is partitioned into twelve rooms. Typical features include hardwood and linoleum tile
floors, smooth plaster walls with wood base and picture molding, coved ceilings, and built-in cabinetry.
A detached 228-square foot, wood-frame garage stands at the southwest corner of the lot and abuts the south and west
property lines. The garage is clad in wood channel-drop siding and features a one-car sectional garage door on the east
façade. The north and east façades terminate in metal coping. The building is capped by a flat roof.
The house and garage appear to be in good condition.
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
__________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
_____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
__________________________________________________
Page 3 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
South façade, view looking northwest (Page & Turnbull, August 2012).
North façade, views looking east (Page & Turnbull, August 2012).
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
__________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
_____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
__________________________________________________
Page 4 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
North portion of the west (rear) façade, view looking southeast (Page & Turnbull, August 2012).
South portion of west (rear) façade, view looking southeast (Page & Turnbull, August 2012).
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
__________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
_____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
__________________________________________________
Page 5 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
West (rear) façade, view looking east (Page & Turnbull, August 2012).
Detached garage, looking west (Page & Turnbull, August 2012).
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 6 of 12 *NRHP Status Code_6Z_______________________
*Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue
B1. Historic name: Breslauer Residence
B2. Common name: 1512 Ralston Avenue
B3. Original Use: Single-family residence
B4. Present use: Single-family residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Mediterranean Revival
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
1922: Building constructed; ca. 1922-1932: detached garage constructed at northwest corner of lot; ca. 1932-1975: partial
enclosure of front porch; 1984: hot water system (possibly shower) installed; 1986: reroofed; 2001: electrical service.
*B7. Moved? ⌧⌧⌧⌧No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________
*B8. Related Features: Detached garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme_Residential architecture Area Burlingame Park___________________________
Period of Significance _N/A Property Type_Residential_________________Applicable Criteria_N/A
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context:
City of Burlingame
The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by
Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several
prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over
1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to
Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period,
with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations.
In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an
exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-
scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between
large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve
the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (See Continuation Sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
(See Page 9)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Johanna Kahn & Lexie Costic, Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: August 1, 2012
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2012.
Modified by Page & Turnbull.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 7 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
B10. Significance: (continued)
Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903.
However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their
homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses.
Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910
annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Park Neighborhood
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including
Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was
inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to
develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan
for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park.
Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands.
Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan
“centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin
1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The
neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City
of Burlingame in 1911.
Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were
subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded
by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and
Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of
about fifty years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame
experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and the majority of the residences in the neighborhood were
constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, including the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue. Many of these residences were designed in high
architectural styles and were much grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in
Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the
time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. The house at 1512 Ralston
Avenue is a common, but altered, example of the residential building typology constructed in Burlingame Park in the 1920s.
1512 Ralston Avenue
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue was constructed in 1922, according to a building permit issued to Theo Breslauer on 12 April
1922. This construction year is supported by a water meter record dating to15 April 1922. Additionally, an appraisal report dated
10 August 1932 from the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office records the house as being ten years old. Furthermore, the building
does not appear on the 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, and the address was first listed in the Burlingame city
directory in 1924.
Theodore L. Breslauer was the first owner of 1512 Ralston Avenue. Born in 1886, Theodore Breslauer was a general practice
lawyer in San Francisco. He lived in the house with his wife, Alice. According to the Federal Census in 1930 and 1940, the
Breslauers’ daughter, Ann, was also a resident until she married Edward S. Adler and moved to Los Angeles around 1935.
However, Ann B. Adler still appeared in the Burlingame directory as a resident at 1512 Ralston Avenue until 1936. She was also
recorded as the property owner, along with her mother in the1932 appraisal report records. Additionally, a water meter record from
7 March 1942 lists Ann B. Adler as the property owner. Though Theodore Breslauer died in ca. 1940, these records suggest that
ownership of 1512 Ralston Avenue was transferred to his wife and daughter as early as 1932. Alice Breslauer (widowed)
remained a resident at the house until her death on 3 October 1975.
According to a water meter record, 1512 Ralston Avenue was purchased by Walter C. Sjostrom, an accountant and longtime
resident of Burlingame, as early as March 1975. Linda Summers, a retired private-family nurse and citizen of Burlingame since ca.
1940, was a resident in the house from 1975 to 1980. Though building permits issued in 1984 and 1986 also record Walter
Sjostrom as the property owner, it is unknown whether he resided at the address. Ana T. Sjostrom was also listed as an owner in
a 2012 real estate advertisement.
Casey Keating was recorded as the property owner and resident at 1512 Ralston Avenue in a building permit issued in December
2001 for electrical services. (See Continuation Sheet)
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 8 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
B10. Significance (cont’d):
The chain of title for 1512 Ralston Avenue could not be followed in its entirety. However, records from the Burlingame Historic
Society and the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office confirm the following people as owners (listed with approximate dates of
ownership):
Theodore L. Breslauer (12 April 1922 - ca. 1931)
Alice Breslauer and Ann Breslauer (a.k.a. Ann Adler) (1932 -1975)
Walter C. Sjostrom (Ana T. Sjostrom) (ca. 1975 -unknown)
Casey Keating (2001 -unknown)
Rajiv Gujral (2012-present)
Former known residents include the following (owners are underlined):
1922 - 1939: Theodore L. Breslauer (attorney, San Francisco), Alice and Ann Breslauer
1932 - 1975: Alice Breslauer and Ann B. Adler (Breslauer)
1977 - 1980: Linda Summers
2001: Casey Keating
Additions and Alterations
A 1932 appraisal report from the Burlingame City Hall of Records describes 1512 Ralston Avenue as a stucco, wood, and
concrete building with a Spanish tile roof. The appraisal includes a sketch of the lot and building footprint, including a detached
garage and a 7’ x 14’ open porch at the front of the house. All building measurements and exterior finishes appear consistent with
the property’s current conditions. From this report, it can be inferred that the front porch was partially enclosed at a later, unknown
date.
On 5 May 1984, a combination building and plumbing permit was issued for a domestic hot water system for the estimated cost of
$3,000. Due to the deterioration of the City’s microfilm records, further details regarding the alterations are unavailable. (It is
possible a new, separate shower was installed in the bathroom at this time.) The owner and builder was Walter Sjostrom and the
contractor was Rouse Construction (Building Permit #8056).
On 5 November 1986, a building permit was issued for reroofing for the estimated cost of $2,800. The owner was Walter Sjostrom
and the contractor was Ramirez Roofing (Building Permit #1880).
An electrical permit for the replacement of a 100 Amp panel was issued on 17 December 2001 for an estimated cost of $2,500.
The property owner was Casey Keating and the contractor was listed as Pick Rd (Electrical Permit # 2011590).
Evaluation (Significance):
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore
the property is not listed locally.
Constructed in 1922, the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or
California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does convey
contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, however, the property is
one of many residences constructed between 1905 and the 1930s in this area, and does not have individual distinction within this
historic context. Therefore, the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1.
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers
under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history.
Historically, the property was associated with the San Francisco attorney Theodore Breslauer, as well as his wife, Alice, and
daughter Ann B. Adler. Subsequent owners/residents include a retired nurse; an accountant and his wife; Casey Keating, whose
occupation is unknown; and Rajiv Gujral, a real estate agent and current property owner. None of these owners/residents appear
to be significant to local, state, or national history. (See Continuation Sheet)
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 9 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
B10. Significance: (continued)
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers
under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction. The building is a typical example of the residences constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood in the 1920s
and displays architectural features identified with the Mediterranean Revival style, but it is not a distinctive or prominent example of
that style. The architect and builder are unknown, but it is not likely that the property represents the work of a master. Furthermore,
it does not appear to be an influential or noteworthy example of residential construction in the neighborhood. Therefore, the
property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing in under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and
California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The
analysis of the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Evaluation (Integrity):
The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue is situated on its original lot within the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and it therefore retains
integrity of location. Though Burlingame Park remains a residential neighborhood characterized by single-family houses, several
buildings in the vicinity of the subject property have been demolished or heavily altered, and integrity of setting has been
compromised. The property has experienced some alterations, including the partial enclosure of the front porch and reroofing.
Despite these changes, it retains integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. It remains in use as a single-family residence
associated with the development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains integrity of association. The property
retains integrity of feeling as an early twentieth-century residence in the Burlingame Park neighborhood development. Overall, the
house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does retain historic integrity, and conveys contextual significance as a single-family residence
associated with the early development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood.
Conclusion
1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria.
The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to 1512 Ralston Avenue, meaning that it was
“found ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation.” This designation is
based on the property’s lack of significance under the California Register eligibility criteria.
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory
inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study.
Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as
a historic district.
*B12. References:
- 1512 Ralston Avenue, historic photographs: 1975. Burlingame Historical Society Archives.
- Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.
- Building Permit Records, 1512 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame, CA.
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Carey & Company. “Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” February 19, 2008.
- Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
ca. 2004.
- Evans, Beverley L., ed. Burlingame: Lively Memories- a Pictorial View. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977.
- Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007.
- McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
- Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City.
- “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” July 26, 1982.
- United States Federal Census records: 1930, 1940.
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 10 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Historic Maps and Photographs:
1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with the location of 1512 Ralston Avenue shown in red;
edited by author. Note the parcel was vacant.
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 11 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1512 Ralston Avenue shown in red; edited by
author.
State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 12 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
1512 Ralston Avenue in 1975 (Burlingame Historical Society).
1512 Ralston Avenue in 1978 (Burlingame Historical Society).
PROJECT LOCATION
1516 Howard Avenue
Item No. 8c
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1516 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
Request: Application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Mark Robertson, Mark Roberston Design APN: 028-291-040
Property Owner: 1516 Howard LLC Lot Area: 7,057 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review : The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based
upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 5, 2014.
The results of the evaluation concluded that 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for
listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria.
Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. Based
on the analysis by Page and Turnbull, it was determined that there would be no adverse environmental impacts,
and a Negative Declaration has been prepared (see attached ND-579-P).
The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the
initial study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and
Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental
impact.
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and
attached single-car garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The
proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,603 SF (0.51 FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53
FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 155
SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 4.1% of the maximum allowed FAR.
A total of three off-street parking spaces are required for the proposed five-bedroom house, two of which must
be covered. The new detached garage will provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces; 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 applications:
Negative Declaration, a determination that there are no significant environmental effects as a result of
this project;
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1));
and
Special Permit for declining height envelope (79 SF along the right side of the house extends beyond the
declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075).
As noted above, the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the
right side of the house. The point of departure for the declining height envelope is based on the average of the
front and rear property corner spot elevations at each side (cannot be based on the 15-foot front and rear
Item No. 8c
Action Item
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
2
setback lines because the difference between these two points is not more than 2’-0”) (Code Section 25.26.075
(b) (4)). Due to the abrupt downward slope caused by an existing creek running along the rear of the lot, the
point of departure for the declining height envelope at each side of the house is approximately four feet below
the finished floor of the house. As a result, the right side of the house extends 79 SF beyond the declining
height envelope.
1516 Howard Avenue
Lot Area: 7,057 SF Plans date stamped: December 16, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
19'-3”
27'-8”
19'-3” (block average)
20'-0”
Side (left):
(right):
12'-0"
4’-0”
4'-0"
4’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
54’-9” to porch
54’-9” to balcony
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2411 SF
34.1%
2823 SF
40%
FAR: 3603 SF
0.51 FAR
3758 SF 1
0.53 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 26’-6” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Request for Special Permit ²
(79 SF extends beyond the declining
height envelope)
CS 25.26.075
1 (0.32 x 7,075 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR)
² Request for Special Permit for declining height envelope (79 SF along the right side of the house extends
beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that Burlingame Creek runs along the rear of the property. There
are no improvements proposed beyond the top of bank. As part of the building permit application, the applicant
will be required to provide engineering calculations to demonstrate that the will be no impacts to the bank or
creek. 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 24,
2014, the Commission had several comments and suggestions concerning the proposed project (see attached
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans dated December 16, 2014 to address the Planning
Commission’s comments and suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter for a summary of
discussions with the neighbors and changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s concerns.
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
3
Negative Declaration: Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, the proposed project is
subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an
environmental scoping session for this project on November 24, 2014. An Initial Study was prepared by the
Planning Division staff. It has been determined that the proposed project can be covered by a Negative
Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts from the proposed construction of the new
single family dwelling and detached garage (please refer to the attached Negative Declaration No. 579-P). The
Negative Declaration was circulated for 20 days for public review on January 20, 2015. The 20-day review period
ends on February 9, 2015; as of the printing date of this staff report (February 2, 2015), no comments have been
submitted on the Negative Declaration.
Required Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review
and approve the Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in
writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
(negative) effect on the environment.
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.
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.
This space intentionally left blank.
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
4
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report and within the Negative
Declaration. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution including
conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be
clearly stated.
1. Negative Declaration.
2. Design Review.
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
December 16, 2014, sheets 1 through 7, L0 and L1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s November 6, 2014, October 24, 2014 and September 15,
2014 memos, the Parks Division’s October 29, 2014 and September 18, 2014 memos, the Engineering
Division’s November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014 memos, the Fire Division’s September 15, 2014
memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 27, 2014 and September 4, 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 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;
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
5
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. Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, dated December 16, 2014
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 31, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-579-P), dated January 20, 2015
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 5, 2014
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.1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Environmental Review, Design
Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design,
applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum reported that he spoke with Debbie
Way at 1521 Howard Avenue and the Gallagher Family at 1517 Howard Avenue. Chair Bandrapalli
reported that she met with the renters of the house. There were no other ex -parte communications to
report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
-None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
-Concerned about the placement of the driveway and the impact upon a significant street tree. Could
the driveway be flipped? Also, could a different front -yard tree be proposed than the species for the
street tree? (Robertson - the landscape architect felt that the tree is overgrowing its location and
affecting the sidewalk that will need to be replaced. Two replacement will be installed, can increase to
24-inch box size.)
-On the East Elevation, there are three windows on the first floor that are stepping down, can you line
these up so the sill heights are the same? (Roberston - yes.)
-Questioned the height of the chimney, why does it need to be so high? (Robertson - it is a
wood-burning fireplace and needs to comply with building code requirements.)
-Asked if a more substantial front porch was considered? (Robertson - house is located close to El
Camino Real and for concerns with traffic and safety, the owner didn't want that type of feature.) House
could benefit from a more substantial element of this sort.
-Feels the architecture fits in quite well with the neighborhood. However, wonders if the massing
could be broken down a bit more, especially on the West Elevation.
-Speak to the client about adding a more substantial porch feature, would soften the house.
-Suggested sharing the plans with the neighbors.
Public comments:
Cathy Schmidt, 1512 Howard Avenue:
-Feels the style fits in with the neighborhood.
-Question regarding the declining height envelope and how it is calculated.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2015
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
-Concerned with the proposed massing. The extension into the rear yard will completely block rear
yard with shading.
-There is a creek along the rear yard, not a ditch. The drainage element should influence the size of
the house.
-Would like a chance to speak with the designer and owner.
Amy Papazian, 1520 Howard Avenue:
-A big change is the addition of a driveway along her property.
-Seems like a massive project, especially as it extends toward the rear.
-Her house is a mirror image of the existing home.
-Likes the design; believes it will fit with the neighborhood.
-Concerned that there would be a driveway on both sides of her house, increase in vehicle traffic and
noise down the driveway.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
-There appears to be an error on the development table the staff report with regards to the FAR .
(Hurin - will review and correct.)
-The lot coverage and FAR are less than permitted, but feels like a massive house.
-Feels that there are revisions that need to be made.
-Encouraged revisiting the driveway width to assist in providing landscaping along the neighboring
property to provide privacy; perhaps a Pittosporum hedge can be used since it is fast growing.
-Look closely at adding a porch. Is likely a spec house, so someone buying the house would
understand being so close to El Camino Real, is signing up for urban living.
-Revisit side elevations to break up the massing.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to place this item on the
Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote,
and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2015
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING
THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST
FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 1516 HOWARD AVENUE WILL HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as
follows:
Section 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 a Negative Declaration, per Negative Declaration ND-579-P, is hereby
approved.
Section 2. 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 9th day of February, 2015
by the following vote:
Secretary
Secretary
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, APPROVING A
REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 1516 HOWARD AVENUE, ON PROPERTY
SITUATED WITHIN THE R-1 ZONE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, an application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling and new detached garage at 1516 Howard Avenue,
Zoned R-1, 1516 Howard Avenue LLC, 1499 Bayshore Highway #229, Burlingame, CA, 94010,
property owner, APN: 028-291-00;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 9, 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. 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.
2. 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 9th day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review and Special Permit
1516 Howard Avenue
Effective February 19, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped December 16, 2014, sheets 1 through 7, L0 and L1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s November 6, 2014, October 24, 2014 and
September 15, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s October 29, 2014 and September 18,
2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014
memos, the Fire Division’s September 15, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s
October 27, 2014 and September 4, 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 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 Design Review and Special Permit
1516 Howard Avenue
Effective February 19, 2015
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.
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
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame
County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-579-P)
Project Title: 1516 Howard Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
Project Location: 1516 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Description: The proposal is to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and attached garage on
site and to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. The
proposed new structures would cover 34.1% (2,411 SF) of the 7,057 SF lot, where 40% (2,823 SF) is the maximum lot
coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,613 SF (0.51 FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed detached garage located at the rear of the site (20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior
dimensions) would provide two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house; one uncovered parking
space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review and Special Permit for declining
height envelope for a new house.
This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a
Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3,
Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that
properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical
Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that
it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places.
In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby
given of the City’s intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is
prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and
there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on
the basis of an Initial Study, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has
prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California, 94010.
As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on January
20, 2015. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on
February 9, 2015. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination
set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and
factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning
Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial
Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period
described above.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Design Review for a new, two-story single
family dwelling at 1516 Howard Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been
tentatively scheduled for February 9, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California. Posted: January 20, 2015
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
1516 HOWARD AVENUE
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
1. Project Title: 1516 Howard Avenue, New Two-Story Single Family
Dwelling with a Detached Garage
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William Meeker, Community Development Director
(650) 558-7250
4. Project Location: 1516 Howard Avenue
Burlingame, California 94010
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 1516 Howard LLC
1499 Bayshore Highway #229
Burlingame, CA 94010
6. General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 028-291040
8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and
attached garage on site and to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at
1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed new structures would cover 34.1% (2,411 SF) of the
7,057 SF lot, where 40% (2,823 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a
total floor area of 3,613 SF (0.51 FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The
proposed detached garage located at the rear of the site (20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions)
would provide two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house; one uncovered
parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review and
Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new house.
This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the
Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame
Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have
historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has
been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision,
in the southern portion of Burlingame west of El Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built
in 1933) and the garage remain on the property today. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well
as neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908.
The majority of this area is made up of single family residential properties; there is multifamily
development along El Camino Real. The Town of Hillsborough lies three blocks to the south of the
subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies one block to the north of the
subject property.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public
agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the
Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
The site currently contains a two-story single family dwelling and attached garage. The proposed project
consists of demolishing the existing house and garage and building a new, two-story single family dwelling with
a detached garage. The proposed new structures would cover 34.1% (2,411 SF) of the 7,057 SF lot, where 40%
(2,823 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,613 SF (0.51
FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is subject to residential Design Review
and a Special Permit for declining height envelope to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
The height as measured from average top of curb will be 26’-6” where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed. The
house will be set back 19’-3" from the front property line where 19’-3” is the minimum required (based on the
average front setback of the block). Exterior materials on the proposed house include a composition shingle
roof, redwood or cedar shingle siding and wood eave brackets. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will be
required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed
onto the site.
With the proposed new house and three new landscape trees, views from surrounding properties will be
minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are one and two-story
dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area.
While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site
compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing
houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 – Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2013
edition.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
Site Visit, January 12, 2015.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion
The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include
active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not
convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a
Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion
The proposed application is for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage.
While this project will accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is
insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper
adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any
deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures
and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected
wetlands, through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
The site contains an existing single family residence and attached garage. Currently, there are six landscape
trees, ranging in size from 3 inches to 15 inches in diameter, and four fruit trees, for a total of 10 trees on-site.
The applicant is proposing to remove five landscape trees and three fruit trees (eight trees total being
removed), none of which are of a protected size, to accommodate the proposed project. An existing 15-inch
diameter Palm tree at the front of the property and a 7-inch diameter apple tree at the rear of the property,
both located along the right side property line will be retained.
The proposed project includes removing an existing street tree (Flaxleaf Paperbark) located within the City’s
planter strip to accommodate a new driveway apron off Howard Avenue (the existing driveway apron located
on the north end of the lot will be replaced with a new driveway apron on the south end of the lot). In the
Parks Division Memorandums dated September 18, 2014 and October 29, 2014, the Parks Supervisor notes
that the owner must apply for and receive approval of a Tree Work Plan Permit to remove the existing street
tree. In addition, the applicant will be required to remove the existing concrete within the City’s planter strip
and install two, 15-gallon trees of a species approved by the Parks Division.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
9
In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is
required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of
habitable space. Based on the proposed floor area, a minimum of three landscape trees are required on-site.
The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape
plan indicates that the four new landscape trees will be planted throughout the site, including one 24-inch box
size Lagerstroemia indica ‘Tuscarora’ (Crape Myrtle) tree, one 24-inch box size Magnolia grandiflora ‘Samuel
Sommer’ (Magnolia) tree, one 24-inch box size Sapium sebiferum (Chinese tallow) tree and one, 24-inch box
size Pyrus calleryana ‘Chanticleer’ (Callery pear) tree.
Burlingame Creek is located along the rear property line of the subject property. There is no work proposed to
Burlingame Creek and the nearest construction is a new detached garage which does not extend beyond the
top of bank. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Burlingame’s Engineering Division will require
that a licensed engineer provide engineering calculations to demonstrate that there will be no impacts to the
creek or banked slope.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated October 29, 2014 and September 18, 2014.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 – Zoning, Burlingame, California
Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State
Department of Fish and Game.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
10
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that
were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the
entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions
may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property
located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant
development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible
for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., and dated August 5,
2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Those four criteria include Events, Persons, Architecture
and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was
conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.:
“The residence at 1516 Howard Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not
appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record
of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of
Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed
locally.
Constructed in 1933, 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National
or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California
or the United States. The house is associated with the 1920s to 1930s construction boom in Burlingame Park,
but it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. The property therefore does
not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion
A/1.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
11
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register
under Criterion B/2 (Persons). None of the residents and none of the owners appear to have contributed to
local or state history and thus do not meet the threshold for significance for historic register inclusion.
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or
California Register under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction. 1516 Howard Avenue is a good example of a single-family Spanish
Colonial Revival-style house. In addition, it was built by Charlie Hammer, who built in the Spanish Colonial
Revival style. The building, however, it is not a distinctive or prominent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival
style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. It therefore appears ineligible for listing in the
California Register under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per
National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically
reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 1516 Howard Avenue for eligibility under
California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report.
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue retains integrity of location and setting. It is situated on its original lot, and
the surrounding neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family houses. The wall that
surrounds the building was constructed in 1987, but it does not significantly impact the setting. Records show
only one exterior alteration to the finish of the flat roof, but the aluminum and other metal sashes of many of
the windows indicate replacements. The exterior wood casings of the windows are still present, however, and
thus mollify the visual impact of the metal sashes. Because the majority of the building’s form, cladding, and
materials appear to be original and building permits do not indicate otherwise, integrity of design, materials,
and workmanship are largely intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early to mid-
twentieth-century residential development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains
integrity of feeling and association. Overall the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic
context.
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any
Criteria. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property,
meaning that it was “found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through
survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic
district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century
residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would
need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district.”
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
1516 Howard Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated
August 5, 2014
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
12
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as
it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
The site is flat and located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential
dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less
seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the new single family residence will comply
with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San
Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the
California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
13
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps,
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/, accessed March, 2014.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map
MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated November 6, 2014; October 24, 2014; September 15,
2014.
Project Plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
14
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality
standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its
very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result
in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to
existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative
impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance
for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be
expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG
emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above
the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be
considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG
reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e;
or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include
residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and
equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If
annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project
would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively
significant impact to global climate change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project
meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria,
then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
15
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and
Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family
residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit.
On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed
to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines
(BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality
thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining
information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures.
However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that
these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may
continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the
significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that
project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in
the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are
the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project.
First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA
and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are
lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is
more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this
analysis.
In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the
56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential
development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions.
Climate Action Plan. Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term
solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful
consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major
sources of emissions from Burlingame’s Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include:
energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs.
Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce
emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame’s Green Building
Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1 (15% above Title 24) of the Green Building
Ordinance or LEED Silver shall be accepted as the methods of meeting compliance with this ordinance. By
complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would it conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
16
Sources
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related
Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated November 6, 2014; October 24, 2014; September 15,
2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this
project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any
emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known
health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by
the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or
potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site
does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
18
Sources:
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February,
2012.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
19
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion
This project includes a new two-story single family dwelling and a new detached garage on the lot. Burlingame
Creek is located along the rear property line of the subject property. The project site is shown on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No.
06081C0153E. The majority of the site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year flood zone.
Zone X is described as an area of moderate risk to flooding (outside of the 100-year flood but inside the 500-
year flood limits) (determined to be within the limits of one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain).
The rear portion of the site containing Burlingame Creek is located in Flood Zone A, which is a Special Flood
Zone Area subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood. The 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood),
also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
There is no work proposed to Burlingame Creek and the nearest construction is a new detached garage which
does not extend beyond the top of creek bank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
20
The ground floor of the project is proposed to be constructed approximately 0'-8” above average top of curb
(elevation 95.33’). The subject property is relatively flat, and all of the surface water will be required to drain
to the street frontage. As required by the Public Works Department – Engineering Division, roof and surface
water will not be allowed to drain onto adjacent properties. Water will either be absorbed by soft landscaping
or be collected and directed out to the street.
The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate
capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street.
Compared to the existing site conditions, the proposed project includes additional landscaping and pervious
paving for the walkways, driveway and patio. As a result, the proposed project would significantly decrease
the amount of impervious surface on the site from 4,175 square feet to 2,411 square feet. Since the site is less
than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water
conservation measures as required by the City will be met.
The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by
groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of
the site is anticipated.
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP’s during
construction.
This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be
determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation
design plans at time of the building permit application.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter 26.16 – Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame,
California.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood
Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012.
City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memoranda dated November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated October 27, 2014 and September 4, 2014.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
21
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
The subject property is currently occupied by a two-story single family dwelling and attached garage and the
proposed project is a two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The Zoning Code requires a
minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing
lot is 7,057 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code
allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre
and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.16 acres, a density of 1.3 units per acre. Therefore, this
proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements.
The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to
the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding
properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city
limits.
The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result
in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would
be no impact from the project on land use and planning.
The proposed residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code. The project is further
subject to single family residential Design Review. The Planning Commission will review the project and
determine compliance with Design Review and Special Permit criteria.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
22
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Discussion
According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain
any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
23
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
12. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. With the proposed single
family dwelling, there will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area. The noise in the
area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the
residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new structure will be
compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise
attenuation.
Construction of the proposed dwelling will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing
construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code,
which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International
Airport.
The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible
vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than
significant.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
24
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated November 6, 2014; October 24, 2014; September 15,
2014.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
25
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed single family
dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent
any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element.
The proposed project will not create any more housing because it replaces an existing single family dwelling on
the same parcel. Since the subject property contains a single family dwelling, the project would not displace
existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not required for the
single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population growth. Thus, there
would be no impact from the project on population and housing.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
26
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes
replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling on the site, which represents an
insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services
in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed residential unit.
Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which
also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California
Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process,
the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure
compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety
measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety
regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection
services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project’s potential impact on fire
protection services would be less than significant.
Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located
at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of replacing single family dwelling with a new single
family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require
the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project’s potential impact on police services would be
less than significant.
Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for
grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would
not add any additional residential units; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children
would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be
accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
27
The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds,
an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential
units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated September 15, 2014.
City of Burlingame Website, www.burlingame.org
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
28
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
15. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any
proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project
are not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of a replacing a
single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling, the project would not generate additional demand for
parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
29
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
The site is on Howard Avenue, a collector street that provides access to El Camino Real, a regional arterial.
This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local
roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic
or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities.
The new dwelling has five potential bedrooms (the office on the first floor qualifies as a bedroom since it
exceeds the minimum standard of being at least 70 SF in area and with a minimum dimension of at least 7’-0”).
Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The proposed detached garage
(20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom
house. One uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-street
parking requirement established in the zoning code.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
30
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February,
2012
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
31
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject
property by an existing 12-inch cast iron pipe along Howard Avenue. The proposed residence will be
connected to an existing 8-inch sewer main along Howard Avenue. To prevent flooding a backflow
prevention device is required to be installed. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street
frontage, where it will flow along Howard Avenue to a catch basin at the intersection of Howard Avenue and El
Camino Real. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and
storm drainage systems to accommodate the new house. Therefore, the project’s impact to wastewater
treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant.
The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to
these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be
installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure
will be checked and replaced if necessary.
The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San
Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain
Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by
existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable
regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
32
Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be
required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste
separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the
project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated October 27, 2014 and September 4, 2014.
Recology San Mateo County, www.recologysanmateocounty.com , site accessed January, 2015.
Project Plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
33
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term
increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant
level, as described throughout the Initial Study.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was
conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No
project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed
project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code_____________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page _1_ of _13 Resource name(s) or number 1516 Howard Avenue
P1. Other Identifier: 1516 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date: 1999
*c. Address 1516 Howard Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 028-291-040
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1516 Howard Avenue is a split level two-story 1,362 sq. ft. residential building located on an approximately 7 ,340 sq. ft. lot on the
west side of Howard Avenue, between El Camino Real and Crescent Avenue. The building has a rectangular plan and was built in
1933 in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The house is a wood frame building over a concrete foundation and clad in painted
stucco. All windows in the building have metal sashes and are surrounded by exter ior wood casings. The majority of the building is
capped by a flat roof which is visible only on the north and rear (west) façades (Figure 1 & Figure 8). The top edge of the flat-
roofed portion features a trim of red terracotta tile. At the front, the main entrance, and at the rear, the building features gabled and
shed roofs, all of which are covered in rounded terracotta tiles.
The primary (east) façade faces toward Howard Avenue and is comprised of three volumes with varied setbacks and heights. The
south volume is the narrowest and most recessed of the three and is obscured behind the wing wall of the central volume (Figure
2). The narrow south volume is one story, slightly elevated above grade, and contains the main entrance. The main entrance is
comprised of a wood slab v-joint door with brass hardware (Figure 3).The entrance is set within a south-facing wall and is
accessed via a small porch. Roughly hewn multi-colored stone steps lead to the porch, and the porch floor is covered in the same
material. The steps have a wrought iron banister. The south wall of the porch contains a wrought iron railing and a corner column
that supports the roof (Figure 2 & Figure 4). The west wall of the porch contains a single-hung window. The porch is capped with
a shed roof. (see continuation sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) R-1: Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View of east façade, facing west,
August 5, 2014
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:
1933 (Appraisal Report, Assessor’s
Office, San Mateo County, dated
January 5, 1934)
*P7. Owner and Address:
1516 Howard Llc
1499 Bayshore Hwy #229
Burlingame, CA, 94010
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
*P9. Date Recorded:
August 5, 2014
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:
none
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description (continued):
The central volume is the widest of the three volumes and closest to the sidewalk. It is one story and comprised of a wing wall with
an archway that opens to the south volume. The central volume also features a glazed arched picture window, inset slightly. Below
the window, are two decorative vents ornamented with miniature spiraled columns. The central volume is capped with an
asymmetrical gable roof. Rising above the single-story central volume, and set far back from the sidewalk, a second story is visible.
One second story window is visible and the second story volume is capped with a shed roof. Brackets support the overhanging
eave of the shed roof.
The north volume is further set back than the central volume and is two stories tall. On the first story, it features a roll-up wood-
panel garage door with glazing. The second story features a balcony that is accessed by a set of double doors , each containing
four windows. The balcony features turned wooden balusters and square corner columns featuring carved diagonal braces that
support the roof. The balcony is capped with a shed roof with exposed rafter tails visible underneath the eave. The soffit of the
balcony is beamed and the ends of the beams are molded (Figure 6).
The south façade has two setbacks. The east end of the façade, which is further set back, contains a tapered chimney that projects
from the façade and is clad in stucco (Figure 5). The east ends of the façade also features two single-hung windows. The west half
of the façade projects to the south and contains three sliding windows. Two of the windows are paired with a shared wood sill.
Above, brackets support the overhanging eave.
The rear (west) façade is divided into three volumes with varied setbacks, shapes, and heights (Figure 7). The south volume is a
single story, rectangular in shape, and contains a slider window. Below the window is a decorative vent with miniature spiraled
columns, identical to the decorative vents on the façade. The central volume has two stories, with the first story elevated
approximately four feet above grade. A porch projects from the central volume and is accessed by non-original steps of a
composite material. The stairway features wrought iron hand rails. The porch features wood board flooring, thick wood corner
columns, and a wood balustrade. The balcony is capped with a shed roof, with exposed wood rafters underneath. The back porch
is accessed from the interior by a set of three doors, each comprised of a large rectangular window framed in wood; and an
additional wood panel door leads into the south volume. The second story of the central bay contains two single-hung windows.
The roofline is capped with a strip of terracotta tile. The north volume contains a wood panel door with a window, as well as a
single-hung window. An angled bay protrudes on the second floor. Each face of the bay contains a single-hung window.
The north façade is two stories tall (Figure 1 & Figure 8). The first story features two single-hung windows. The second story
projects slightly over the first, forming a jetty that features a string of small brackets with an angled profile. The second story
contains five windows. Three of the windows are the same size and are double hung and the remaining two windows are smaller
and appear to be single hung.
The house sits in the front half of the lot and is preceded by an ample front yard (Figure 1). The front yard is surrounded by a 2’
high, non-original stucco wall capped with square tiles. The wall contains an opening to accommodate a concrete path, stamped to
give the impression of laid stone. The path leads to the residence’s main entrance and runs along the south façade to the back
yard (Figure 4). The wall also contains an opening for the driveway which is also capped in stamped concrete. The front yard
contains a Giant Dracaena tree, and the open space between the front porch and the wing wall contains a small foliated tree.
At the back of the building, a paved patio abuts the buildings (Figure 7). The backyard also contains a partially enclosed wood
shed, capped in corrugated metal (Figure 9). A barbecue with a brick chimney is built into the shed. In addition, the back yard also
contains numerous trees, including two citrus trees, a pear tree, an apple tree, and a persimmon tree.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 1. Primary (east) and north facades, viewed facing
southwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 2. Main entrance projecting from the south facade,
viewed facing northwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 3. Main entrance door.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 4. Partial view of the south facade, viewed facing
west. Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 5. South façade, viewed facing northeast.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 6. Balcony on the primary (east) façade.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 7. Rear (west) façade, viewed facing east.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 8. North façade, viewed facing southeast.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 9. Outbuilding in the backyard, viewed facing north.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 5 of 13 *NRHP Status Code__6Z________________________
*Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
B1. Historic name: none
B2. Common name: none
B3. Original Use: Single Family Residence B4. Present use: Single Family Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Style
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
The building was constructed in 1933 by Charlie Hammer of Hammer & Tosch Co., a builder and contractor firm (permit #278;
Appraisal Report, Assessor’s Office, San Mateo County January 5, 1934). There are no early photos of the house, but there are
photos of the neighboring house at 1520 Howard Avenue. 1520 Howard Avenue is a mirror image of 1516 Howard Avenue and is
recorded in the 1954 Real Estate File at the Burlingame Historical Society to have been built by Charlie Hammer (Figure 10-12).
In 1985, the roof of 1516 Howard Street was insulated with polyurethane spray foam (permit #11145), and a letter dating to June
16, 1986 indicates that the insulation may have been redone. In 1987 the 2’ high wall surrounding the front lawn was constructed
(permit #3621). Although no permit has been found regarding the windows, a visual inspection suggests that many, if not all, of the
window sashes have been replaced since the original construction with metal replacement sashes. The stairs at the back porch do
not appear original either, but cannot be dated because associated permits have not been found .
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________
*B8. Related Features: none
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Charlie Hammer
*B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture____________ Area Burlingame Park___________________
Period of Significance ___n/a____ Property Type Single family residence____ Applicable Criteria___N/A______
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context:
City of Burlingame
The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given by
Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several
prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over
1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the U.S. Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to
Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period,
with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations.
In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an
exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small -
scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between
large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve
the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (see continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
(see continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: August 5, 2014
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2014.
N
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 7 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B10. Significance (continued):
Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and S an Francisco in 1903.
However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their
homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses.
Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910
annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was als o annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Park Neighborhood
The house at 1516 Howard was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame
Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by
Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop pla ns
for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive
residential development to be called Burlingame Park.
Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in th e 1890s under Francis Newlands.
Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan
“centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree -lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin
1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The
neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club, and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City
of Burlingame in 1911.
Burlingame Park is bounded by El Camino Real to the northeast; Howard, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the southeast;
Pepper Avenue to the southwest; and Bellevue Avenue to the northwest. Burlingame Par k, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingam e
Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that B urlingame Park developed over
a period of about fifty years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s , and the majority
of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these we re designed in high architectural
styles and were much grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burli ngame
Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was
first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day.
1516 Howard Avenue
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue was constructed in 1933, 28 years after the Burlingame Park neighborhood was first platted in
1905. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicate that the house was built in the later period of the area’s development. In 1921,
about half of the lots within the subdivision had been developed, but by 1949, almost all lots were built out (Figure 13-14).
1516 Howard Avenue was built by Charlie Hammer. A number of residences throughout Burlingame and Hillsborough have been
attributed to Hammer. Most appear to be split-level Spanish Colonial Revival style homes from the 1930s. Hammer also built at
least one Ranch-style home in Hillsborough.
Hammer is listed in the 1925 city directory as a building contractor by profession. He and his wife Frida, lived at 1524 Floribunda
Avenue in Burlingame. By the mid-1930s, he had a development business together with real estate broker, Maurice Tosch of San
Mateo. The business was located across from the train station on Burlingame Square (1090 Burlingame Square) where
Burlingame Realty was located for many years.
Original permit records from 1933 show that the owner of 1516 Howard Avenue was Mrs. A. Sanguinette. An alternative spelling is
listed on the property card, listing the owner as Annunziata Sanguinetti, married to Attilio Sanguinetti, noting that they resided in
San Francisco. Ms. Sanguinette/Sanguinetti owned the property until 1935, and during her ownership, the building was vacant. In
1935, Jerome and Sarah Gordon occupied the building.
City directories show them to have lived in the residence
until 1949, and the Property Index Card indicates that
Jerome Gordon owned the home until that year. Jerome
Gordon was a salesman in the wholesale butcher
industry, and, according to the U.S. Census, he was born
in the United States in 1930 or 1931 to Swedish parents.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 8 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
The city directory indicates that beginning in 1950 or 1951, R.D. Blake Jr. occupied the house until 1953. No information is
available about this person. From 1953 until 1990 or later, the home was occupied by Joe and Kathleen Cammarata. The city
directory indicates that Joe Cammarata was a clerk in a change station. Building permits and property deeds show that the
Cammarata family owned the building from at least 1961, through 2004. In 2004, the home was sold to KCC Management; in 2013,
the home passed to the Shans Lucille L. Trust, Jettas Lorrie Trust, and Rasmussen Terrie Trust; and in 2014 the home passed to
1516 Howard LLC.
Evaluation:
Significance
The residence at 1516 Howard Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic prope rties,
and therefore the property is not listed locally.
Constructed in 1933, 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California
Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the b road
patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house is associated with the.
1920s to 1930s construction boom in Burlingame Park, but it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such
development. The property therefore does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register
inclusion under Criterion A/1.
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion B/2
(Persons). None of the residents and none of the owners appear to have contributed to local or state history and thus do not meet
the threshold for significance for historic register inclusion.
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under
Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, per iod, or method of construction.
1516 Howard Avenue is a good example of a single-family Spanish Colonial Revival-style house. In addition, it was built by Charlie
Hammer, who built in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The building, however, it is not a distinctive or prominent example of the
Spanish Colonial Revival style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. It therefore appears ineligible for listing in the
California Register under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and
California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The
analysis of the house at 1516 Howard Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Pot ential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Integrity
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue retains integrity of location and setting. It is situated on its original lot, and the surrounding
neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family houses. The wall that surrounds the building was
constructed in 1987, but it does not significantly impact the setting. Records show only one exterior alteration to the finish of the flat
roof, but the aluminum and other metal sashes of many of the windows indicate replacements. The exterior wood casings of the
windows are still present, however, and thus mollify the visual impact of the metal sashes. B ecause the majority of the building’s
form, cladding, and materials appear to be original and building permits do not indicate otherwise, integrity of design, materials,
and workmanship are largely intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early to mid- twentieth-century
residential development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, an d therefore retains integrity of feeling and association. Overall the
property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic context.
Conclusion
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any Criteria. The
California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found
ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district, although a
cursory visual inspection of surrounding areas suggests that 1516 Howard Avenue could possibly be a contributor to two potential
districts. The first would consist of single-family residences associated with the early development of the Burlingame Park
subdivision; the second would consist of Spanish Colonial Revival -style homes, of which there is a concentration in the 200 blocks
of Bloomfield and Clarenden roads, and which are also associated with Charlie Hammer. It is beyond the scope of this report to
assess potential districts. Additional research of these areas is necessary to verify their eligibility as historic districts, and it is
recommended that 1516 Howard Avenue be reassessed should any districts be proposed.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B12. References:
- Building Permit Records, 1516 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingame Historical Society
- City of Oakland Planning Department. “Rehab Right How to Rehabilitate Your Oakland House Without Sacrificing Architectural
Assets.” Oakland, CA: city of Oakland. 1980.
- Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
ca. 2004.
- McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
- United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940.
- San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 10 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Images of 1520 Howard Street
Figure 10. 1520 Howard Street (on left), directly south of 1516 Howard Avenue.
Source: Google Maps, August 2014. Edited by author.
Figure 11. 1520 Howard Street (on left), directly south of 1516 Howard Avenue. Viewed facing northwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 12. Real Estate Files of 1520 Howard Street in 1954 (bottom) and 1962 (top).
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 12 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Historic Maps
Figure 13. 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1516 Howard Avenue lot
highlighted in red.
Edited by author.
Figure 14. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1516 Howard Avenue highlighted in red.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 13 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Edited by author.
Historic Drawings
Figure 15. 1934 drawing of 1516 Howard Street,
Source: Appraisal Report – Assessor’s Office – San Mateo County, California.
City of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1448 Laguna Avenue Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Property Owner: Peyling Yap APN: 026-072-280
Designer: Jeff Chow, ICE Design Inc. Lot Area: 3,940 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
History and Proposed Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review for a major
renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1448 Laguna Avenue,
zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 10, 2014 (see attached March 10, 2014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in May 2014 and construction is
complete.
Upon inspection of the final construction, Planning staff identified a number of as-built change to the project
which were not reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant is now requesting an
Amendment to Design Review for several as-built changes throughout the house and garage. Please refer to
the attached letters submitted by the property owner, dated January 16, 2015 and designer, dated January 28,
2015 for a complete detailed explanation of the as-built changes.
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider an option to add a wood trellis above the
Living Room window at the front of the house, if commissioners feel it necessary to mitigate the changes at the
front of the house (see Proposed “Option A”, second sheet A3.1 in revised plan set).
As noted in the explanation letter, the roof pitch changed from 6:12 to 7:12, which caused the overall building
height to increase by 1’-0”, from 27’-11” to 28’-11” above average top of curb. A roof ridge survey was prepared
by Kavanagh Engineering, which confirms this height (see attached).
Project Description (based on original approval): The application included a major renovation and first and
second floor additions at the front and rear of the existing house. With the approved project, the floor area
increased from 1,838 SF (0.46 FAR) to 2,234 SF (0.56 FAR) where 2,635 SF (0.67 FAR) is the maximum
allowed (401 SF below the maximum allowed FAR).
W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms increased from two to three. Two parking spaces, one of
which must be covered, were required on site. The existing detached garage complies with current code
standards for a covered parking space (13’-10” wide x 18’-3” deep, clear interior dimensions provided where 10’
x 18” is the minimum required for existing garages). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the
driveway. The following application was approved by the Planning Commission on March 10, 2014:
Design Review for a major renovation and first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS
25.57.010 (a) (2)).
Item No. 8e
Action Item
Design Review Amendment 1448 Laguna Avenue
2
1448 Laguna Avenue Lot Size: 3,940 SF
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 24’-7” 17’-6” 17'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr): 24’-7” 20’-0” 20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
16'-5½"
9’-10½”
15'-1½" (2nd floor bay)
9’-10½”
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
18’-4½”
24’-1½”
15’-0”
20’-0”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1238 SF
31.4%
1425 SF
36.1%
1576 SF
40%
FAR: 1838 SF
0.46 FAR
2234 SF
0.56 FAR
2635 SF 1
0.67 FAR
# of bedrooms: 2 3 ---
Parking: 1 covered
(13’-10” x 18’-3”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
no change
1 covered
(10' x 18' for existing)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 27’-11” 27’-11” (original)
28’-11” (as-built) 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
¹ (0.32 x 3,940 SF) + 1,100 SF + 274 SF = 2,635 SF (0.67 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the originally approved application from the Building, Parks, Fire,
Engineering 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
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
This space intentionally left blank.
Design Review Amendment 1448 Laguna Avenue
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 16, 2015, sheets A1.0, A1.1, A2.1, A3.1 and A3.2;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 6, 2013, January 14 and January 23, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s January 6, January 15 and January 21, 2014 memos, Engineering
Division’s December 17, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 16, 2013 memo and the Stormwater
Division’s December 9, 2013 and January 16, 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 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;
Design Review Amendment 1448 Laguna Avenue
4
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Peyling Yap, applicant and property owner
Jeff Chow, designer
Attachments:
Applicant’s Explanation Letter, dated January 16, 2015
Designer’s Explanation Letter, dated January 28, 2015
Roof Ridge Survey Prepared by Kavanagh Engineering, date stamped January 28, 2015
March 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission from Previously Approved Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments from Previously Approved Application
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 31, 2015
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
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 Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling at 1448 Laguna Avenue, Zoned R-1, Peyling Yap, 248 3rd Street #840, Oakland,
CA, 94607, property owner, APN: 026-072-280;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 9, 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to
existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in
an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby
approved.
2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment 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 9th day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1448 Laguna Avenue
Effective February 19, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped January 16, 2015, sheets A1.0, A1.1, A2.1, A3.1 and A3.2;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 6, 2013, January 14 and January
23, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s January 6, January 15 and January 21, 2014
memos, Engineering Division’s December 17, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December
16, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 9, 2013 and January 16, 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 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 f rom 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 Amendment.
1448 Laguna Avenue
Effective February 19, 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 project architect or residential
designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
PROJECT LOCATION
1217 Burlingame Avenue
Item No. 8f
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Commercial Design Review
Address: 1217 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: February 9, 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.
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions,
plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review.
Summary: The applicant is proposing 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 proposed application consists of installing a new polished white metal framed storefront window and
door system below the wood trim on the ground floor. The existing wood framed transom windows (with
textured glass), currently divided into three sections, would be replaced with wood framed transom windows
(with clear glass) divided into five sections to match the original design of the building (see attached
photographs and discussion under ‘Study Meeting’ section on the page 2 of the staff report). 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.
Item No. 8f
Action Item
Commercial Design Review 1217 Burlingame Avenue
Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on January 26, 2015, the
Commission had several comments regarding the proposed application (see attached January 26, 2015
Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission suggested that the transom windows be brought back to
match the original design of the building. The Commission expressed a concern with the location of the wall
sign, noting that it is high and not to human scale, and that a blade sign should be considered instead. The
Commission also asked if the existing maroon ceramic tile on the column, which is in poor condition, could
be replaced.
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated January 30, 2015 to address the
Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Based on photographs provided by the Historical
Society (attached), the original building consisted of transom windows with grids, with five transom windows
over each of the end tenants and six transom windows over the center tenant. Originally, all of the windows
on all floors of the front façade contained grids, however these windows have been replaced without grids
over time. To be consistent with the original building design, the applicant is proposing to replace the
existing transom windows (currently divided into three sections) with wood framed transom windows (with
clear glass) divided into five sections. However the designer is not proposing grids since none of the
existing windows on the front facade of the building contain grids.
The applicant notes that the existing ceramic tile on the columns will be surface cleaned, holes filled and
patched. In addition, the tile located in the return to the storefront will be stripped of paint and returned to its
original condition as closely as possible.
Regarding signage, the applicant notes that a wall sign will be not installed as previously shown above the
transom windows, but rather the applicant will use the existing blade sign support to add a new blade sign
for the business.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652
adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows:
1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas;
2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use
of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate
street frontages;
3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development;
4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby;
5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent
among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original
architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area;
and
6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
Commercial Design Review 1217 Burlingame Avenue
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 30, 2015, sheets P1 through P4;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 8, 2015 and December 17, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s January 12, 2015 and December 17, 2014 memos, the Fire Division’s
December 16, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 16, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be req uired to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. that 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;
8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
9. 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:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and
Commercial Design Review 1217 Burlingame Avenue
11. 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. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated January 30, 2015
January 26, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Photograph of original building façade, submitted by the Burlingame Historical Society
Email submitted by Jennifer Pfaff, dated January 23, 2015
Application to the Planning Commission
Applicant’s Letters of Explanation, dated December 9, 2014
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 31, 2015
Aerial Photo
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 26, 2015
d.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
1217 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1217 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1217 Burlingame Ave - Recvd After 1
Attachments:
Ex-Parte Communications:
There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Site Visits:
All Commissioners had visited the subject site.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that an email was received
after the staff report was published.
Questions of staff:
None.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant:
>Facade change.
>Just received copy of letter from Historical Society. Some of the elements mentioned in letter will be
moving in direction already. Transom window will be replaced.
>Adjacent Sole Desire space is vacant, will be rented. Wood panel over the transom windows on that
space likely to be removed. Would be relatively easy over time to restore lower facade of entire building .
Would depend on tenant; this tenant is in agreement to restore transom windows.
>Newspaper article shows 16 spaces in transom window. Could try to match that configuration.
>Wants lots of glass on storefront, as much as structure would allow given narrow space. In historic
photos looks like glass extends up to transom windows already. Will leave existing wooden door leading
up to upstairs residential space.
Commission comments/questions:
>Should bring transom windows back to original design. On storefronts typically keep traditional
configuration above the trim or awning line, but can be more flexible with storefront design below trim
line. Still needs to have good human scale at storefront level.
>The datum is the trim level that extends across all three storefronts.
>Why are the transom windows being replaced? (Meyer: They have textured glass that obscures
most of the light. Will try to duplicate original transom design including wood material.)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Is the neighboring space leased? Would like to see the two proposals together. Having the two
spaces restored could be good publicity for the owner.
>Existing sign is very high; sign in new design would be even higher. Does not seem to be human
scale.
>Mingalaba awning and signage is very busy, would want this to be simpler and have more of a retail
character. (Meyer: No awning is being proposed for this space. Could consider a blade sign.)
>Existing maroon ceramic tile is in poor condition. Would it be possible to replace it? (Meyer: Tile on
right side wraps around into the adjoining doorway. On left side the tile is painted over.) Maybe just clean
it and reseal.
Public comments:
None.
Commission discussion:
No further discussion.
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, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2015
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND COMMERCIAL 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
Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront at 1217
Burlingame Avenue, Zoned R-1, Green Banker LLC, 398 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA, 94010,
property owner, APN: 029-204-040;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 9, 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 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a), interior or exterior
alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, is
hereby approved.
2. Said Commercial Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto. Findings for such Commercial 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 9th day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Commercial Design Review.
1217 Burlingame Avenue
Effective February 19, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped January 30, 2015, sheets P1 through P4;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or
adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 8, 2015 and December 17, 2014
memos, the Engineering Division’s January 12, 2015 and December 17, 2014 memos,
the Fire Division’s December 16, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December
16, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
7. that 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;
8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
9. 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 Commercial Design Review.
1217 Burlingame Avenue
Effective February 19, 2015
Page 2
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; and
11. 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: 1260 California Drive Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
Request: Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage and a new fence.
Applicant: E. James Hannay, Rector Motor Car Company APN: 093-361-010/093-360-999
Property Owner: City and County of San Francisco- Water Dept./San Mateo County Transportation Authority
Lot Area: approx. 5.7 acres
(30,429 SF proposed for use)
General Plan: Service and Special Sales/Office Use Zoning: Unclassified
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15311(b), Class 11- Accessory Structures- consists of
construction, or replacement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or
institutional facilities, including but not limited to: (b) small parking lots.
Background: The Planning Commission approved this site for car storage for Rector Motor Car Company
(Rector) on February 24, 1997. That approval was appealed to the City Council and was upheld at the March 19,
1997 meeting, and the site was utilized for car storage for approximately five years. Most recently the site has
been used as long term parking for the Broadway Commercial Area and is known as Parking Lot T. At a City
Council study session on July 7, 2014 the Council discussed the disposition of Parking Lot T. The applicant was
present at that meeting and the proposal for car storage for Rector was discussed. Council noted that a car
storage use at this location would be acceptable for a limited duration (five years), but councilmembers
expressed concern with the possibility of chain link fencing around the perimeter and expressed a preference for
more attractive fencing given the visible gateway location.
Project Description: The applicant, E. James Hannay of Rector Motor Car Company (Rector), is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit for car storage for approximately 80 vehicles in the parking lot on the northeast corner of
Broadway and California Drive (1260 California Drive). The cars to be stored at this location would include new
inventory as well as cars awaiting repairs from the main dealership located at 1010 Cadillac Way.
The area proposed for car storage would be approximately 63 feet wide by 483 feet long and sits adjacent to the
railroad tracks. The area is owned by two entities, the City and County of San Francisco Water Department and
the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SamTrans). The property has an “unclassified” zoning
designation and in accordance with C.S. 25.12.041, Conditional Use Permit approv al from the Planning
Commission is required for the proposed use.
The applicant has secured a lease with both entities to allow car storage. The area proposed for car storage
would be enclosed with a new perimeter fence along Broadway and California Drive. The proposed fence would
be a 3-rail black, iron fence 6 feet in height. A 20-foot wide access gate is proposed at the north end of the
parking lot. Cars would enter the main lot along California Drive, at the driveway that is across from Juanita
Avenue, and then would enter the dedicated storage area at the north end of the lot. There are five (5) existing
light poles located on the east side of the parking area, adjacent to the tracks, but no additional lighting or other
improvements are proposed.
There will be no customers on-site; all cars would be shuttled to the main Rector location at 1010 Cadillac Way.
The applicant anticipates that there would be 10 to 15 cars moved to and from this location per day. Employees
would walk from the main location to the proposed storage site. There would be no deliveries of new cars at this
location. New cars would continue to be delivered to the dealership a t 1010 Cadillac Way and then would be
driven to the storage site.
The applicant is requesting the following application:
Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage and a new fence on property zoned “unclassified” (C.S.
25.12.041).
Item No. 8g
Regular Action
Conditional Use Permit 1260 California Drive
-2-
Staff Comments: The Public Works Department, Engineering Division, notes in their January 30, 2015 memo
that vehicle shuttles to and from the proposed location would be prohibited during peak commute hours (7:00
a.m.- 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.). See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division,
Engineering Division, and Stormwater Division.
Planning staff would note that because of the nature of the request to utilize an existing parking lot for car
storage, and because the proposed use was recently discussed by the applicant and City Council at the July 7,
2014 Study Session, it was determined that this request could b e brought forward directly as an Action Item. If
the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be continued for further study.
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 loca tion, 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 compati ble 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
January 15, 2015, site plan, modified aerial and elevations;
2. that the proposed fence shall be a 3-rail, black iron fence not to exceed a height of 6 feet , as detailed in
the application materials dated January 15, 2015;
3. that the conditions of the Public Works Department-Engineering Division’s January 30, 2015 memo shall
be met;
4. that no cars shall be moved to and from this site between 7:00 a.m.- 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m - 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday;
5. that the site shall be used for car storage only, no car sales, car repair, washing/detailing or other auto
related activity shall be permitted on this site;
6. that no additional lighting or loudspeakers shall be installed or used at this site;
7. that should the lease agreement with the City and County of San Francisco Water Department and /or
San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SamTrans) expire, this use permit shall become void; and
Conditional Use Permit 1260 California Drive
-3-
8. that this approval shall be limited to a 5-year term; the applicant may apply to renew the use permit on or
before February 9, 2020 at which time this use permit shall expire.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
cc: E. James Hannay, applicant
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission- CUP application/Commercial Application
Plans- Site plan/Modified Aerial/Fence Elevation
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 30, 2015
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 225 Dwight Road Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
Request: Design review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc. APN: 029-254-300
Property Owner: Sinhad and Medina Begic Lot Area: 10,395
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The subject property is 10,395 SF and is an L-shaped lot with a 50’ x 50’ portion that
wraps around the rear of the adjacent property to the right (223 Dwight Road). The existing house is one-
story with 5 bedrooms (includes office) and 3 bathrooms. There is a detached two-car garage located at the
rear of the property. The applicant proposes a first and second story addition. The first floor addition will add
68 SF at the front of the house expanding the front porch and foyer. The new second floor will total 1,372
SF. The total proposed floor area is 4,824 SF (0.46 FAR), where 4,826 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum
allowed.
The proposed addition will increase the number of potential bedrooms from 5 to 7. The existing detached
garage provides two covered parking spaces (20' x 20') and there is a single uncovered parking space (9' x
20') in the driveway leading to the garage. The three existing parking spaces meet the code requirements
for on-site parking for a 7-bedroom house.
All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:
Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
Address
Lot Area: 10,395 SF Plans date stamped: January 12, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
24'-10"
N/A
24’-6”
39’-1”
15'-0" (block average- 24’6”)
20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
4'-8"
11'-2"
No change
No change
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
36’-0"
N/A
No change
52’-1”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 3,080 SF
29.6%
3,148 SF
30.2%
4,158 SF
40%
FAR: 3,421 SF
0.21 FAR
4,824 SF
0.46 FAR
4,826 SF 1
0.46 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 7 ---
Parking: 2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 20'-1" 29’-10” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075(b)(2) applied
to the right side
¹ (0.32 x 10,395 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,826 SF (0.46 FAR)
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Design Review 225 Dwight Road
-2-
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division,
Parks Division, and Stormwater Division.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Staff Comments
Photographs of Neighborhood
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
1504 Drake Avenue
Item No. 7a
Consent Calendar
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1504 Drake Avenue Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
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: 026-032-080
Property Owners: Joseph and Shannon Paley Lot Area: 5,999 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 one-story house and detached garage to build
a new, two-story single family dwelling with a basement and attached garage. The proposed house and garage will
have a total floor area of 3,012 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including
covered porch and basement exemptions). The proposed project is 8 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is
therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR.
The proposed two-story house will have a 693 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 9'-1". 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 693 SF has been deducted from the FAR calculation (the maximum
allowable exemption is 700 SF). Since the ceiling heights in the storage and mechanical rooms are less then 6’-0”
(5’-11” proposed), these rooms are exempt from the FAR calculation.
The proposed attached garage provides one code-compliant covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom
house (two off-street parking spaces are required for a four-bedroom house, one 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 one-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)); and
Special Permit for a basement ceiling height that is greater than 6'-6" (9’-1” ceiling height proposed) (CS
25.26.035 (f)).
Intentionally left blank.
Item No. 7a
Consent Calendar
Design Review and Special Permits 1504 Drake Avenue
2
1504 Drake Avenue
Lot Area: 5,999 SF Plans date stamped: January 27, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(attached garage):
18'-0"
20'-0"
25’-8”
15'-4" (block average)
20'-0"
25’-0” for single-wide garage
Side (left):
(right):
5'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
46'-5½"
49'-5½" to balcony
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1871 SF
31.1%
2400 SF
40%
FAR: 3012 SF
0.50 FAR
3020 SF 1
0.50 FAR
Basement: basement with a ceiling height
greater than 6'-6" (9’-1” ceiling
height proposed) ²
Special Permit required per C.S.
25.26.035 (f)
# of bedrooms: 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered, attached ³
(10'-3” x 20'-1” clear interior
dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered
(10' x 20' clear interior dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building Height: 27’-7" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies using window enclosure
exception along left side of house.
C.S. 25.26.075
¹ (0.32 x 5999 SF) + 1100 SF = 3020 SF (0.50 FAR)
² Special Permit requested for a basement ceiling height that is greater than 6'-6" (9’-1” 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;
Design Review and Special Permits 1504 Drake Avenue
3
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 Design Review: Based on the findings stated by the Planning Commission in the attached minutes of
the February 9, 2015 Design Review Study meeting, that the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure
(featuring a front porch, gable ends and hip roofs, appropriate plate heights, shingle siding and aluminum clad wood
windows with simulated true divided lites) is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the
proposed attached garage is consistent with the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; that the windows
and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the
structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants and trees at locations
so that they are in keeping with the mass and bulk of the structure and compatible with the existing neighborhood,
the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria.
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.
Special Permit Findings (Attached Garage): Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning
Commission's February 9, 2015, Design Review Study meeting, that the proposed single-car garage complies with
the off-street parking requirement for the project, that the attached single-car garage is located 25’-8” back from the
front property line, contains a wood carriage style door and is integrated into the architecture of the house by way of
a hip roof, and that no existing trees located within the footprint of the building will be removed, the project is found
to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above.
Special Permit Findings (Basement): Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning
Commission's February 9, 2015, Design Review Study meeting, that the majority of the basement height is located
below grade and therefore does not add to the mass and bulk of the structure, that the plate height of the basement
(9’-1”) is consistent with the plate height of the proposed first floor, and that no existing trees located within the
footprint of the building will be removed, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed
above.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on February 9, 2015,
the Commission did not have any comments or suggested changes for the project and voted to place this item on
the consent calendar (see attached February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes).
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:
Design Review and Special Permits 1504 Drake Avenue
4
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 27, 2015 sheets A1.1 through A3.3 and L1.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch,
and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission
review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 January 8, 2015 and December 2, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s January 20, 2015 and December 5, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s January 12, 2015
and December 5, 2014 memos, the Fire Division’s December 3, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s
December 11, 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 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 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;
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;
Design Review and Special Permits 1504 Drake Avenue
5
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
Attachments:
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Applications
Rendering of Proposed House, date stamped February 3, 2015
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 9, 2015
c.1504 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for a new two-story single family dwelling with a basement and attached garage (TRG
Architects, applicant and architect; Joseph and Shannon Paley, property owners) (xx
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1504 Drake Ave - Staff Report
1504 Drake Ave - Attachments.pdf
Attachments:
Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Gum spoke to the left and right side neighbors.
Property Visits: All Commissioners had visited the property.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Chair Bandrapallli opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange and the project's landscape architect represented the applicant.
Commission Comments/Questions:
>Will water from the basement be pumped to the street, or will it be waterproofed? (Grange - the
basement will be waterproofed.)
>Will the shingles be painted or natural? (Grange - they will be stained.)
>Will ivy really be installed in the front as shown? (Landscape - will be a variegated version that is
low water usage.)
>Did the applicant speak with the neighbors? (Grange - yes)
>It was noted that the attached garage works in this instance given the precedent and pattern set by
existing neighborhood development.
Public Comments:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Could be brought back on the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote:
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2015
February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2015
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 1504 Drake Avenue, Zoned R-1, Joseph and
Shannon Paley, 1504 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owners, APN: 026-032-080;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 23, 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 (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 23rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits.
1504 Drake Avenue
Effective March 5, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped January 27, 2015 sheets A1.1 through A3.3 and L1.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 January 8, 2015 and December 2, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s January 20, 2015 and December 5, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s January 12, 2015 and December 5, 2014 memos, the Fire
Division’s December 3, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 11, 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 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 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, Design Review and Special Permits.
1504 Drake Avenue
Effective March 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. 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.
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit
Address: 1500 Los Altos Drive Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
Request: Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two-story house and a detached
garage.
Applicant and property owner: Shahram Zomorrodi, Zomorrodi Corp. APN: 027-045-120
Designer: Hamed Balazadeh, BO Design Lot Area: 10,400 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The existing single-story house with attached garage on site is proposed to be
demolished. The applicant proposes to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage.
The total proposed floor area is 4,604 SF (0.44 FAR), where 4,828 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
Staff notes that the application includes a new, attached secondary dwelling unit. 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 5 bedrooms and the new secondary dwelling unit will contain 1
bedroom. The proposed new detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (20' x 20') and there
are two uncovered parking spaces (18' x 20') in the driveway leading to the garage. The four proposed
parking spaces meet the code requirements for on-site parking for a 5-bedroom house and a secondary
dwelling unit. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following
applications:
Design Review for a new house (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two-story house and a detached garage (C.S.
25.61.020).
1500 Los Altos Drive Plans date stamped:
Lot Area: 10,400 SF December 22, 2014 and January 27, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
25'-0"
28'-11"
22'-7" (the block average) 1
22'-7"
Side (left):
(right):
11'-0"
22'-2"
7'-0"
7'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
40'-8"
47'-6"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 3,109 SF
30%
4,160 SF
40%
Item No. 9d
Design Review Study
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1500 Los Altos Drive
-2-
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
FAR: 4,604 SF
0.44 FAR
4,828 SF 2
0.46 FAR
# of
bedrooms:
5 (in main dwelling)
1 (in 2nd unit) ---
Parking:
2 covered (20' x 20'), 1 uncovered (9' x 20')
(main dwelling)
1 uncovered (9' x 20')
(2nd unit)
2 covered (20' x 20'), 1 uncovered (9' x 20')
(main dwelling)
1 uncovered (9' x 20')
(2nd unit)
Height: 30'-0 " 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies C.S. 25.26.035
¹ Applicant will re-measure existing front setbacks for the block. Information submitted to the Planning Department
for a previous project on the block indicates that the average front setback for the block is 22'-7", where 33'-3" was
the average submitted with this application.
² (0.32 x 10,400 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,828 SF (0.46 FAR).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division,
Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. Planning Staff would note that the fifth set of comments from the
Parks Division (dated January 28, 2015) appears to have been addressed by red-lined revisions made by
the applicant to the Planting Plan. The Parks Division will review the plans a final time prior to the project
being scheduled for an action hearing before the Planning Commission.
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.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit
by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of
nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a
dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060).
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
c. Shahram Zomorrodi, applicant
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1500 Los Altos Drive
-3-
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Staff Comments
Photographs of Neighborhood
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 30, 2015
Aerial Photo
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 1, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 9, 2015
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1321 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1321
Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved on the Consent Calendar by the Planning
Commission on May 27, 2014 (see attached May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes). A building permit was issued in September 2014 and construction is underway.
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the following changes to the
project, as described in the applicant’s letter dated January 27, 2015. The applicant notes that
the changes are based on discussions regarding privacy with the adjacent neighbors. Please
see attached letters from the neighbors at 1317 and 1325 Paloma Avenue, dated February 2,
2015, noting no objections to the proposed changes.
1. Remove two windows on either side of the fireplace in the Great Room (see Proposed
Right Elevation, sheet A.5).
2. Reduce the size of the windows (from rectangular to square) in the Bath #3, Laundry
and Walk-In Closet (see Proposed Left Elevation, sheet A.6).
3. Remove the flare or “skirt" at the base of the house (see Proposed Elevations, sheets
A.4 through A.7).
The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed floor plans and
building elevations, date stamped January 27, 2015, 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 applicant, dated January 27, 2015
Letters of support submitted by adjacent neighbors at 1317 and 1325 Paloma Avenue, dated
February 2, 2015
May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped January 27, 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
May 27, 2014 - 7:00 p.m.
1
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted
upon 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.
2. 1321 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PATRICK GILSON, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Sargent moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the
staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gum. Chair Bandrapalli
called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones abstaining).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.