HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2015.02.23Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 23, 2015
CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A
Approval of the Closed Session Agenda (Government Code 54956.9(a) and (d)(4)a.
Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the public may address the
Commission on any item on the Closed Session Agenda at this time.
b.
Adjournment into Closed Sessionc.
Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation - Gov. Code §54956.9 (a) and (d)
(4): One Case
d.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period .
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak "
card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust
the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a
commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
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
a.
1504 Drake Ave - Staff Report
1504 Drake Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
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 (continued from February 9, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting)
a.
1448 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1448 Laguna Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
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
b.
1813 Ray Dr - Staff Report
1813 Ray Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an attached
garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage (Farnaz
Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners) (42
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
c.
1548 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report
1548 Los Montes Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
1541 Adrian Road, zoned RR – Application for Amendment to a previously approved
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for changes to an existing commercial
recreation facility (Robert Edwards/GoKart Racer, applicant; Frank Edwards Co ., Inc.,
property owner) (15 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
d.
1541 Adrian Rd - Staff Report
1541 Adrian Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
960 David Road, zoned RR – Application for Conditional Use Permit for automobile
storage within the drainage right -of-way (Matt Mefford, Tesla Motors, applicant and
designer; Frank Edwards Company, Inc ., property owner) (20 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
e.
960 David Rd - Staff Report
960 David Rd - 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
f.
1260 California Dr - Staff Report
1260 California Dr - attachments
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
712 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
declining height envelope, Side Setback Variance and Parking Variances for first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Wehmeyer Design,
applicant and designer; Rahul Verma and Monali Sheth, property owners) (56 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
a.
712 Lexington Way - Staff Report
712 Lexington Way - Attachments
Attachments:
1336 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Mark Robertson, applicant and designer;
Dan and Michele Tatos, property owners) ( 61 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
b.
1336 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1336 Laguna Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
115 Occidental 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 (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; JNL
Occidental LLP, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
c.
115 Occidental Ave study
115 Occidental Ave Attachments
115 Occidental Ave Historic Resource Evaluation
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1906 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and Special Permits for an attached garage, a basement, and
declining height envelope (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer;
Easton Estates LLC, property owner) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
d.
1906 Easton Dr - Staff Report
1906 Easton Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
226 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a food
establishment and Commercial Design Review for changes to the facade of an existing
commercial building (Nick Swinmurn, applicant: Remy's Quality Construction, Inc .,
designer; S.L. Griffiths Inc., property owner) (41 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
e.
226 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
226 Lorton Ave - Attachments
226 Lorton Ave - 02.23.15 - received after 1.pdf
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Commission Communicationsa.
City Council regular meeting February 17, 2015b.
FYI: 1709 Ray Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
c.
1709 Ray Dr - Memorandum
1709 Ray Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
FYI: 60 Edwards Court - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design
Review project
d.
60 Edwards Ct FYI Staff Report
60 Edwards Ct FYI Attachments
60 Edwards Ct FYI Clarification
Attachments:
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on February 23, 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 March 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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
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 Amendment
Address: 1448 Laguna Avenue Meeting Date: February 23, 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.
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).
February 9, 2015 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission Action meeting on February 9, 2015, the
Commission reviewed the as-built changes to the project and noted that the first floor roof replacement at the
front of the house is the most problematic change (see attached February 9, 2015 Planning Commission
Minutes). The Commission continued the item and directed the applicant to revisit the changes to the front of
the house with their designer and return with a solution that would address their concerns.
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated February 11, 2015, to address the Planning
Commission’s concerns. Changes to the project since the February 9th action meeting include:
The wood trellis above the front living room window has been enhanced by using 6x6 Redwood timbers
instead of the previously proposed 4x4 timbers. In addition, the trellis has been widened and raised so
that it is centered between the top of the window and roof above. The ends of the horizontal wood
members (facing the street) will be beveled. Please see the revised building elevations and details on
sheets A3.1 and A3.2, date stamped February 11, 2015).
In the raised space above the front porch, the applicant considered several different options, which are
discussed in his response letter and also shown in the attached diagrams. After consider these options,
the applicant feels that the proposed design, which includes adding three, raised beveled-edge panels
(painted) in the space above the front entry is the best design approach (see revised Front Elevation,
date stamped February 11, 2015).
There are no other changes proposed to the project.
Item No. 8a
Action Item
Design Review Amendment 1448 Laguna Avenue
2
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)).
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;
Design Review Amendment 1448 Laguna Avenue
3
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. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 11, 2015, sheets A3.1 and A3.2 and date stamped January 16, 2015, sheets A1.0, A1.1 and
A2.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that 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 Response Letter dated February 11, 2015
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
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 (continued to a date certain, February 23, 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 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 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 23rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1448 Laguna 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 February 11, 2015, sheets A3.1 and A3.2 and date stamped January 16,
2015, sheets A1.0, A1.1 and A2.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that 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;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1448 Laguna Avenue
Effective March 5, 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 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
1813 Ray Drive
Item No. 8b
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1813 Ray Drive Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Minereva Abad, MDA Design APN: 025-212-120
Property Owners: Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang Lot Area: 5754 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures
are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000
SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not
environmentally sensitive.
Project Description: The existing one-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 1,744 SF (0.30
FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the front and right
sides of the house and a second floor addition at the rear of the house. With the proposed project, the floor area
will increase to 2,869 SF (0.50 FAR) where 2,941 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project
is 72 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and within 3% of the maximum allowed FAR.
W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of
which must be covered, are required on site. The modified attached garage complies with current code
standards for a covered parking space (12’-5” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions provided where 9’ x 18’ is the
minimum required for an existing garage). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway.
All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:
Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
1813 Ray Drive
Lot Size: 5,754 SF Plans date stamped: February 11, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 21’-4” to house
11’-7” to garage
21’-4” to addition
14’-7” to garage
16'-8" (block average)
(2nd flr): n/a 30’-6” 20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
4'-11"
3’-6”
no change
6’-0”
6'-0"
6'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
37’-5”
n/a
38’-0”
44’-4”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1844 SF
32%
2032 SF
35.3%
2302 SF
40%
FAR: 1744 SF
0.30 FAR
2869 SF
0.50 FAR
2941 SF 1
0.51 FAR
¹ (0.32 x 5754 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2941 SF (0.51 FAR)
Item No. 8b
Action Item
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
2
1813 Ray Drive
Lot Size: 5,754 SF Plans date stamped: February 11, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
# of bedrooms: 2 4 ---
Off-Street
Parking:
1 covered
(12’-5” x 21’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
1 covered
(12’-5” x 20’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
1 covered
(9' x 18' for existing)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building Height: 15’-8” 22’-10” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting (November 10, 2014): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study
meeting on November 10, 2014, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and
referred the application to a design review consultant (November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
attached). A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review
consultant is provided in the next section.
The applicant submitted a response letter, dated January 15, 2015 and revised plans date stamped January 14,
2015 to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the attached meeting
minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer
and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised
plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated December 30, 2014,
for a detailed review of the project.
Several significant revisions were made to the project including changing the architectural style of the house to
craftsman, reducing the second floor plate height from 9’-1” to 8’-1”, changing the roof configurations on the first
and second floors, changing the window style throughout the house, changing the siding from stucco to
horizontal lap and board and batten wood siding, adding eave brackets and changing the design of the front
porch and garage door. The design review consultant concludes that based on the revisions made to the
design, she can support approval of the proposed project.
Action Meeting (January 26, 2015): At the Planning Commission Action meeting on January 26, 2015, the
Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and requested that the applicant consider
making additional changes to the project (January 26, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes attached). Please
refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated February 11, 2015, to address the Planning
Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a response to each of the
concerns, which also explains the changes made to the project.
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
3
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. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 11, 2015, sheets A-1 through A-11 and L-1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 3, 2014 and August 29, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s December 24, 2014 and September 3, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 9,
2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4,
2014 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
4
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. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer
Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated February 11, 2015
January 26, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Design Review Analysis, dated December 30, 2014
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated January 15, 2015
November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kenton S. Wong, dated November 15, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 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
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
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.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>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.
>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.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2015
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design
Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1813 Ray Drive,
Zoned R-1, Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, 1813 Ray Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owners,
APN: 026-073-230;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
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 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt
from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than
10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which
the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording
of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review.
1813 Ray Drive
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 February 11, 2015, sheets A-1 through A-11 and L-1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 3, 2014 and August 29, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s December 24, 2014 and September 3, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s September 9, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014
memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review.
1813 Ray Drive
Effective 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. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural
certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be
evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the
approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with
approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing
inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
PROJECT LOCATION
1548 Los Montes Drive
Item No. 8c
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits
Address: 1548 Los Montes Drive Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining
height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two-story single-family dwelling and attached
garage.
Applicant and Designer: Farnaz Khadiv, Khadiv Design Studio APN: 027-015-180
Property Owner: Jiries Hanhan Lot Area: 9,494 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) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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, this
exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of
a project.
Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing an existing two-story house and attached garage to
build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The proposed house and detached
garage will have a total floor area of 4,138 SF (0.44 FAR) where 4,138 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including covered porch exemption). The proposed project is at the maximum allowed FAR.
The lot slopes downward approximately 31’-0” from the front of the lot to the rear. 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. Due to the downward slope of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope at each side
of the house is several feet below the lower level of the house. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Special
Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of the house. The left side of the house would extend
873 SF beyond the declining height envelope (430 SF on the upper floor, 202 SF on the lower floor, 87 SF
covered balcony and 154 SF of the rear deck).
Planning staff would note that the right side of the house qualifies for an exemption from declining height
envelope because it is located adjacent to a two story wall and the project falls within the criteria listed below
(based on Code Section 25.26.075 (b) (3)):
(A) The second story is not closer to the property line than the required first floor setback; and
(B) If the second story wall is outside of the declining height envelope and adjacent to an existing two (2)
story wall, the second story plate line is no higher and no longer than the second story plate line on
the adjacent property; and
(C) If there is a two (2) story residential structure on each side of a lot, only one side wall may be exempt
from the declining height envelope; and
(D) If any portion of the second story of an existing two (2) story house adjacent to either side of the lot
complies with the declining height requirements, the adjacent wall of the new construction shall not
be exempt.
The proposed four-bedroom house requires a total of two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The
proposed attached garage provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces (20’ x 20’ clear interior
dimensions). There is also one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. Therefore, the
proposed project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been
met.
Item No. 8c
Action Item
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
2
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));
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.61.020);
Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of house (left side of the house extends
873 SF beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.26.075 (a)); and
Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)).
1548 Los Montes Drive
Lot Size: 9,494 SF Plans date stamped: February 9, 2015
PREVIOUS
11.14.14 plans
CURRENT
02.09.15 plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(attached garage):
20'-0" to porch
25'-0"
25’-0”
no change 19'-11" (block average)
20'-0"
25’-0” for two single-wide
doors
Side (left):
(right):
7'-4"
7'-4 1/4"
no change 7'-0"
7'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
62'-9" to deck
74'-0" to deck
no change
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2886 SF
30.3%
no change
3798 SF
40%
FAR: 4138 SF
0.44 FAR
no change
4138 SF 1
0.44 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 no change ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered, attached ²
(20' x 20' clear interior
dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
no change
1 covered
(10' x 20' clear interior
dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
¹ (0.32 x 9,494 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4138 SF (0.44 FAR)
2 Special Permit requested for an attached garage.
Table continued on next page.
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
3
1548 Los Montes Drive
Lot Size: 9,494 SF Plans date stamped: February 9, 2015
PREVIOUS
11.14.14 plans
CURRENT
02.09.15 plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Building Height: 14’-5” (17’-5" previously
proposed)
11’-7” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: right side of the house
exempt from declining
height envelope based
on C.S. 25.26.075 (b)
(3); left side of the house
extends 1,007 SF
beyond the declining
height envelope ³
right side of the house
exempt from declining
height envelope based
on C.S. 25.26.075 (b)
(3); left side of the
house extends 873 SF
beyond the declining
height envelope ³
C.S. 25.26.075
3 Special Permit requested for declining height envelope along left side of house (the left side of the house
extends 873 SF beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Parks and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on October 14,
2014, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a
design review consultant (October 14, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). A discussion of the
analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next
section.
The applicant submitted a response letter, date stamped November 20, 2014 and revised plans date stamped
November 17, 2014 to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the
attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
Planning staff would note that the story poles for the proposed house have been installed and may be viewed by
visiting the site. A story pole plan was prepared by the designer (see attached story pole plan, date stamped
November 20, 2014). The story pole installation was certified by SMP Engineers (see attached certification
dated November 18, 2014).
Planning staff would note that the overall building height, as measured from average top of curb to the highest
roof ridge, was reduced by 3’-0”, from 17’-5” to 14’-5”. There were no changes made to the floor plans or layout
of the building on the lot.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer
and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised
plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated November 17, 2014,
for a detailed review of the project.
In his analysis, the design review consultant concludes that “the revised design is a significant improvement over
the initial proposal” and that “the architectural style is much clearer and the massing is better”. Based on the
revisions made to the design, the design review consultant supports the proposed project. The design reviewer
notes that improving the front entry element in some way and providing a garage door with a horizontal element
could enhance the front façade further, but notes that these are only suggestions.
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
4
Action Meeting (November 24, 2014): At the Planning Commission Action meeting on November 24, 2014, the
Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and directed the applicant to revisit the design
of the project so that the view impacts are addressed. The Commission also encouraged the designer to work
closely with the neighbors (November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). Please refer to the
attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped February 17, 2015, to address the
Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a response to each of
the concerns, which also explains the changes made to the project.
Planning staff would note that the story poles for the proposed house have been adjusted to reflect the revised
design. A story pole plan was prepared by the designer (see attached story pole plan, date stamped February 9,
2015). The story pole installation was certified by SMP Engineers (see attached certification dated February 6,
2015).
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).
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.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 9, 2015, sheets A-0.0 through A-5.0 and L-1.0;
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
5
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 September 15, 2014 and July 18, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s October 1, 2014 and July 21, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s August 25, 2014 memo,
the Fire Division’s July 21, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 9, 2014, September 26,
2014 and July 22, 2014 memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a W aste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
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;
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
6
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. Farnaz Khadiv, Khadiv Design Studio, designer
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response letter, date stamped February 17, 2015
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Story Pole Certification and Plan, date stamped February 9, 2015
Email and Attachments submitted by Winnie Tam, dated November 24, 2014
Email submitted by Brandon Lip, M.D., dated November 21, 2014
Letter submitted by Craig and Shan Hou, dated November 20, 2014
Email submitted by Greg Lim, dated October 13, 2014
Applicant’s Response Letter, date stamped November 20, 2014
Design Review Analysis, dated November 17, 2014
Story Pole Certification and Plan, dated November 20, 2014
October 14, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter Submitted by Craig and Shan Hou, dated October 10, 2014
Graphics/Photographs Submitted by Neighbor at 1544 Los Montes Drive, date stamped October 10, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Applications
Information Sheet for Membrane Roof, date stamped October 2, 2014
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
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 24, 2014
e.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an
attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage
(Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners )
(42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Loftis, DeMartini, Terrones and Sargent
reported that they had met with the neighbors at 1551 Los Montes Drive and the son of the next door
neighbor. There were no other ex parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
-Clarified that the requested story poles are intended to illustrate the tallest portion of the structure .
Would the deck area be included in the story poles? (Hurin - story poles for the deck would have been
required if the project only included a deck addition. Could request additional story poles if it is felt that
that is an important consideration for the request.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Badhia Khadiv and Jiries Hanhan represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
-Clarified that there was no work done to the story poles after the certification. (Khadiv - yes.)
-Has the applicant spent any time in the house at 1551 Los Montes Drive to observe the view
impacts? (Khadiv - have only observed from outside of their property. Can do so if believes it would
help.) Feels that the view from the neighbor across the street will be completely blocked. Believes that
the issue with the neighbor across the street is pretty clear.
-Feels the design changes are vast improvements. Could have a garage door with more horizontal
elements, as well as at the entry-way, to unify the design more.
-The view blockage from across the street is the biggest issue. What can be done to preserve the
existing views of the Bay? (Khadiv - feels that the flat roof design is the best solution for the site. Using
a pitched roof would increase the height of the house when compared to the existing ridge.)
-Could lower the plate heights on both floors and pick up two feet at that point. The Hillside
Construction Permit requires an analysis of distant views from neighboring properties; the overall
structure height must be a consideration.
-Could the building also be slid down the lot a bit and sculpted to reduce view impacts? Will need to
explore these other options. (Khadiv - if the driveway is lowered by two feet to the existing garage level,
this would reduce the height. Can also consider reducing plate heights.) Would be an easier discussion
with the neighbors if the roof height could be reduced to the existing level of the structure.
-Noted that the extension of the house rearward on the lot will also impact the view from across the
street. (Khadiv - any addition at the rear will affect the view.)
-Certain rooms don't all have to be on the same floor. Encouraged the architect to try real hard to
modify the design to reduce the impact; could move rooms around to reduce the massing or create a
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/17/2015
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
split level design. Also could step in the edges.
-Make the garage door design more modern, perhaps match the cedar siding with windows.
-What is the fascia material above the entry? (Khadiv - wood.)
-May wish to revisit the wood siding on the right elevation where the siding terminates at grade.
-Seems odd to place wood siding on the chimney; perhaps consider a stucco base.
Public comments:
Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes Drive:
-The Commission has already stated their concerns regarding the impacts to distant views.
-Even though the roofline has been lowered, there is still a large portion of the distant view that is
blocked.
-A revised design with a second round of story poles could assist in resolving the view concerns.
King Lip, representing parents who reside at 1544 Los Montes Drive:
-Welcomed Hanhan family to the neighborhood.
-Referenced the view impacts shown in photographs provided at the hearing.
-First concern is with obstruction of views, also concerned with impacts upon privacy from windows
and balcony.
-Feels that the story poles inadequately represent the height of the structure.
-The story pole certification confirmed the building height, but makes no reference to how the
structure expands to the sides.
-Requests that the applicant consider all alternatives to minimize impacts from the project.
Winnie Tam, representing the owners of 1544 Los Montes Drive:
-Reviewed the exhibits that she prepared for her clients at 1544 Los Montes Drive that illustrate the
view impacts.
-Concerned that story poles were not installed to show the balcony; balcony could affect their views
and privacy.
-Concerned that the story poles were not installed correctly at the time they were certified.
Greg Goldman, 1543 Alturas Drive:
-Lives behind and directly below the project site.
-People residing on properties below the site will also have privacy impacts.
-Presented photos showing the massing of the proposed project above the property.
-The level of the second story is also a concern.
-The combination of the home's height and the extension into the hillside are issues to be resolved.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
-Pretty clear that the application requires more work to address the view impacts.
-Should be brought down so that the proposed ridge does not extend past the existing ridgeline.
-The views from the lower properties need to be addressed as well.
-The focus on views is upon distant views; this should be primarily views of the Bay, not of the
nearby hills.
-Views of concern are from primary living areas as well.
-The City can't prohibit building on the site; therefore, the privacy issues and views from non -living
areas are less clear. It will be helpful for the designer and the owner to work with the neighbors to
address the issues and come to an agreement.
-Must also consider the massing on the site taking into consideration the slope of the site and follow
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/17/2015
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the topography. The plate heights can also be varied.
-Encouraged the designer to work closely with the neighbors.
-Story poles will need to be revised to reflect the proposed design and will need to include the
balcony.
-Concerned about the certification of the existing story poles; concerned that changes were made
after the certification. Also not certain that the story poles adequately represent the location of the walls .
Take the time to ensure that the story pole installation is done correctly the next time.
-The view ordinance does not address privacy issues. Feels that once the view issues are
addressed on this project, then some of the privacy issues may also be addressed.
-Encouraged the applicant to revisit the landscape plan in an effort to reduce privacy impacts;
provide a more detailed landscape plan.
-Would be wise to map the windows on adjacent buildings and their relationship to the proposed
project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to continue this matter to a date uncertain with direction,
seconded by Commissioner Terrones. 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 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/17/2015
From: Kwun Lip [mailto:brandonlip@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:43 PM
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Cc: Peter Lip; King Lip; winnietam9@aol.com
Subject: Owners of 1544 Los Montes Dr are 100% against the building plan of 1548 Los Montes as
submitted
Dear Ruben, senior planner in City of Burlingame Planning Dept:
My name is Brandon Lip. My parents, Peter & Robin Lip, are owners of 1544 Los
Montes Drive, the house right next door to the site with the proposed building plan of
1548 Los Montes. My parents are out of the country due to a family emergency. My
brother King Lip, Winnie Tam (architect), and I are representing my parents during their
time away. After discussion with the architect, we were notified of the deceptive
tactics used by the current owners of 1548 Los Montes. We are 100% against their
current building plan as it stands. They have NOT made the appropriate adjustments to
the height and layout of the proposed residence. My father spent thousands of dollars
with the previous owner of the property to clear out trees in the backyard (we have all
the evidence to document this) so that we can have a clear, unobstructed view through
the side and back of the house towards the Bay. Now the new owners are threatening
this with an absolutely unacceptable residential building plan. After the last public
hearing, NOTHING significant has been done to the building plan and our view of the
Bay will still be obscured by their proposed residence. We will do whatever it takes to
block the construction of such a proposed residence at 1548 Los Montes.
I am emailing each of the planning commissioner to let them know of our firm stance
regarding this matter.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration,
Brandon Lip, M.D.
11.24.14 PC Meeting
Item #8e
1548 Los Montes Drive
Page 1 of 1
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
NOV 24 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD – PLANNING DIV.
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 14, 2014
d.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an
attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage
(Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners )
(42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Would the retaining wall between the properties need to be addressed? (Meeker - would be
addressed as part of the plan check prior to issuance of a building permit.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Farnaz Khadiv, and Jiries and Suhair Hanhan represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Feels that the fascia caps are very heavy looking. They seem to make the building seem disjointed
and broken into many pieces. Detracts from the design.
>Would help to see the new design overlain on the existing design to get a sense for the relationship
between the massing.
>Feels the curved roof is very strange; doesn't go well with the design.
>Feels that some relief is warranted from the declining height envelope on side -sloping lots. That in
conjunction with the Hillside Area Permit and the need for story poles will determine what is acceptable.
>Seems that the siding materials are disjointed. How will the Cedar siding be finished? (Khadiv - will
likely be stained.)
>Perhaps the vertical siding is not the best choice for the lower level.
>The fascias seem out of scale with the modern style that is being sought.
>Feels that some of the finishing details detract from the modern character; perhaps clean up the
design to eliminate some of the disjointed character.
>Look at corner window designs that help the modern details come to the forefront.
>The curved roof element doesn't appear to be necessary. Could be an issue relative to the story
poles.
>Not too much of an issue with the massing because it doesn't deviate too far from the current
massing.
>Feels the stucco band could be eliminated.
>Clean up the disparate elements to clean up the facade.
>On the front elevation, show how the existing house complies with the declining height envelope .
(Khadiv - the area for compliance with the declining height envelope is completely outside even the
current building design.)
>Did the designer try to get closer to compliance with the declining height envelope? (Khadiv - Yes.
Brought walls in on both the first and second floors. Included a balcony to move further in.)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/17/2014
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Did he visit the neighbor's house across the street to determine what the view impact may be?
(Khadiv - doesn't appear to be significantly impacting the view of the neighbors.)
>Would appreciate seeing a color rendering of the project.
>Work with staff to clarify the requests for the declining height envelope.
Public comments:
Greg Goldman, 1523 Alturas Drive:
>Has no problem with the look of the house.
>Was hoping that the roofline of the house would not increase; appears to be increasing by seven
feet.
>The view will be directly at the house from the rear of his property.
>Also concerned about drainage.
>Not opposed to the square footage.
Winnie Tan, speaking for the right side neighbor at 1344 Los Montes:
>Provided sets of drawings for each of the Commissioners to show the impact upon the property
adjacent.
>Concern of windows being blocked by addition.
>Requested story poles to see if any views would be blocked. (Commissioner - requested contact
information for the neighbor.)
Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes:
>Biggest concern is the potential for a blocked view. Can see the lights of the bayfront area from their
home; can also see the planes taking off.
Greg Lim:
>Welcomed them to the neighborhood.
>Only concerned about the retaining wall and the drainage.
>Looks forward to seeing the new home.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project
to a design reviewer and to require the installation of story poles for the project. Chair
Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/17/2014
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 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 Design
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and
attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 1548 Los Montes
Drive, Zoned R-1, Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, 1548 Los Montes Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property
owners, APN: 027-015-180;
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) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three
(3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits are approved
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 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, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits.
1548 Los Montes Drive
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 February 9, 2015, sheets A-0.0 through A-5.0 and L-1.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 15, 2014 and July 18, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s October 1, 2014 and July 21, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s August 25, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s July 21, 2014 memo
and the Stormwater Division’s October 9, 2014, September 26, 2014 and July 22, 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 Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits.
1548 Los Montes Drive
Effective March 5, 2015
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
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance
Address: 1541 Adrian Road Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for changes to an
existing commercial recreation facility (indoor kart racing).
Applicant: Robert Edwards Jr. APN: 025-271-050, -060, -070 & -080
Architect: n/a Lot Area: 4.32 acres
Property Owner: Frank Edwards Co. Inc. Zoning: RR, Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan: Industrial & Associated Office Use – Auto Row Overlay District
Adjacent Development: Warehouse, distribution and parking in drainage right-of-way
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the
operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review.
Existing Use: Commercial Recreation Facility (GoKart Racer, indoor kart racing)
Allowable Use: Automobile sales and service, air courier service, light industrial or manufacturing use, labs,
office uses in conjunction with a permitted use, service businesses, warehouses;
commercial recreation use allowed with a conditional use permit.
Site Description and History: The subject property consists of four commonly owned parcels at the corner of
David and Adrian Roads with addresses of 1541 and 1561-1565 Adrian Road. Two existing buildings and their
associated parking spaces, which extend across property lines, cause a de facto merger of all four parcels. The
owner of the subject property also owns a 140 foot (width) x 646 foot (length) portion of the drainage right-of-way
located west of the subject property.
The building at 1541 Adrian Road is occupied by GoKart Racer, an indoor kart racing facility. A portion of this
building (2000 SF) is used by the property owner to store personal goods. The building at 1561-1565 Adrian Road
is occupied by office, warehouse and showroom uses. There are a total of 81 parking spaces on the project site.
The required on-site parking for the property owner’s storage use (2 parking spaces) at 1541 Adrian Road and the
office, warehouse and showroom uses (48 parking spaces) at 1561-1565 Adrian Road is provided on-site. The
required parking for GoKart Racer (71 parking spaces) is provided both on-site (30 spaces) and off-site in the
adjacent drainage right-of-way at 960 David Road (41 spaces); please refer the attached originally approved Site
Plan.
An application for a Conditional Use Permit, Parking Variance and Landscaping Variance for a commercial
recreation facility (GoKart Racer) was approved by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2003. GoKart Racer
has been in operation at this location since November 2003. The Parking Variance granted by the Planning
Commission was for 41 parking spaces (30 on-site parking spaces provided where 71 on-site spaces were
required). To mitigate the Parking Variance, the applicant agreed to provide 43 off-site parking spaces in the
drainage right-of-way at 960 David Road. This off-site parking area is only accessed by a separate driveway off
David Road and is fenced off from the rest of the drainage right-of-way. As required by the conditions of approval,
the applicant entered into a lease agreement for 43 parking spaces at 960 David Road.
960 David Road is approximately two acres in size and much of it was graded and paved for parking many years
ago. As noted above, GoKart Racer currently leases the eastern portion of the site (43 spaces). The other portions
of the 960 David Road property are leased to other entities. For reference, the front, western portion of lot was to
be used by FlightCar for vehicle storage (41 spaces), but Flightcar has since vacated the property; the remainder of
the paved lot is associated with the Unga family for vehicle storage (rear, western portion of lot).
Item No. 8d
Regular Action
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance 1541 Adrian Road
2
Proposed Amendment: After operating at the site for 11 years, GoKart Racer revisited the parking demand at this
facility and is now requesting an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance
to reduce the number of required parking spaces provided, specifically:
To reduce the number of required off-site parking spaces located in the drainage right-of-way at 960 David
Road from 43 to 20 parking spaces (supported by a Parking Demand Study prepared by Sandis
Engineering, dated January 27, 2015); includes relocating the off-site parking location from the eastern to
the western portion of the site. Please refer to the attached Site Diagram, date stamped February 4, 2015.
Planning staff would note that in April 2014, the City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow FlightCar to
store 41 vehicles in the western portion of the site at 960 David Road. However, FlightCar has ceased use of the
property, and the property owner confirms in his letter dated February 3, 2015 that FlightCar does not have a lease
to store their vehicle there.
With this application, GoKart Racing is not proposing any additional changes to their operations, building (either
interior or exterior) or landscaping. The applicant is now requesting the following applications:
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to revise the condition of approval which requires providing 43 off-
site parking spaces at 960 David Road (20 off-street parking spaces proposed); and
Amendment to Parking Variance for elimination of 23 off-site parking spaces at 960 David Road. There will
be a total of 50 parking spaces proposed for the commercial recreation facility where 71 parking spaces are
required (30 on-site spaces provided at 1541 Adrian Road and 20 off-site parking spaces at 960 David
Road).
The portion of the lot used as vehicle storage for the Unga family can only be accessed through the portion of the
site proposed to be utilized by GoKart Racer. As a Condition of Approval, GoKart Racer will need to allow the
Ungas to continue to access its portion of the lot through the GoKart Racer lot.
Parking Demand Study: The applicant hired Sandis to conduct a Parking Demand Study of the business as it is
currently in operation (refer to attached study dated January 27, 2015). The purpose of the study was to examine
the existing site parking demand, primarily during peak demand hours, and to determine the impact in the reduction
of parking spaces dedicated to the site. The Parking Demand Study was reviewed by the City’s Engineering
Program Manager. In his memo dated February 18, 2015, he notes that “the Public Works – Engineering Division
is in concurrence with the conclusions and justifications present in the analysis.”
There are a total of 32 parking spaces provided at 1541 Adrian Road (15 parking spaces located on the north end
of the site and 17 parking spaces on the south end of the site). Staff would note that 30 spaces are for GoKart
Racing and 2 spaces are for the property owners’ storage space. There are an additional 7 motorcycle parking
spaces provided at the north end of the site. In its study, Sandis included the motorcycle spaces and therefore
reflects a total of 40 on-site parking spaces.
Sandis conducted an occupancy survey of the parking spaces during peak use periods to determine the peak
parking demand. Peak use periods were identified to be Thursday evenings from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturdays
from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Occupancy data in Table 1 of the Parking Demand Study indicate that the off-street parking
demand is minimal even during peak use periods and did not exceed two (2) vehicles. The study also showed that
no vehicles were observed in the off-site lot at 960 David Road.
In addition to on-site parking counts, the survey also included data collection of on-street parking spaces within the
business vicinity, which varied from 4 to 23 vehicles during the collection periods. Sandis notes that given the
minimal parking demand observed on the subject property and at 960 David Road, it is likely that some patrons of
GoKart Racer are parking on the street. Sandis also notes that a conservative analysis of the parking demand
would be to assume that all on-street parking collected within the vicinity is associated with GoKart Racer. Using
this assumption, the combined on-street/off-street peak parking demand requires 24 parking spaces and occurs on
Saturday between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. (see Table 1 of Parking Demand Study). Since 32 parking spaces are
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance 1541 Adrian Road
3
provided on-site, the existing parking on-site has adequate capacity to meet the peak use parking demand for the
facility without requiring the use of on-street parking (24 parking spaces based on the Parking Demand Study).
Although based on the study no additional parking spaces would be required beyond those provided on the subject
property, the applicant is still proposing to provide 20 spaces at 960 David Road as potential overflow parking.
In conclusion, Sandis Engineering notes that “given the fact that there are spaces available within the Facility
parking lots during peak hours of operation and adequate on-street parking within the property vicinity, a parking
variance is warranted to reduce the required parking space supply for the Facility.”
Staff Comments: This application was placed directly on the regular action calendar because it includes a request
for an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance. If the Commission feels
there is a need for the applicant to provide additional information, this item may be continued to a future meeting.
See attached original memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal and Recycling Specialist.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to
secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that
do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an
potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
This space intentionally left blank.
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance 1541 Adrian Road
4
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and
consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings
supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission.
The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. Please note that conditions that no longer apply
contain strikethroughs and that all new conditions are in italics. 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 Department and date
stamped February 27, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-3, and date stamped March 13, 2003, sheet L-1; with a
total of 9, 502 SF of on-site landscaping and 2,981 SF of landscaping in the front setback along David
Road; that 32 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on site and used only for the proposed
commercial recreation use in the building at 1541 Adrian Road; and that the existing chain link fence
separating the 32 parking spaces for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road from the 49
parking spaces for 1565 Adrian Road shall remain and be maintained by the property owner;
2. that the hours of operation for the go kart recreation use shall be 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday
through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. to 12:00a.m. on Friday and Saturday; and that no persons under the age
of 18 shall be allowed inside the facility after 6:00 p.m., unless they are part of a previously scheduled
private party;
3. that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 13 persons, including the business
owner;
4. that all the existing and new landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler
system that shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times;
5. that the ambient noise level at the property lines shall not increase more than 5 dBA L10 when the go karts
are operating; in the event that the City of Burlingame receives a compliant about noise levels from the go
kart use, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a noise study by a qualified acoustical
engineer; and should the results of the study show that the proposed use is not in compliance with the
standards in the City's General Plan, the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission;
6. that the four existing catch basins on the site, two at the southwest corner of the building at 1541 Adrian
Road, one in the parking area between the buildings at 1541 and 1565 Adrian Road, and one at the east
side of the building at 1565 Adrian Road, and the one existing catch basin in auxiliary parking Lot A in the
drainage easement, shall have a petroleum filter (sock or pillow) installed, and the owner shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning and changing all filters on a biannual basis as well as immediately
prior to and once (at least) during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1), or as required by the City;
7. that off-site parking for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road shall be provided in parking Lot
A in the drainage easement to the west of 1561-1565 Adrian Road as shown on the Site Diagram, date
stamped February 4, 2015, that Lot A, measuring 64 feet in length by 255 feet in length, with 43 20 parking
spaces along the western portion of the site, and an entrance and exit off of David Road, shall be provided
and maintained solely for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road; that the lease of the 43 20
parking spaces in Lot A shall be a required condition for the lease of 1541 Adrian Road for a commercial
recreation use; and that if at any time in the future the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road
ceases, the parking variance associated with 1541-1565 Adrian Road shall be void;
8. that the applicant shall be responsible for erecting signage on site to direct customers to the appropriate
parking areas for 1541 Adrian Road; and that all on site signage, including directional and parking signs,
shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments;
9. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 12, 2002, the Recycling Specialist's November 8, 2002,
and the Building Official's November 4, 2002 memos shall be met; and
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance 1541 Adrian Road
5
10. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as
amended by the City of Burlingame.:
Off-Site Parking at 960 David Road (front, western portion of site):
11. that clear access to the parking area to the rear (north) of the site at 960 David Road shall be maintained at
all times through the GoKart Racer parking area;
12. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to flooding;
13. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the property, per §503
International Fire Code;
14. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
15. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
16. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators
shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to
ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
17. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm
water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into
the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil
separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the
rainy season (October 15 – April 1);
18. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from the adjacent
parcels;
19. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in regard to the
proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney
and executed prior to issuance of the permit.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Robert Edwards Jr., applicant
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Explanation Letter submitted by Robert Edwards, Jr., dated February 3, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Application
Variance Application
Parking Demand Study and attachments prepared by Sandis, dated January 27, 2015
Memorandum from Augustine Chou, Engineering Program Manager, dated February 18, 2015
Approval letter for original project, dated April 8, 2003
March 24, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes
Staff Comments for originally approved project
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for
Amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for changes to an
existing commercial recreation facility at 1541 Adrian Road, Zoned RR, Frank Edwards Co. Inc.,1565
Adrian Road, Burlingame, CA, 94010 property owner, APN: 025-271-050, -060, -070 and -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 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that existing facilities,
consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical
features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
agency's determination are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance is approved subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Conditional
Use Permit and Parking Variance 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 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
and Parking Variance.
1541 Adrian Road
Effective March 5, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped February 27, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-3, and date
stamped March 13, 2003, sheet L-1; with a total of 9, 502 SF of on-site landscaping and
2,981 SF of landscaping in the front setback along David Road; that 32 parking spaces
shall be provided and maintained on site and used only for the proposed commercial
recreation use in the building at 1541 Adrian Road; and that the existing chain link fence
separating the 32 parking spaces for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian
Road from the 49 parking spaces for 1565 Adrian Road shall remain and be maintained
by the property owner;
2. that the hours of operation for the go kart recreation use shall be 10:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. to 12:00a.m. on Friday and Saturday;
and that no persons under the age of 18 shall be allowed inside the facility after 6:00
p.m., unless they are part of a previously scheduled private party;
3. that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 13 persons,
including the business owner;
4. that all the existing and new landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an
automatic sprinkler system that shall be maintained by the property owner in good
operating condition at all times;
5. that the ambient noise level at the property lines shall not increase more than 5 dBA L10
when the go karts are operating; in the event that the City of Burlingame receives a
compliant about noise levels from the go kart use, the applicant shall provide to the
Planning Department a noise study by a qualified acoustical engineer; and should the
results of the study show that the proposed use is not in compliance with the standards
in the City's General Plan, the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission;
6. that the four existing catch basins on the site, two at the southwest corner of the building
at 1541 Adrian Road, one in the parking area between the buildings at 1541 and 1565
Adrian Road, and one at the east side of the building at 1565 Adrian Road, and the one
existing catch basin in auxiliary parking Lot A in the drainage easement, shall have a
petroleum filter (sock or pillow) installed, and the owner shall be responsible for
inspecting and cleaning and changing all filters on a biannual basis as well as
immediately prior to and once (at least) during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1), or
as required by the City;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
and Parking Variance.
1541 Adrian Road
Effective March 5, 2015
7. that off-site parking for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road shall be
provided in the drainage easement to the west of 1561-1565 Adrian Road as shown on
the Site Diagram, date stamped February 4, 2015, with 20 parking spaces along the
western portion of the site, and an entrance and exit off of David Road, shall be provided
and maintained solely for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road; that the
lease of the 20 parking spaces shall be a required condition for the lease of 1541 Adrian
Road for a commercial recreation use; and that if at any time in the future the
commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road ceases, the parking variance associated
with 1541-1565 Adrian Road shall be void;
8. that the applicant shall be responsible for erecting signage on site to direct customers to
the appropriate parking areas for 1541 Adrian Road; and that all on site signage,
including directional and parking signs, shall require a separate permit from the Planning
and Building Departments;
9. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 12, 2002, the Recycling Specialist's
November 8, 2002, and the Building Official's November 4, 2002 memos shall be met;
10. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame;
Off-Site Parking at 960 David Road (front, western portion of site):
11. that clear access to the parking area to the rear (north) of the site at 960 David Road
shall be maintained at all times through the GoKart Racer parking area;
12. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to
flooding;
13. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the
property, per §503 International Fire Code;
14. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
15. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
16. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all
sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately
following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers;
maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
and Parking Variance.
1541 Adrian Road
Effective March 5, 2015
17. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be
routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then
the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on
a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season
(October 15 – April 1);
18. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from
the adjacent parcels; and
19. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in
regard to the proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney and executed prior to issuance of the permit.
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in the
Drainage Right-of-Way
Address: 960 David Road Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage in the drainage right-of way in the RR
Zoning District.
Applicant: Tesla Motors APN: 025-271-090
Property Owner: Frank Edwards Company, Inc. Lot Area: 2.06 acres (89,851 SF)
General Plan: Industrial and Office Use Zoning: RR
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area – Central Rollins Road
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the
operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review.
Proposed Use: Automobile storage
Allowable Use: RR zoning requires a Conditional Use Permit for storage of operable vehicles including
automobiles and trucks subject to performance criteria (C.S. 25.44.060 (b) (2)).
History: An application for a Conditional Use Permit, Parking Variance and Landscaping Variance for a commercial
recreation facility (GoKart Racer) at 1541 Adrian Road was approved by the Planning Commission on March 24,
2003. The Parking Variance granted by the Planning Commission was for 41 parking spaces (30 on-site parking
spaces provided where 71 on-site spaces were required). To mitigate the Parking Variance, the applicant agreed to
provide 43 off-site parking spaces in the eastern portion of the drainage right-of-way at 960 David Road.
Concurrent with this application, GoKart Racer submitted a request to reduce the number of parking spaces
provided within the drainage right-of-way (from 43 to 20) and to relocate its parking from the eastern to the western
portion of the site. This allows Tesla Motors to submit a request for a Conditional Use Permit to use the eastern
portion of the site for vehicle storage.
Project Summary: The applicant, Tesla Motors (Tesla), is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow automobile
storage in the drainage right-of-way on the eastern portion of the property located at 960 David Road, zoned RR.
Tesla currently bases its sales and service operations at 50 Edwards Court in Burlingame but is proposing to utilize
68 spaces at 960 David Road for overflow short term parking. Tesla is not proposing to make any physical changes
to the site. The following application is required:
Conditional Use Permit to allow automobile storage in the drainage right-of-way (C.S. 25.44.060 (b) (2)).
960 David Road is approximately two acres in size and much of it was graded and paved for parking many years
ago. Tesla is proposing to utilize the eastern portion of the site measuring approximately 22,980 SF to store up to
68 vehicles (see Site Plan date stamped February 10, 2015). The other portions of the 960 David Road property are
leased to other entities and no changes are proposed to those areas with this application. For reference, 20 spaces
would be associated with the GoKart Racer business at 1541 Adrian Road (front, western portion of lot) and the
remainder of the paved lot is associated with the Unga family for vehicle storage (rear, western portion of lot).
The RR zoning district requires a Conditional Use Permit for storage for operable vehicles including automobiles
and trucks within the drainage right-of-way provided the following requirements are met: a) vehicles must be in
operable condition and must be managed at all times by a single, responsible person with access to the keys for all
Item 8e
Action Calendar
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
2
vehicles; b) vehicles shall be moved by appointment only and shall not be moved during a.m. and p.m. peak hour
traffic periods as defined by the City Engineer; c) minimum site size of 0.7 acres; d) site has approved access to a
public street; and e) no customers shall visit the site. The City Engineer defines the peak hour traffic periods as
weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on
Saturday and Sunday. Planning staff would note that the proposed use of the drainage right-of-way complies with
all of the listed requirements.
Tesla employees would be the only persons accessing the site and any vehicles on it, and no customers would ever
visit the site. The vehicles would be driven to and from the drainage right-of-way strictly by Tesla staff during off-
peak hours on both the weekends and the weekdays. Keys to the vehicles would be stored offsite at the 50
Edwards Court location and would be available to the manager of that location if it was necessary to relocate cars in
an emergency situation.
No structures are proposed for the site. As a Condition of Approval, if any structures or improvements (including
temporary or portable structures) are proposed for the site, the applicant will need to contact the Building Division
prior to the installation of those structures or improvements, to discuss City requirements.
Staff Comments: This application was placed directly on the regular action calendar because it includes a request
for an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance. If the Commission feels
there is a need for the applicant to provide additional information, this item may be continued to a future meeting.
There were no comments from the City divisions.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for parking in the drainage
easement the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section
25.52.020 a-c):
(a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
(b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and
the purposes of this title;
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to
secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
(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.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be taken by resolution and should include findings made for the Conditional Use Permit. The reasons for any action
should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 10, 2015, sheet A1.0; and that any changes to this application shall be brought back to the
Planning Commission as an amendment;
2. that the eastern portion of the site shall only be used by Tesla Motors for vehicle storage for up to 68
vehicles; that vehicles shall be brought to and from the site by Tesla employees only; that no customers
shall ever visit the 960 David Road drainage right-of-way site;
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
3
3. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to flooding;
4. that if any structures or improvements are proposed for the site (including temporary or portable structures),
the applicant must contact the Building Division, prior to the installation of those structures or improvements,
to discuss City requirements;
5. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the property, per §503
International Fire Code;
6. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
7. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
8. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators
shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to
ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
9. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm
water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into
the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil
separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the
rainy season (October 15 – April 1);
10. that vehicles associated with the business shall not be moved during the peak traffic hours (weekdays from
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday
and Sunday.
11. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from the adjacent
parcels;
12. that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility and liability
of the applicant;
13. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in regard to the
proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney
and executed prior to issuance of the permit; and
14. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Tesla Motors, applicant
Frank Edwards Company, Inc., property owner
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
4
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Explanation Letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped February 10, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Application
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for
Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage in the drainage right-of-way in the RR Zoning District at
960 David Road, Zoned RR, Frank Edwards Co. Inc.,1565 Adrian Road, Burlingame, CA, 94010
property owner, APN: 025-271-090;
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 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that existing facilities,
consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical
features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
agency's determination are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report,
minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
960 David Road
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 February 10, 2015, sheet A1.0; and that any changes to this application
shall be brought back to the Planning Commission as an amendment;
2. that the eastern portion of the site shall only be used by Tesla Motors for vehicle storage
for up to 68 vehicles; that vehicles shall be brought to and from the site by Tesla
employees only; that no customers shall ever visit the 960 David Road drainage right-of-
way site;
3. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to
flooding;
4. that if any structures or improvements are proposed for the site (including temporary or
portable structures), the applicant must contact the Building Division, prior to the
installation of those structures or improvements, to discuss City requirements;
5. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the
property, per §503 International Fire Code;
6. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
7. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
8. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all
sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately
following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers;
maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
9. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be
routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then
the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on
a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season
(October 15 – April 1);
10. that vehicles associated with the business shall not be moved during the peak traffic
hours (weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), with no time
restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday and Sunday.
11. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from
the adjacent parcels;
12. that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the
responsibility and liability of the applicant;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
960 David Road
Effective March 5, 2015
Page 2
13. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in
regard to the proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney and executed prior to issuance of the permit; and
14. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit
Address: 1260 California Drive Meeting Date: February 23, 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 requested 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 drive one car from the main location to the proposed storage site, and return with another car. On
occasion an employee may walk over from the main location to the storage site to shuttle a ca r back. There
would be no deliveries of new cars at this location. New cars would continue to be delivered to the dealership at
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.
Item No. 8f
Regular Action
Conditional Use Permit 1260 California Drive
-2-
25.12.041).
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 Commission Consideration on February 9, 2015: This application was considered by the Planning
Commission at the February 9, 2015 meeting. Following the public hearing, the Commission continued the
matter to the February 23, 2015 meeting with direction to the applicant to provide scaled drawings and more
details on the placement of the proposed fence, specifically as it relates to pedestrian access on the east side of
California Drive. The applicant submitted a response letter dated February 13, 2015 (date stamped February 17,
2015) along with scaled drawings, to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments.
Staff consulted with Public Works regarding the Planning Commission’s concern with pedestrian safety along the
east side of California Drive. However, Public Works did not want a sidewalk constructed on this side because it
would not lead to any destination point other than the Rector storage. Rector will be required to install a
pedestrian gate at the south end of the storage area, near Broadway and California, to provide for safe access to
the site. In addition there are no cross walks on California Drive, north of Broadway, until Murchison Drive.
Please refer to the February 9, 2015 Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of
Planning Commission questions and comments and public comments.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure op eration of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 15, 2015 and February 17, 2015, site plan, modified aerial and elevation;
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 proposed fence shall include a pedestrian gate located near the intersection of Broadway and
California;
Conditional Use Permit 1260 California Drive
-3-
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 applicant shall complete a street address application to be assigned a physical address;
6. 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;
7. that no additional lighting or loudspeakers shall be installed or used at this site;
8. 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
9. 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:
Response packet from E. James Hannay, Rector Motor Car Company
Letter, dated February 13, 2015
Revised Site plan
Aerial
Modified aerial/Fence elevation - date stamped January 15, 2015
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter from John Kevranian, Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District (February 7, 2015)
Response from Mayor Terry Nagel (February 8, 2015)
Application to the Planning Commission
CUP application
Commercial Application
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 30, 2015
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
712 Lexington Way
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Special Permit and Variances
Address: 712 Lexington Way Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, Side Setback Variance
and Parking Variances for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Wehmeyer Design APN: 029-171-180
Property Owners: Rahul Verma and Monali Sheth Lot Area: 5000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The existing one-story house and attached single-car garage contains 1,623 SF (0.32
FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing front porch
by 69 SF, add 140 SF at the rear of the house on the first floor and add a new 889 SF second floor. With
the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,652 SF (0.53 FAR) where 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed project is 48 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within
2% of the maximum allowed FAR.
The first floor wall along the left side property line is nonconforming because it is set back 3’-6” where 4’-0”
is the minimum required. The applicant is requesting a Side Setback Variance to extend the first floor wall
along the left side property line at the rear of the house (3’-6” existing and proposed where 4’-0” is the
minimum required).
The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed second story along
the right side of the house (29 SF, 1’-6” x 19’-0” extends beyond the declining height envelope) (see Proposed North
Elevation, sheet A3.0).
The existing house contains three bedrooms. The existing covered parking space is nonconforming in
length (16’-6” existing where 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing garage). The uncovered parking
space is also nonconforming in length (17’-0” existing where 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing
condition). With this project the number of bedrooms is increasing from three to four, which requires one
covered and one uncovered parking spaces to current code dimensions. Since the existing parking is
substandard and there are no changes proposed to increase the length of the parking spaces, the applicant
is requesting Parking Variances for substandard parking space length for the covered and uncovered
parking spaces.
The proposed project requires the following applications:
Design Review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2);
Side Setback Variance to extend the f irst floor wall along the left side property line at the rear of the
house (3’-6” existing and proposed where 4’-0” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c) (1));
Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for the proposed second story addition along the right side of
the house (29 SF, 1’-6” x 19’-0” extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a));
Parking Variance for substandard covered parking space length (16’-6” clear interior dimensions
existing/proposed where 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing garage) (C.S. 25.70.030 (a) (4)); and
Parking Variance for substandard uncovered parking space length (17’-0” existing/proposed where
18’-0” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.70.030 (a) (4)).
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 712 Lexington Way
2
712 Lexington Way
Lot Area: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 11, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
Garage:
19'-0"
n/a
15’-0” ¹
16'-6" to porch
32'-6"
no change
16'-1" (block average)
20'-0"
25’-0”
Side (left):
3'-6" ¹ 3’-6” ² 4'-0"
(right): 3'-0" ¹ 11’-6” 4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
40'-0"
n/a
37'-6"
37'-6"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1642 SF
32.8%
1851 SF
37%
2000 SF
40%
FAR: 1623 SF
0.32 FAR
2652 SF
0.53 FAR
2700 SF ³
0.54 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(9' x 16'-6” clear interior) 4
1 uncovered
(9' x 17') 4
no change to existing 5
1 covered
(9' x 18' clear interior)
1 uncovered
(9' x 18')
Height: 18'-5" 25’-7” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: n/a encroaches 29 SF 6
(1'-6" x 19'-0")
Special Permit
required
¹ Existing non-conforming front setback to attached garage and left and right side setbacks.
² Side Setback Variance required (3’-6” proposed where 4’-0” is required).
³ (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1100 SF = 2700 SF (0.54 FAR). 4 Existing nonconforming covered parking space length and uncovered parking space length. 5 Parking Variance required for substandard covered parking space length (16’-6” clear interior dimensions
existing/proposed where 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing garage) and substandard uncovered
parking space length (17’-0” existing/proposed where 18’-0” is the minimum required). 6 Special Permit required for declining height envelope for the proposed second story addition along the right side of
the house (29 SF, 1’-6” x 19’-0” extends beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater
Divisions.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer
Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 712 Lexington Way
3
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Variance Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 115 Occidental Avenue Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates APN: 028-314-190
Property Owner: JNL Occidental LLC Lot Area: 7,250 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon
documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, I nc., dated February 6, 2015.
The results of the evaluation concluded that 115 Occidental Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible
for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Planning Staff will prepare environmental
review documentation to support the findings of the Historic Resource Evaluation prior to the Planning
Commission Action Hearing for this project.
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and
detached 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 3,814 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,820 SF (0.52 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed project is 6 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within less
than 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.
The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope. There is approximately 98 SF
of the proposed second floor that encroaches into the declining height envelope along the right side. All other
Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application s:
Environmental Review for 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 (98 SF along the right side of the house extends beyond the
declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075).
Item No. 9c
Design Review Study
Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit 115 Occidental Avenue
2
115 Occidental Avenue
Lot Area: 7,250 SF Plans date stamped: February 9, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
26'-0”
32'-0”
25'-3” (block average)
20'-0”
Side (left):
(right):
5'-0"
10’-0”
4'-0"
4’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
57’-6”
60’-6”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,414 SF
33.3%
2,900 SF
40%
FAR: 3,814 SF
0.52 FAR
3,820 SF 1
0.52 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: 29’-9” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Request for Special Permit ²
98 SF extends beyond the declining
height envelope)
CS 25.26.075
1 (0.32 x 7,250 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,820 SF (0.52 FAR)
² Request for Special Permit for declining height envelope (98 SF along the right side of the house extends
beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division,
Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division.
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.
Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit 115 Occidental Avenue
3
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 structur al 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 st ructure 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 n ew 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.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates
JNL Occidental LLP
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc ., dated February 6, 2015
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 _9_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 115 Occidental 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 115 Occidental Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-314-190
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
115 Occidental Avenue is a one story over partially exposed basement, heavily altered Craftsman style bungalow constructed in
1917. The 1870 sq. ft. wood frame building occupies a 7250 sq. ft. rectangular lot on the west side of Occidental Avenue between
Howard Avenue and Barroilhet Avenue. The building is set back approximately 20 feet from the lot line and slightly south of lot
center; a concrete paved driveway is located at the north perimeter of the lot and leads to a detached garage behind the resi dence.
The residence is clad primarily in asbestos shingle and capped with a hipped roof with two large shed-roofed dormers and one
smaller hip-roofed dormer. The building is oriented slightly off of cardinal directions; cardinal directions will be used for ease of
description in this report.
*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,
01/28/2015
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1917, San Mateo County Assessors
Map Information
*P7. Owner and Address:
JNL Occidental Lp.
3260 19th Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
*P9. Date Recorded:
02/06/2015
*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 The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 9 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description: (continued)
The primary (east) façade faces onto a lawn and Occidental Avenue (Figure P5a). The primary entrance is located at the right of
the façade, and consists of a contemporary glazed wood panel door with a left side-lite of textured colored glass (Figure 1). The
entrance features a brick-edged concrete stoop surrounded by a galvanized metal railing, accessed by two concrete steps at the
right corner and one brick and concrete stair at left. The entry stoop is sheltered by a shed roof. At center, the primary façade
includes a simple decorative colored shingle arrangement which frames applied address numbers. At left, a large shallow corner
bay includes a six-part aluminum sash fixed and awning window group (Figure 2). The first story terminates with a boxed eave
overhang. At the center of the roof, there is a small hipped dormer with a metal sash sliding window. A large metal chimney pipe
rises from the roof at the left of the dormer.
The north façade faces onto a fully paved driveway which leads from the street to the rear of the lot to access the detached garage.
The partially exposed basement includes three small metal vents, evenly spaced along the facade. At the first story there are three
shallow square bays, each with an aluminum sash sliding window at its north facet (Figure 3). At the rear (west) of the façade
there is a small aluminum sash sliding window. The façade terminates with a boxed eave overhang. At the center of the roof, there
is a large shed roof dormer with an aluminum sash sliding window.
The rear (west) façade faces onto a yard that is largely paved with a small area of lawn at the south between the house and t he
garage. The rear façade is clad in vertical wood siding (Figure 4). At the exposed basement level, a short concrete stair leads
below grade to access a wood door with a small window. At the first story, left of center , there is a glazed wood panel door and at
right there is an aluminum sash sliding window. The façade terminat es in a boxed eave overhang. The door is accessed via a small
wood porch, which is accessed via a large wood and concrete dog -leg ramp. The porch and part of the ramp are sheltered beneath
a shed roof, supported by square wood posts.
The south façade faces onto a narrow yard with mature trees. At the exposed basement level, at far left (west), there is a small
aluminum sash sliding window. At the first story, from left to right, there is an anodized aluminum sliding window, a large a luminum
fixed and sliding tripartite window group, a small aluminum sliding window, and, at far right, the large shallow corner bay that was
described as part of the primary (east) façade (Figure 5). Here the bay also includes the same six part aluminum sash fixed and
awning window group that is found at the primary façade. The south façade terminates with a boxed eave overhang. At the center
of the roof, there is a large shed roof dormer with a aluminum sash sliding window.
A detached garage is located at the southwest corner of the lot and abuts the southern lot line (Figure 6). The garage is clad in
stucco. The primary façade of the garage faces north and includes a solid wood pedestrian door at left and a broad articulated
wood and glazed overhead auto door at center. The façade terminates with a peaked parapet behind which the roof is flat. The
remaining facades of the garage have no windows or doors.
Figure 1: Primary (east) facade, primary entrance, stoop, and
address detail, facing northwest.
Figure 2: Primary (east) facade, left (south) corner bay window
detail, facing west.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 9 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 3: North facade, facing southwest. Figure 4: Rear (west) facade, facing east.
Figure 5: South facade, partial view of rear (west)
portion, facing northeast.
Figure 6: Garage, primary (north) facade and east facade, facing
southwest.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 9 *NRHP Status Code_6Z___________________
*Resource Name or # 115 Occidental Avenue
B1. Historic name: 115 Occidental Avenue
B2. Common name: 115 Occidental Avenue
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence
B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman style bungalow, altered
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Original building plans or construction permits for 115 Occidental Avenue are not on file with the Burlingame Building Department,
and the architect is unknown. The San Mateo County Assessor reports a construction date of 1917. Building permits on file with the
Burlingame Building Department include: Garage construction and house alterations (Jun. 11, 1930, Permit #1869); Exterior
alteration including change location of front and back doors (Jun. 1, 1967, Permit #unknown); Electrical work in kitchen (Aug. 1,
1967, Permit # M109); Unspecified remodel (Aug. 7, 1973, Permit #U-1157); Remodel front door, living room (add freestanding
fireplace), add second story bedroom (May 7, 1977, Permit #X-482, builder Enar Eric Holm); Unspecified room addition (July 6,
1979, Permit #Z-877); Demo existing garage and construct two car garage (July 16, 1990, Permit #8496); Reroof (Nov. 9, 2005,
Permit #unknown).
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________
*B8. Related Features: Garage, constructed 1990.
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 i ntegrity)
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 t o
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 dev elopment 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 7)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: February 6, 2015
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2013.
Modified by Page & Turnbull.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 5 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
B10. Significance (cont’d):
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 construc tion 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 Co untry Club area was also annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Park Neighborhood
The house at 115 Occidental Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (includi ng
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 t o
develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a pla n
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 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. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a
period of about fifty years. 115 Occidental Avenue was constructed in 1917, in the subdivision’s 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. Many of these were designed in high architectural styles and were much grander in scale t han
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 t he
early twentieth century building boom, to the present day.
115 Occidental Avenue
According to information provided by the San Mateo County Assessor, the house at 115 Occidental Avenue was constructed in
1917, twelve years after the Burlingame Park neighborhood was first platted. No original building permit is available and,
consequently, the architect and builder are not known. The house appears on the 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, which is the
earliest available Sanborn Map for this area of Burlingame. At that time, the house was addressed as 113 Occidental, and the lot
was larger, extending west past its current boundary, possibly to the creek line (Figure 7). The footprint of the house at that time
differed from its current configuration, with a broad open porch across the primary façade, without the projecting corner bay that
currently exists at the southeast corner of the house (Figure 8). The footprint was the same in the 1949 Sanborn Map, and can be
seen in photographs of the house taken in 1954 and 1966 (Figures 9, 10, 11).
The first known owner of 115 Occidental Avenue was Fred E. Harmon, who lived here with his wife Minnie from approximately
1925-1928. It appears through record research that Harmon owned the property through at least 1930, as his name appears on a
building permit from that year. Harmon was a salesman in various industries including newspaper sales. During Harmon’s
ownership, a garage was constructed on the property and unspecified permitted alterations were made to the house. From 1931 to
1967, the house was owned and occupied for short periods of time by a variety of different people. In 1931, the house was
occupied by L. B. Hillsinger, a mariner. From 1932 through 1939, the house was occupied by real estate salesm an John
Montgomery Reynolds and his wife Louise. From 1940 through 1946, the house was occupied by George A. Bawart, a meat
market employee, and his wife Mary Jane. In 1947, the house was owned by Ethel G. Ginno and occupied by her son, John W.
Ginno. From 1948 to 1950 the house was occupied by Sydney E. Jordan, an engineer at McCormick Steamship Company, and his
wife Eva. In 1951 the house was occupied by Elmer B. Longfellow, an employee at Ampex Elec. Co., and his wife Marge. In 1953,
the house was occupied by Robert Krollpfeiffer, an electrician, and his wife Betty. From 1954 through 1961 the house was
occupied by Robert R. Gowland, and employee at Swift & Co. in San Francisco, and his wife Arabella. From 1963 through 1965,
the house was occupied by Frances Wellbridge, a carpenter, and his wife Margaret.
On January 1, 1967, the house was purchased by James C. Conklin and his wife Patricia, from previous owner George E. Welch,
who does not appear to have ever occupied the property. James C. Co nklin was an electronics technician at Lenkart Electronics,
and during his ownership extensive alterations were made to the property, including the removal of the original front porch, change
of location of front and back doors, alteration of living room including construction of a new corner bay, replacement of original
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 6 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
windows with aluminum windows, conversion of the house from one story to two with the addition of a second story bedroom,
replacement of the dormer on the primary façade and construction of two larger side dormers, another unspecified room addition,
demolition of the existing garage and construction of a two car garage, recladding, and reroofing. The Conklin family remained in
ownership of the property until it was purchased in 2014 by the current owner.
Evaluation (Significance):
The residence at 115 Occidental 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 Californ ia
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 1917, the house at 115 Occidental 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 contributi on to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritag e of California or the United States. The house does convey
contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, but it is not among the
oldest homes in the neighborhood and it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. Therefore, the
property does rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion A/1.
The house at 115 Occidental Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register
under Criterion 2 (Persons). The house has been owned and rented over the years by a series of middle class people, none of
whom appear through research to have made specific important contributions to national, state, or local history that meet the
significance threshold for historic register inclusion.
The house at 115 Occidental 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 o f
construction. The building as constructed appears to have been a good example of the size and quality of residences constructed
in the Burlingame Park neighborhood and also displayed architectural features identified with the Craftsman bungalow style.
However, the property no longer conveys its original appearance due to a series of major alterations. The architect and builder are
unknown and cannot be considered masters. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and
does not appear eligible for register inclusion 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 144 Occidental Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Evaluation (Integrity):
The house at 115 Occidental Avenue retains integrity of location and setting. It is situat ed on its original lot, and the surrounding
Burlingame Park neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single -family houses. The property has undergone
extensive alterations since its construction, including the reconfiguration of the primary (east) façade, the addition of large dormers
visible from all facades, replacement of all original windows, and recladding . Therefore, integrity of design, materials, and
workmanship are no longer intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early twentieth century residential
development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains integrity of association, but has lost its integrity of feeling
because it no longer expresses the overall historic appearance that it had when it was constructed. Overall the property does not
retain integrity.
Conclusion
115 Occidental Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any cr iteria.
The property was constructed early in the period of residential settlement of Burlingame Park subdivision. However, it is not among
the very oldest homes in the neighborhood, nor is it the first, only, or best example of a Craftsman style bungalow in the area;
instead, the building has been significantly altered and no longer conveys its historic appearance . It has no association with any
notable persons, and is not the site of any specific significant event. 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 l ocal
designation through survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A curs ory
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 eligibili ty as
a historic district. However, due to significant loss of integrity, 115 Occidental Avenue would not likely be a contributo r to a potential
historic district.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 7 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B12. References:
- Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.
- Building Permit Records, 144 Occidental Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingam Historical Society files.
- Burlingame Planning Department, Property file: 144 Occidental Avenue.
- 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: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940.
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
Figure 7: 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company, 115 Occidental Avenue lot outlined in red; edited by author. Source: San Francisco
Public Library Online Database System.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 8 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 8: Footprint of 115 Occidental Avenue (addressed as 113) in 1921. Source: Source: San Francisco Public Library Online
Database System.
Figure 9: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 115 Occidental Avenue lot outlined in red; edited by author. Source: San Francisco Public
Library Online Database System.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 9 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 10: 115 Occidental Avenue, 1954. Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 11: 115 Occidental Avenue, 1966. Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
PROJECT LOCATION
226 Lorton Avenue
Item No. 9e
Action Item
1
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit for a Full Service Food Establishment
and Commercial Design Review
Address: 226 Lorton Avenue Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment and Commercial Design
Review for changes to the façades of an existing commercial building.
Applicant: Nick Swinmurn, Nachoria LLC APN: 029-211-190
Designer: Glenn Cunningham Lot Area: 7000 SF
Property Owner: S.L. Griffiths, Inc. Zoning: BAC
General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District
Previous Use: Produce market (currently vacant)
Proposed Use: Full service food establishment
Allowable Use: Full service food establishment with approval of a Conditional Use Permit
Summary: The subject property contains a single-story 2,758 SF vacant space at the front of the site and a two-
story 3,672 SF office space at the rear. The subject space is currently vacant, but was most recently occupied
by a produce market. The applicant, Nick Swinmurn, representing Nachoria LLC, is proposing to operate full
service food establishment at 226 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC. The proposed restaurant will be open for lunch
and dinner and will serve Mexican cuisine specializing in nachos. Please refer to the applicant’s letters, dated
October 31, 2014 and January 16, 2015, for a full description of the food establishment. Beer and wine would
also be offered upon approval of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
The food establishment would contain customer seating, a kitchen, back of house area and restrooms.
Customer seating would also be offered in a new outdoor covered patio area along the left side of the building,
where there are currently five parking spaces (see Off-Street Parking discussion on page 2). The proposed food
establishment will have approximately 1,213 SF of customer seating (741 SF indoor + 472 SF in covered patio).
The proposed tenant space measures approximately 3,284 SF in area, including the 526 SF covered patio.
A full service food establishment is defined as a business which sells food prepared indoors on the premise with
a full menu and provides an indoor seating area of at least two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Such businesses
may provide for the sale of alcoholic beverages as an accessory and secondary use. Operating criteria to define
a full service food establishment include most or all of the following: served by waiters to seated customers and
where payment is made at the end of the meal; presence of a full commercial kitchen and commercial
dishwasher; and food is served on ceramic plates with metal flatware and cloth napkins. The proposed food
establishment meets most of these operating criteria. Please refer to the applicant’s letter, dated January 16,
2015, for a description of the proposed business operation.
The proposed food establishment would open seven days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. When the
business opens, there will be up to three full-time and up to four part-time employees. In five years, the number
of employees is not expected to increase. At opening, the applicant projects a total of 72 customers per day on
weekdays and weekends. In the future, the applicant anticipates no change in the number of customers per day.
A maximum of 78 people are expected on site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers.
The following applications are required:
Conditional Use Permit for a new full service food service food establishment in the BAC Zoning District
with 1,213 SF of on-site customer seating area (741 SF indoor + 472 SF in covered patio) (CS 25.32.070
(b) (2)); and
Commercial Design Review for changes to the façades of an existing commercial building in the BAC
Zoning District (CS 25.32.045 (b)); and
Item No. 9e
Design Review Study
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
2
Commercial Design Review: With this application, changes are proposed to the front and left side façades of
the existing building. This project is subject to Commercial Design Review because it includes changes to the
façade of a commercial building located within the BAC zoning district. Please refer to sheet A-5 for a
comparison of the existing and proposed building elevations.
The front of the building contains stucco siding, wood trim around non-gridded windows and a canvas awning.
With this application, the existing windows would be replaced with aluminum clad wood windows with simulated
true divided lites in the upper one-third of the windows. The existing canvas awning would be replaced with a
new canvas awning to represent the proposed food establishment.
The left side of the building contains stucco siding at the front half of the building and painted CMU at the rear
half of the building. Aluminum sliding front entry doors and sidelites and a canvas awning are also located along
this side of the building. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing sliding entry doors and sidelites with
aluminum swinging doors. The proposed outdoor patio along the left side of the building would be covered by a
new fabric awning and enclosed with a 3’-0” tall CMU wall painted to match the building. Lastly, there would be a
12’-0” long opening in the wall with counter seating on either side of the opening. The opening would be filled by
a metal roll up door when the business is closed.
The City Arborist is requiring installation of a street tree and tree grate in front of the tenant space t be completed
by the applicant as part of the building permit for the tenant improvements. The City Arborist has specified one
24-inch box Pyrus calleryana ‘Red Spire’ to be planted. The required street tree and grate are shown on the
Proposed Site Plan, sheet A-2.
Off-Street Parking: The subject property contains nine parking spaces along the left side of the building. With
this application, the applicant is proposing to replace six existing parking spaces with a new covered patio for
customer seating. Three parking spaces towards the rear of the site would remain (see Existing and Proposed
Site Plan, sheets A-1 and A-2, respectively).
This property is located within the boundaries of the Burlingame Avenue Off-street Parking District, which was
created in 1962. Assessments were collected from property owners within the district to pay 60% of the cost to
acquire and build public parking lots in the downtown area. Some property owners chose to take a credit for
parking which was provided on their site and did not pay the full assessment. Once a credit was taken, the
property owner was obliged to maintain the parking on the site which was the basis for the credit.
Planning records show that this property did not take a credit and therefore paid the assessment. As a result,
the existing on-site parking spaces do not need to be retained and a Parking Variance is not required to
eliminate the five existing parking spaces along the left side of the building. In addition retail, personal service
and food establishment uses on the first floor in the BAC zoning district, are exempt from vehicle parking
requirements as set forth in code section 25.70.090 (a). Therefore, no additional off-street parking is required for
the proposed food establishment.
This space intentionally left blank.
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
3
226 Lorton Avenue
Lot Area: 7,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 10, 2015
Existing Proposed Allowed/Required
Use: Retail uses
(currently vacant)
Full service food
establishment ¹
Conditional Use Permit required
for a full serviced food
establishment
Seating Area: n/a 1,213 SF
(741 SF indoor + 472
in covered patio)
at least 250 SF of seating area
Off-Street Parking: 9 spaces 3 spaces Property paid assessment in
Burlingame Avenue Off-street
Parking District; existing parking
spaces do not need to be
retained; food establishment use
on ground floor is exempt from
providing parking
¹ Conditional Use Permit for a new full service food establishment in the BAC Zoning District with 1,213 SF of
on-site seating area (741 SF indoor + 472 in covered patio) (CS 25.32.070 (b) (2)).
Staff comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Nick Swinmurn, Nachoria LLC, applicant
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Applicant’s Letters of Explanation, dated October 31, 2014 and January 16, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Application
Commercial Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
February 20, 2015
Planning Commissioners
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: 226 Lorton Avenue
Honorable Planning Commissioners:
I am thrilled to see new life breathed into a former tire and appliance business dating from 1930 that has since
been home to a variety of businesses, the most recent of which put a great deal effort into nice improvements to
the interior.
I live nearby and frequently dine on Lorton Avenue with my family.
The idea of outdoor dining in the significant space of the former parking area is going to be a great addition to
that property. More importantly, it should provide a nice boost to liven up the far end of Lorton as it approaches
Howard Avenue, something we strived to do with our goals in the creation of the Downtown Specific Plan a
few years back.
The changes suggested to the plain, fixed 1970s windows on the Lorton Ave. side offer an improvement and
detailed touch on an otherwise stark and uninteresting exterior.
I’d like to suggest, however, that the new windows be made moveable, either in the form of double-hung, as is
the case with La Boulange on Burlingame Avenue, or perhaps accordion type, or sliders used extensively in the
downtown area.
Anyone who has walked by or frequented such businesses can appreciate that the ability to open windows onto
a sidewalk brings dimension into the street, thereby not only making the streetscape more friendly and fluid, but
also certainly attracting potential customers into establishments that they might otherwise have walked past.
Having frequented the former café, I also think the additional ventilation to the space would be a real asset.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Ave.
Burlingame
02.23.15 PC Meeting
Item #9E
226 Lorton Avenue
Page 1 of 1
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
FEB 20 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD – PLANNING DIV.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 18, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1709 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1709
Ray Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 2014 (see
attached April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued
in December 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 February 18, 2015.
1. In the nook, change the originally approved French doors to windows (see Proposed
Main Floor Plan and Proposed Rear Elevation, sheets A.3 and A.5, respectively).
2. In the family room, change the originally approved windows to French doors (see
Proposed Main Floor Plan and Proposed Rear Elevation, sheets A.3 and A.5,
respectively).
3. Change the originally approved roofing material from wood shake to a higher quality
composition shingle (see Proposed Building Elevations, sheets A.4 through A.7).
Specifically, the applicant is proposing to use CertainTeed Landmark Pro Premium Max
Def (see attached literature).
The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed floor plans and
building elevations, date stamped February 9, 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
c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc., applicant and designer
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, dated February 18, 2015
April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped February 9, 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 19, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: FYI – REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 60 EDWARDS COURT,
ZONED RR.
Summary: On July 22, 2013 the Planning Commission approved an application for commercial
design review, a conditional use permit, and a parking variance for a 61,700 square foot indoor
tennis facility. As approved, the project will consist of six indoor tennis courts and various
ancillary uses. The ancillary uses initially proposed include locker rooms, office space, storage
space, a multi-purpose room, a stretching room, a tennis video review room, three lounges, and
a café to serve users of the facility. The project is now under construction and nearing
completion.
The project applicant is requesting an FYI to modify a landscaped area between the building
and parking lot. The request is to substitute a lawn area in place of the approved landscape
planting and concrete bands. According to the applicant, the intent is to provide a small sports
agility area in front of the building.
Initially the FYI request was submitted with specifications for artificial turf. Upon further
consideration, the applicant amended the request to specify natural grass turf instead. The
attached site plan shows the proposed turf area; any references to artificial turf should be
disregarded. A copy of the previously approved landscape plan has also been provided for
reference.
The architect submitted a letter, date stamped February 18, 2015, to explain the proposed
change to the previously approved Commercial Design Review project. Other than the
proposed revision described above, there are no other changes proposed to the landscape plan
or design of the building.
As the FYI request involves changes to landscaped area, the request was routed to Public
Works and Stormwater Division staff for comment. Provided natural grass turf is installed as
specified in the amended request, staff from Public Works and Stormwater Divisions have no
comment.
Planning staff has designated the project to be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. If
the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Community Development Department Memorandum
February 19, 2015
Page 2
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
c. Jeffrey Wheeler, Swatt Miers Architects, 5845 Doyle Street #104, Emeryville, CA 94608,
architect.
ATTACHMENTS:
Explanation letter from architect, date stamped February 18, 2015
July 22, 2013, Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes
Stormwater Division no comment form, dated February 17, 2015
Proposed landscape plan, date stamped February 4, 2015
Previously approved landscape plan
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, July 22, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
1
2. 60 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION
USE AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY. (ANNE & HORACIO
MATTA, APPLICANTS; SW ATT MIERS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; RILCO-EDWARDS, LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER
No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff
report dated July 22, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Thirty-four (34) conditions were suggested for consideration. Community
Development Director Meeker described the applicant’s request for a waiver of development impact fees,
and provided his recommendations relative to this request.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
John Ward, Horacio Matta, George Miers (project architect), and Gary Black (Hexagon Transportation
Engineers) represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Wondered if a second outdoor seating area could be provided near the fire truck turnaround. (Miers
– have considered this arrangement, but the area is part of the stormwater runoff system, it would
be difficult to place tables and seating in the area.)
Likes the fact that the seating is placed in the front of the building. There is some area on the
exterior at the front that could be used for exercise stations such as a “paracourse.” (Miers/Matta –
Could use the area as a warm-up area prior to playing a match.)
Likes the landscape plan. This is going to bring a lot of value to the community.
The changes made are good. The outdoor courtyard activates the space. (Miers – given that a
large portion of the clientele are children, the courtyard area was provided.)
Will there only be four staff on site at a time? (Matta – Will normally have three or four coaches,
plus a manager on the site at any given time. Meeker – noted that condition 6 may need to be
revised to a maximum of 74-75 individuals on the property at any time.)
Feels the mitigated negative declaration is supportable.
Agrees with the Director’s determination regarding the fee reduction.
If there was a situation with overflow parking, where would they be parked? (Black – there is street
parking in the area. Didn’t believe that they would even come close to exceeding parking on site.)
Public comments:
Unidentified individual and Ken Robinson spoke:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
2
Has worked with the Mattas for many years.
They have been supporting a program in East Palo Alto for many years, and they have a track
record of supporting the community.
Mattas have helped on the courts as coaches.
The Mattas have been instrumental in providing support for improvement of the programs in East
Palo Alto.
Support doing the best with the kids.
Has had private instruction at private clubs over his tennis playing experience.
World class instruction with world-class pros will be at the facility.
Will be able to play tennis year round.
Tennis is a game for life; provides opportunities to meet people from all walks of life.
Suggested approval.
Additional Commission comments:
Will be a great facility.
How will the café be advertised? (Meeker – Will not be allowed to advertise the café as a free-
standing use; it is part of the tennis facility.)
Storage of construction materials – encouraged construction staging on the site during the
construction process.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
City Attorney Kane asked the Commissioners to confirm the adequacy of the findings in the staff report, and
additionally she encouraged adopting separate resolutions for CEQA and the project entitlements. Review
and make the findings for the variance as well.
Further Commission comments:
The project will be improving runoff in the area.
With respect to the CEQA evaluation – given the occupancy of usage of the facility, there will be
adequate parking for the use.
The design is good, it will be a great addition to the community.
Lighting concerns will not be an issue based upon the evaluation.
Noise analysis also shows that there will not be an impact.
The conditional use permit for the height is supportable due to the volume of space needed for the
use; there will not be a second story involved.
Agrees with the approach regarding the trail; the design accommodates the future construction of
the trail when warranted.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to adopt a resolution declaring the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and that, subject to conditions of approval and mitigation measures, implementation of the
project will not result in a significant impact upon the environment.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of the motion:
Add language to condition 11 reinforcing that all construction materials and staging be kept on the
site.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
3
Clarified that the maximum number of people on the site should be clarified as 75, regardless of
whether they are staff or visitors.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the CEQA resolution. The motion passed 4-
0-3-0 (Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones absent).
Motion by Commissioner Yie to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the indoor tennis facility shall be limited to 62,985 SF of commercial recreation space, as shown
on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 12, 2013, sheets CS, A-1,
A-6, A-8 and L-1; and date stamped April 2, 2013, sheets A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, C-1.1, C-2.1, C-
3.1, C-4.1, C-5.1, C-5.2, C-6.1, C-6.2, C-6.3, C-6.4, C-6.5, ER-1, ER-2, SW -1, SU1, SU2 and SU3;
2. that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed and maintained as shown on the
Landscape Plan sheet L-1, date stamped April 2, 2013;
3. that fencing shall be installed along the western property line (adjacent to 25 Edwards Court and
1400 Marsten Road) as shown on the diagram date stamped June 13, 2013;
4. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variances shall apply only to an indoor tennis facility
and shall become void if the indoor tennis facility ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever
expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement;
5. that all activities associated with the tennis facility shall occur indoor only; no portion of the exterior
of the site shall be used for activities associated with the indoor tennis facility;
6. that the indoor tennis facility shall only be open seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
with a maximum of 75 people on-site at any one time, including the owner, employees and
customers;
7. that tournaments shall be hosted a maximum of twelve times a year, that the tennis facility will be
closed to the general public during tournament days, that each tournament would start on Saturday
and run from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and would continue on Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and
that the starting times for matches would be staggered so there would be a 90-minute break from
conclusion of one match and the start of a subsequent match;
8. that the café may be open to the general public but shall not be advertised with signage on site, nor
advertised in any media;
9. that any changes to the floor area, use, or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as
stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit;
10. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s April 25, 2013 and February 25, 2013 memos, Chief
Building Official's April 10, 2013, April 4, 2013 and February 28, 2013 memos, the Parks
Supervisor’s April 4, 2013 and February 28, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal’s February 25, 2013
memos, and the NPDES Coordinator’s April 12, 2013 and March 4, 2013 memos shall be met;
11. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall
be prohibited, and that all construction staging shall be conducted on site;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
4
12. 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;
13. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the
Public Impact fee in the amount of $11,022.38, made payable to the City of Burlingame and
submitted to the Planning Division;
14. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the building, the applicant shall pay the
second half of the Public Impact fee in the amount of $11,022.37, made payable to the City of
Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
15. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the
North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $15,431.33, made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
16. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the building, the applicant shall pay the
second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $15,431.33,
made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
17. that demolition or removal of the existing paving and structures 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;
18. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around
the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site;
19. 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;
20. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame;
The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the
inspections noted in each condition:
21. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building envelope;
22. 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;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
5
23. 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;
24. 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;
Mitigation Measures from Initial Study
Air Quality
25. During construction, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement the
following measures required as part of BAAQMD’s basic and enhanced dust control procedures
required for all construction sites. These include:
a. Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds
exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the
top of the trailer).
c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
e. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if
visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
f. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. In addition, building pads
should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Cultural Resources
26. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during
ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after
notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative
to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines
15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public
Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine
the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting
archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources,
the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such
as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible,
other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other
parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources
is carried out;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
6
27. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or
impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within
100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if
necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame;
28. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction,
all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame
and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State
Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains
are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be
adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a
professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of
the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As
necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant,
including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be
responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the
provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources
Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by
the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where
the remains were discovered;
Geology and Soils
29. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of
Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include
recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent
California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed
by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations performed by a
California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from the
engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall
ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures
and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction.
Hydrology and Water Quality
30. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)
for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the
following:
a. A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading
activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30)
to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall
indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils;
b. Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term
biodegradable erosion control blankets;
c. Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream
storm drain inlets;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
7
d. Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and
activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials,
litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and
e. The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of
debris and sediment.
31. The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent
with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES
Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post-construction treatment and control of storm water
runoff from the site. Post-construction treatment measures must be designed, installed and
hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals
shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and
maintenance of the post-construction stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance
agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of a final construction inspection.
Noise
32. The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures:
a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control
techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
b. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they
shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other
measures to the extent feasible.
Transportation/Traffic
33. Tournaments shall be limited to no more than 12 tournaments per year, consisting of two-day
tournaments on up to one weekend per month. There shall be a 90-minute break between the end
of one round of matches and the beginning of the next round of matches.
34. The project sponsor shall obtain approval for a Parking Variance for providing 48 off-street parking
spaces on the subject site where 299 spaces are required based on the findings of the parking study
done as a part of the Broadway Tennis Center Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants dated June 5, 2013.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion of motion:
Requested that if the applicant does determine a location for an outdoor seating area that the
information be provided to the Commission as an FYI.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3-0
(Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 7:54 p.m.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 20, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: FYI CLARIFCATION – REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 60 EDWARDS
COURT, ZONED RR.
An FYI request has been submitted to substitute a lawn area in place of the approved
landscape planting and concrete bands at 60 Edwards Court, currently under construction.
However there may be some confusion with the request in reference to revision bubbles on the
landscape plans. The landscape plan included with the FYI memo marked “Original Approval”
(dated 10/08/13) shows a revision bubble around an area of the side setback on the north side
of the building. This plan dates to a Design Review Amendment approved by the Planning
Commission on October 28, 2013. At that time, the Planning Commission was presented with
two options for the referenced setback area: one option was to add additional parking spaces,
the other was to add four trees. The Planning Commission specified trees, and those will be
planted accordingly. Attached is a landscape plan (Sheet L4.1) showing the location of
landscape trees for reference.
To reiterate, other than the proposal to substitute lawn area in front of the building as described
in the applicant’s letter, there are no other changes proposed to the landscape plan or design of
the building.
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
c. Jeffrey Wheeler, Swatt Miers Architects, 5845 Doyle Street #104, Emeryville, CA 94608,
architect.
ATTACHMENT:
Landscape Plan Sheet L4.1
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 23, 2015
CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A
Approval of the Closed Session Agenda (Government Code 54956.9(a) and (d)(4)a.
Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the public may address the
Commission on any item on the Closed Session Agenda at this time.
b.
Adjournment into Closed Sessionc.
Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation - Gov. Code §54956.9 (a) and (d)
(4): One Case
d.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period .
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak "
card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust
the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a
commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
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
a.
1504 Drake Ave - Staff Report
1504 Drake Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
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 (continued from February 9, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting)
a.
1448 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1448 Laguna Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
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
b.
1813 Ray Dr - Staff Report
1813 Ray Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an attached
garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage (Farnaz
Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners) (42
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
c.
1548 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report
1548 Los Montes Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
1541 Adrian Road, zoned RR – Application for Amendment to a previously approved
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for changes to an existing commercial
recreation facility (Robert Edwards/GoKart Racer, applicant; Frank Edwards Co ., Inc.,
property owner) (15 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
d.
1541 Adrian Rd - Staff Report
1541 Adrian Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
960 David Road, zoned RR – Application for Conditional Use Permit for automobile
storage within the drainage right -of-way (Matt Mefford, Tesla Motors, applicant and
designer; Frank Edwards Company, Inc ., property owner) (20 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
e.
960 David Rd - Staff Report
960 David Rd - 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
f.
1260 California Dr - Staff Report
1260 California Dr - attachments
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
712 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
declining height envelope, Side Setback Variance and Parking Variances for first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Wehmeyer Design,
applicant and designer; Rahul Verma and Monali Sheth, property owners) (56 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
a.
712 Lexington Way - Staff Report
712 Lexington Way - Attachments
Attachments:
1336 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Mark Robertson, applicant and designer;
Dan and Michele Tatos, property owners) ( 61 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
b.
1336 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1336 Laguna Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
115 Occidental 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 (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; JNL
Occidental LLP, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
c.
115 Occidental Ave study
115 Occidental Ave Attachments
115 Occidental Ave Historic Resource Evaluation
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1906 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and Special Permits for an attached garage, a basement, and
declining height envelope (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer;
Easton Estates LLC, property owner) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
d.
1906 Easton Dr - Staff Report
1906 Easton Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
226 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a food
establishment and Commercial Design Review for changes to the facade of an existing
commercial building (Nick Swinmurn, applicant: Remy's Quality Construction, Inc .,
designer; S.L. Griffiths Inc., property owner) (41 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
e.
226 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
226 Lorton Ave - Attachments
226 Lorton Ave - 02.23.15 - received after 1.pdf
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Commission Communicationsa.
City Council regular meeting February 17, 2015b.
FYI: 1709 Ray Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
c.
1709 Ray Dr - Memorandum
1709 Ray Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
FYI: 60 Edwards Court - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design
Review project
d.
60 Edwards Ct FYI Staff Report
60 Edwards Ct FYI Attachments
60 Edwards Ct FYI Clarification
Attachments:
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on February 23, 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 March 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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/20/2015
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 Amendment
Address: 1448 Laguna Avenue Meeting Date: February 23, 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.
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).
February 9, 2015 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission Action meeting on February 9, 2015, the
Commission reviewed the as-built changes to the project and noted that the first floor roof replacement at the
front of the house is the most problematic change (see attached February 9, 2015 Planning Commission
Minutes). The Commission continued the item and directed the applicant to revisit the changes to the front of
the house with their designer and return with a solution that would address their concerns.
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated February 11, 2015, to address the Planning
Commission’s concerns. Changes to the project since the February 9th action meeting include:
The wood trellis above the front living room window has been enhanced by using 6x6 Redwood timbers
instead of the previously proposed 4x4 timbers. In addition, the trellis has been widened and raised so
that it is centered between the top of the window and roof above. The ends of the horizontal wood
members (facing the street) will be beveled. Please see the revised building elevations and details on
sheets A3.1 and A3.2, date stamped February 11, 2015).
In the raised space above the front porch, the applicant considered several different options, which are
discussed in his response letter and also shown in the attached diagrams. After consider these options,
the applicant feels that the proposed design, which includes adding three, raised beveled-edge panels
(painted) in the space above the front entry is the best design approach (see revised Front Elevation,
date stamped February 11, 2015).
There are no other changes proposed to the project.
Item No. 8a
Action Item
Design Review Amendment 1448 Laguna Avenue
2
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)).
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;
Design Review Amendment 1448 Laguna Avenue
3
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. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 11, 2015, sheets A3.1 and A3.2 and date stamped January 16, 2015, sheets A1.0, A1.1 and
A2.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that 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 Response Letter dated February 11, 2015
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
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 (continued to a date certain, February 23, 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 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 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 23rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1448 Laguna 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 February 11, 2015, sheets A3.1 and A3.2 and date stamped January 16,
2015, sheets A1.0, A1.1 and A2.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that 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;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1448 Laguna Avenue
Effective March 5, 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 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
1813 Ray Drive
Item No. 8b
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1813 Ray Drive Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Minereva Abad, MDA Design APN: 025-212-120
Property Owners: Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang Lot Area: 5754 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures
are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000
SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not
environmentally sensitive.
Project Description: The existing one-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 1,744 SF (0.30
FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the front and right
sides of the house and a second floor addition at the rear of the house. With the proposed project, the floor area
will increase to 2,869 SF (0.50 FAR) where 2,941 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project
is 72 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and within 3% of the maximum allowed FAR.
W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of
which must be covered, are required on site. The modified attached garage complies with current code
standards for a covered parking space (12’-5” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions provided where 9’ x 18’ is the
minimum required for an existing garage). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway.
All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:
Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
1813 Ray Drive
Lot Size: 5,754 SF Plans date stamped: February 11, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 21’-4” to house
11’-7” to garage
21’-4” to addition
14’-7” to garage
16'-8" (block average)
(2nd flr): n/a 30’-6” 20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
4'-11"
3’-6”
no change
6’-0”
6'-0"
6'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
37’-5”
n/a
38’-0”
44’-4”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1844 SF
32%
2032 SF
35.3%
2302 SF
40%
FAR: 1744 SF
0.30 FAR
2869 SF
0.50 FAR
2941 SF 1
0.51 FAR
¹ (0.32 x 5754 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2941 SF (0.51 FAR)
Item No. 8b
Action Item
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
2
1813 Ray Drive
Lot Size: 5,754 SF Plans date stamped: February 11, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
# of bedrooms: 2 4 ---
Off-Street
Parking:
1 covered
(12’-5” x 21’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
1 covered
(12’-5” x 20’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
1 covered
(9' x 18' for existing)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building Height: 15’-8” 22’-10” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting (November 10, 2014): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study
meeting on November 10, 2014, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and
referred the application to a design review consultant (November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
attached). A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review
consultant is provided in the next section.
The applicant submitted a response letter, dated January 15, 2015 and revised plans date stamped January 14,
2015 to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the attached meeting
minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer
and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised
plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated December 30, 2014,
for a detailed review of the project.
Several significant revisions were made to the project including changing the architectural style of the house to
craftsman, reducing the second floor plate height from 9’-1” to 8’-1”, changing the roof configurations on the first
and second floors, changing the window style throughout the house, changing the siding from stucco to
horizontal lap and board and batten wood siding, adding eave brackets and changing the design of the front
porch and garage door. The design review consultant concludes that based on the revisions made to the
design, she can support approval of the proposed project.
Action Meeting (January 26, 2015): At the Planning Commission Action meeting on January 26, 2015, the
Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and requested that the applicant consider
making additional changes to the project (January 26, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes attached). Please
refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated February 11, 2015, to address the Planning
Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a response to each of the
concerns, which also explains the changes made to the project.
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
3
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. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 11, 2015, sheets A-1 through A-11 and L-1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 3, 2014 and August 29, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s December 24, 2014 and September 3, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 9,
2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4,
2014 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
Design Review 1813 Ray Drive
4
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. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer
Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated February 11, 2015
January 26, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Design Review Analysis, dated December 30, 2014
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated January 15, 2015
November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kenton S. Wong, dated November 15, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 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
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
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.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>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.
>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.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2015
January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2015
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design
Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1813 Ray Drive,
Zoned R-1, Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, 1813 Ray Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owners,
APN: 026-073-230;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
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 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt
from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than
10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which
the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording
of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review.
1813 Ray Drive
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 February 11, 2015, sheets A-1 through A-11 and L-1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 3, 2014 and August 29, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s December 24, 2014 and September 3, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s September 9, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014
memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review.
1813 Ray Drive
Effective 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. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural
certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be
evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the
approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with
approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing
inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
PROJECT LOCATION
1548 Los Montes Drive
Item No. 8c
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits
Address: 1548 Los Montes Drive Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining
height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two-story single-family dwelling and attached
garage.
Applicant and Designer: Farnaz Khadiv, Khadiv Design Studio APN: 027-015-180
Property Owner: Jiries Hanhan Lot Area: 9,494 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) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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, this
exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of
a project.
Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing an existing two-story house and attached garage to
build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The proposed house and detached
garage will have a total floor area of 4,138 SF (0.44 FAR) where 4,138 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including covered porch exemption). The proposed project is at the maximum allowed FAR.
The lot slopes downward approximately 31’-0” from the front of the lot to the rear. 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. Due to the downward slope of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope at each side
of the house is several feet below the lower level of the house. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Special
Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of the house. The left side of the house would extend
873 SF beyond the declining height envelope (430 SF on the upper floor, 202 SF on the lower floor, 87 SF
covered balcony and 154 SF of the rear deck).
Planning staff would note that the right side of the house qualifies for an exemption from declining height
envelope because it is located adjacent to a two story wall and the project falls within the criteria listed below
(based on Code Section 25.26.075 (b) (3)):
(A) The second story is not closer to the property line than the required first floor setback; and
(B) If the second story wall is outside of the declining height envelope and adjacent to an existing two (2)
story wall, the second story plate line is no higher and no longer than the second story plate line on
the adjacent property; and
(C) If there is a two (2) story residential structure on each side of a lot, only one side wall may be exempt
from the declining height envelope; and
(D) If any portion of the second story of an existing two (2) story house adjacent to either side of the lot
complies with the declining height requirements, the adjacent wall of the new construction shall not
be exempt.
The proposed four-bedroom house requires a total of two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The
proposed attached garage provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces (20’ x 20’ clear interior
dimensions). There is also one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. Therefore, the
proposed project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been
met.
Item No. 8c
Action Item
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
2
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));
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.61.020);
Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of house (left side of the house extends
873 SF beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.26.075 (a)); and
Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)).
1548 Los Montes Drive
Lot Size: 9,494 SF Plans date stamped: February 9, 2015
PREVIOUS
11.14.14 plans
CURRENT
02.09.15 plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(attached garage):
20'-0" to porch
25'-0"
25’-0”
no change 19'-11" (block average)
20'-0"
25’-0” for two single-wide
doors
Side (left):
(right):
7'-4"
7'-4 1/4"
no change 7'-0"
7'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
62'-9" to deck
74'-0" to deck
no change
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2886 SF
30.3%
no change
3798 SF
40%
FAR: 4138 SF
0.44 FAR
no change
4138 SF 1
0.44 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 no change ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered, attached ²
(20' x 20' clear interior
dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
no change
1 covered
(10' x 20' clear interior
dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
¹ (0.32 x 9,494 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4138 SF (0.44 FAR)
2 Special Permit requested for an attached garage.
Table continued on next page.
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
3
1548 Los Montes Drive
Lot Size: 9,494 SF Plans date stamped: February 9, 2015
PREVIOUS
11.14.14 plans
CURRENT
02.09.15 plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Building Height: 14’-5” (17’-5" previously
proposed)
11’-7” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: right side of the house
exempt from declining
height envelope based
on C.S. 25.26.075 (b)
(3); left side of the house
extends 1,007 SF
beyond the declining
height envelope ³
right side of the house
exempt from declining
height envelope based
on C.S. 25.26.075 (b)
(3); left side of the
house extends 873 SF
beyond the declining
height envelope ³
C.S. 25.26.075
3 Special Permit requested for declining height envelope along left side of house (the left side of the house
extends 873 SF beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Parks and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on October 14,
2014, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a
design review consultant (October 14, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). A discussion of the
analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next
section.
The applicant submitted a response letter, date stamped November 20, 2014 and revised plans date stamped
November 17, 2014 to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the
attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
Planning staff would note that the story poles for the proposed house have been installed and may be viewed by
visiting the site. A story pole plan was prepared by the designer (see attached story pole plan, date stamped
November 20, 2014). The story pole installation was certified by SMP Engineers (see attached certification
dated November 18, 2014).
Planning staff would note that the overall building height, as measured from average top of curb to the highest
roof ridge, was reduced by 3’-0”, from 17’-5” to 14’-5”. There were no changes made to the floor plans or layout
of the building on the lot.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer
and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised
plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated November 17, 2014,
for a detailed review of the project.
In his analysis, the design review consultant concludes that “the revised design is a significant improvement over
the initial proposal” and that “the architectural style is much clearer and the massing is better”. Based on the
revisions made to the design, the design review consultant supports the proposed project. The design reviewer
notes that improving the front entry element in some way and providing a garage door with a horizontal element
could enhance the front façade further, but notes that these are only suggestions.
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
4
Action Meeting (November 24, 2014): At the Planning Commission Action meeting on November 24, 2014, the
Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and directed the applicant to revisit the design
of the project so that the view impacts are addressed. The Commission also encouraged the designer to work
closely with the neighbors (November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). Please refer to the
attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped February 17, 2015, to address the
Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a response to each of
the concerns, which also explains the changes made to the project.
Planning staff would note that the story poles for the proposed house have been adjusted to reflect the revised
design. A story pole plan was prepared by the designer (see attached story pole plan, date stamped February 9,
2015). The story pole installation was certified by SMP Engineers (see attached certification dated February 6,
2015).
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).
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.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 9, 2015, sheets A-0.0 through A-5.0 and L-1.0;
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
5
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 September 15, 2014 and July 18, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s October 1, 2014 and July 21, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s August 25, 2014 memo,
the Fire Division’s July 21, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 9, 2014, September 26,
2014 and July 22, 2014 memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a W aste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
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;
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
6
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. Farnaz Khadiv, Khadiv Design Studio, designer
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response letter, date stamped February 17, 2015
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Story Pole Certification and Plan, date stamped February 9, 2015
Email and Attachments submitted by Winnie Tam, dated November 24, 2014
Email submitted by Brandon Lip, M.D., dated November 21, 2014
Letter submitted by Craig and Shan Hou, dated November 20, 2014
Email submitted by Greg Lim, dated October 13, 2014
Applicant’s Response Letter, date stamped November 20, 2014
Design Review Analysis, dated November 17, 2014
Story Pole Certification and Plan, dated November 20, 2014
October 14, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter Submitted by Craig and Shan Hou, dated October 10, 2014
Graphics/Photographs Submitted by Neighbor at 1544 Los Montes Drive, date stamped October 10, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Applications
Information Sheet for Membrane Roof, date stamped October 2, 2014
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
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 24, 2014
e.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an
attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage
(Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners )
(42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Loftis, DeMartini, Terrones and Sargent
reported that they had met with the neighbors at 1551 Los Montes Drive and the son of the next door
neighbor. There were no other ex parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
-Clarified that the requested story poles are intended to illustrate the tallest portion of the structure .
Would the deck area be included in the story poles? (Hurin - story poles for the deck would have been
required if the project only included a deck addition. Could request additional story poles if it is felt that
that is an important consideration for the request.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Badhia Khadiv and Jiries Hanhan represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
-Clarified that there was no work done to the story poles after the certification. (Khadiv - yes.)
-Has the applicant spent any time in the house at 1551 Los Montes Drive to observe the view
impacts? (Khadiv - have only observed from outside of their property. Can do so if believes it would
help.) Feels that the view from the neighbor across the street will be completely blocked. Believes that
the issue with the neighbor across the street is pretty clear.
-Feels the design changes are vast improvements. Could have a garage door with more horizontal
elements, as well as at the entry-way, to unify the design more.
-The view blockage from across the street is the biggest issue. What can be done to preserve the
existing views of the Bay? (Khadiv - feels that the flat roof design is the best solution for the site. Using
a pitched roof would increase the height of the house when compared to the existing ridge.)
-Could lower the plate heights on both floors and pick up two feet at that point. The Hillside
Construction Permit requires an analysis of distant views from neighboring properties; the overall
structure height must be a consideration.
-Could the building also be slid down the lot a bit and sculpted to reduce view impacts? Will need to
explore these other options. (Khadiv - if the driveway is lowered by two feet to the existing garage level,
this would reduce the height. Can also consider reducing plate heights.) Would be an easier discussion
with the neighbors if the roof height could be reduced to the existing level of the structure.
-Noted that the extension of the house rearward on the lot will also impact the view from across the
street. (Khadiv - any addition at the rear will affect the view.)
-Certain rooms don't all have to be on the same floor. Encouraged the architect to try real hard to
modify the design to reduce the impact; could move rooms around to reduce the massing or create a
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/17/2015
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
split level design. Also could step in the edges.
-Make the garage door design more modern, perhaps match the cedar siding with windows.
-What is the fascia material above the entry? (Khadiv - wood.)
-May wish to revisit the wood siding on the right elevation where the siding terminates at grade.
-Seems odd to place wood siding on the chimney; perhaps consider a stucco base.
Public comments:
Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes Drive:
-The Commission has already stated their concerns regarding the impacts to distant views.
-Even though the roofline has been lowered, there is still a large portion of the distant view that is
blocked.
-A revised design with a second round of story poles could assist in resolving the view concerns.
King Lip, representing parents who reside at 1544 Los Montes Drive:
-Welcomed Hanhan family to the neighborhood.
-Referenced the view impacts shown in photographs provided at the hearing.
-First concern is with obstruction of views, also concerned with impacts upon privacy from windows
and balcony.
-Feels that the story poles inadequately represent the height of the structure.
-The story pole certification confirmed the building height, but makes no reference to how the
structure expands to the sides.
-Requests that the applicant consider all alternatives to minimize impacts from the project.
Winnie Tam, representing the owners of 1544 Los Montes Drive:
-Reviewed the exhibits that she prepared for her clients at 1544 Los Montes Drive that illustrate the
view impacts.
-Concerned that story poles were not installed to show the balcony; balcony could affect their views
and privacy.
-Concerned that the story poles were not installed correctly at the time they were certified.
Greg Goldman, 1543 Alturas Drive:
-Lives behind and directly below the project site.
-People residing on properties below the site will also have privacy impacts.
-Presented photos showing the massing of the proposed project above the property.
-The level of the second story is also a concern.
-The combination of the home's height and the extension into the hillside are issues to be resolved.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
-Pretty clear that the application requires more work to address the view impacts.
-Should be brought down so that the proposed ridge does not extend past the existing ridgeline.
-The views from the lower properties need to be addressed as well.
-The focus on views is upon distant views; this should be primarily views of the Bay, not of the
nearby hills.
-Views of concern are from primary living areas as well.
-The City can't prohibit building on the site; therefore, the privacy issues and views from non -living
areas are less clear. It will be helpful for the designer and the owner to work with the neighbors to
address the issues and come to an agreement.
-Must also consider the massing on the site taking into consideration the slope of the site and follow
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/17/2015
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the topography. The plate heights can also be varied.
-Encouraged the designer to work closely with the neighbors.
-Story poles will need to be revised to reflect the proposed design and will need to include the
balcony.
-Concerned about the certification of the existing story poles; concerned that changes were made
after the certification. Also not certain that the story poles adequately represent the location of the walls .
Take the time to ensure that the story pole installation is done correctly the next time.
-The view ordinance does not address privacy issues. Feels that once the view issues are
addressed on this project, then some of the privacy issues may also be addressed.
-Encouraged the applicant to revisit the landscape plan in an effort to reduce privacy impacts;
provide a more detailed landscape plan.
-Would be wise to map the windows on adjacent buildings and their relationship to the proposed
project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to continue this matter to a date uncertain with direction,
seconded by Commissioner Terrones. 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 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/17/2015
From: Kwun Lip [mailto:brandonlip@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:43 PM
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Cc: Peter Lip; King Lip; winnietam9@aol.com
Subject: Owners of 1544 Los Montes Dr are 100% against the building plan of 1548 Los Montes as
submitted
Dear Ruben, senior planner in City of Burlingame Planning Dept:
My name is Brandon Lip. My parents, Peter & Robin Lip, are owners of 1544 Los
Montes Drive, the house right next door to the site with the proposed building plan of
1548 Los Montes. My parents are out of the country due to a family emergency. My
brother King Lip, Winnie Tam (architect), and I are representing my parents during their
time away. After discussion with the architect, we were notified of the deceptive
tactics used by the current owners of 1548 Los Montes. We are 100% against their
current building plan as it stands. They have NOT made the appropriate adjustments to
the height and layout of the proposed residence. My father spent thousands of dollars
with the previous owner of the property to clear out trees in the backyard (we have all
the evidence to document this) so that we can have a clear, unobstructed view through
the side and back of the house towards the Bay. Now the new owners are threatening
this with an absolutely unacceptable residential building plan. After the last public
hearing, NOTHING significant has been done to the building plan and our view of the
Bay will still be obscured by their proposed residence. We will do whatever it takes to
block the construction of such a proposed residence at 1548 Los Montes.
I am emailing each of the planning commissioner to let them know of our firm stance
regarding this matter.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration,
Brandon Lip, M.D.
11.24.14 PC Meeting
Item #8e
1548 Los Montes Drive
Page 1 of 1
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
NOV 24 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD – PLANNING DIV.
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 14, 2014
d.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an
attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage
(Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners )
(42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Would the retaining wall between the properties need to be addressed? (Meeker - would be
addressed as part of the plan check prior to issuance of a building permit.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Farnaz Khadiv, and Jiries and Suhair Hanhan represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Feels that the fascia caps are very heavy looking. They seem to make the building seem disjointed
and broken into many pieces. Detracts from the design.
>Would help to see the new design overlain on the existing design to get a sense for the relationship
between the massing.
>Feels the curved roof is very strange; doesn't go well with the design.
>Feels that some relief is warranted from the declining height envelope on side -sloping lots. That in
conjunction with the Hillside Area Permit and the need for story poles will determine what is acceptable.
>Seems that the siding materials are disjointed. How will the Cedar siding be finished? (Khadiv - will
likely be stained.)
>Perhaps the vertical siding is not the best choice for the lower level.
>The fascias seem out of scale with the modern style that is being sought.
>Feels that some of the finishing details detract from the modern character; perhaps clean up the
design to eliminate some of the disjointed character.
>Look at corner window designs that help the modern details come to the forefront.
>The curved roof element doesn't appear to be necessary. Could be an issue relative to the story
poles.
>Not too much of an issue with the massing because it doesn't deviate too far from the current
massing.
>Feels the stucco band could be eliminated.
>Clean up the disparate elements to clean up the facade.
>On the front elevation, show how the existing house complies with the declining height envelope .
(Khadiv - the area for compliance with the declining height envelope is completely outside even the
current building design.)
>Did the designer try to get closer to compliance with the declining height envelope? (Khadiv - Yes.
Brought walls in on both the first and second floors. Included a balcony to move further in.)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/17/2014
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Did he visit the neighbor's house across the street to determine what the view impact may be?
(Khadiv - doesn't appear to be significantly impacting the view of the neighbors.)
>Would appreciate seeing a color rendering of the project.
>Work with staff to clarify the requests for the declining height envelope.
Public comments:
Greg Goldman, 1523 Alturas Drive:
>Has no problem with the look of the house.
>Was hoping that the roofline of the house would not increase; appears to be increasing by seven
feet.
>The view will be directly at the house from the rear of his property.
>Also concerned about drainage.
>Not opposed to the square footage.
Winnie Tan, speaking for the right side neighbor at 1344 Los Montes:
>Provided sets of drawings for each of the Commissioners to show the impact upon the property
adjacent.
>Concern of windows being blocked by addition.
>Requested story poles to see if any views would be blocked. (Commissioner - requested contact
information for the neighbor.)
Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes:
>Biggest concern is the potential for a blocked view. Can see the lights of the bayfront area from their
home; can also see the planes taking off.
Greg Lim:
>Welcomed them to the neighborhood.
>Only concerned about the retaining wall and the drainage.
>Looks forward to seeing the new home.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project
to a design reviewer and to require the installation of story poles for the project. Chair
Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/17/2014
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 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 Design
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and
attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 1548 Los Montes
Drive, Zoned R-1, Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, 1548 Los Montes Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property
owners, APN: 027-015-180;
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) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three
(3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits are approved
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 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, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits.
1548 Los Montes Drive
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 February 9, 2015, sheets A-0.0 through A-5.0 and L-1.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 15, 2014 and July 18, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s October 1, 2014 and July 21, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s August 25, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s July 21, 2014 memo
and the Stormwater Division’s October 9, 2014, September 26, 2014 and July 22, 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 Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits.
1548 Los Montes Drive
Effective March 5, 2015
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
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance
Address: 1541 Adrian Road Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for changes to an
existing commercial recreation facility (indoor kart racing).
Applicant: Robert Edwards Jr. APN: 025-271-050, -060, -070 & -080
Architect: n/a Lot Area: 4.32 acres
Property Owner: Frank Edwards Co. Inc. Zoning: RR, Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan: Industrial & Associated Office Use – Auto Row Overlay District
Adjacent Development: Warehouse, distribution and parking in drainage right-of-way
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the
operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review.
Existing Use: Commercial Recreation Facility (GoKart Racer, indoor kart racing)
Allowable Use: Automobile sales and service, air courier service, light industrial or manufacturing use, labs,
office uses in conjunction with a permitted use, service businesses, warehouses;
commercial recreation use allowed with a conditional use permit.
Site Description and History: The subject property consists of four commonly owned parcels at the corner of
David and Adrian Roads with addresses of 1541 and 1561-1565 Adrian Road. Two existing buildings and their
associated parking spaces, which extend across property lines, cause a de facto merger of all four parcels. The
owner of the subject property also owns a 140 foot (width) x 646 foot (length) portion of the drainage right-of-way
located west of the subject property.
The building at 1541 Adrian Road is occupied by GoKart Racer, an indoor kart racing facility. A portion of this
building (2000 SF) is used by the property owner to store personal goods. The building at 1561-1565 Adrian Road
is occupied by office, warehouse and showroom uses. There are a total of 81 parking spaces on the project site.
The required on-site parking for the property owner’s storage use (2 parking spaces) at 1541 Adrian Road and the
office, warehouse and showroom uses (48 parking spaces) at 1561-1565 Adrian Road is provided on-site. The
required parking for GoKart Racer (71 parking spaces) is provided both on-site (30 spaces) and off-site in the
adjacent drainage right-of-way at 960 David Road (41 spaces); please refer the attached originally approved Site
Plan.
An application for a Conditional Use Permit, Parking Variance and Landscaping Variance for a commercial
recreation facility (GoKart Racer) was approved by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2003. GoKart Racer
has been in operation at this location since November 2003. The Parking Variance granted by the Planning
Commission was for 41 parking spaces (30 on-site parking spaces provided where 71 on-site spaces were
required). To mitigate the Parking Variance, the applicant agreed to provide 43 off-site parking spaces in the
drainage right-of-way at 960 David Road. This off-site parking area is only accessed by a separate driveway off
David Road and is fenced off from the rest of the drainage right-of-way. As required by the conditions of approval,
the applicant entered into a lease agreement for 43 parking spaces at 960 David Road.
960 David Road is approximately two acres in size and much of it was graded and paved for parking many years
ago. As noted above, GoKart Racer currently leases the eastern portion of the site (43 spaces). The other portions
of the 960 David Road property are leased to other entities. For reference, the front, western portion of lot was to
be used by FlightCar for vehicle storage (41 spaces), but Flightcar has since vacated the property; the remainder of
the paved lot is associated with the Unga family for vehicle storage (rear, western portion of lot).
Item No. 8d
Regular Action
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance 1541 Adrian Road
2
Proposed Amendment: After operating at the site for 11 years, GoKart Racer revisited the parking demand at this
facility and is now requesting an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance
to reduce the number of required parking spaces provided, specifically:
To reduce the number of required off-site parking spaces located in the drainage right-of-way at 960 David
Road from 43 to 20 parking spaces (supported by a Parking Demand Study prepared by Sandis
Engineering, dated January 27, 2015); includes relocating the off-site parking location from the eastern to
the western portion of the site. Please refer to the attached Site Diagram, date stamped February 4, 2015.
Planning staff would note that in April 2014, the City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow FlightCar to
store 41 vehicles in the western portion of the site at 960 David Road. However, FlightCar has ceased use of the
property, and the property owner confirms in his letter dated February 3, 2015 that FlightCar does not have a lease
to store their vehicle there.
With this application, GoKart Racing is not proposing any additional changes to their operations, building (either
interior or exterior) or landscaping. The applicant is now requesting the following applications:
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to revise the condition of approval which requires providing 43 off-
site parking spaces at 960 David Road (20 off-street parking spaces proposed); and
Amendment to Parking Variance for elimination of 23 off-site parking spaces at 960 David Road. There will
be a total of 50 parking spaces proposed for the commercial recreation facility where 71 parking spaces are
required (30 on-site spaces provided at 1541 Adrian Road and 20 off-site parking spaces at 960 David
Road).
The portion of the lot used as vehicle storage for the Unga family can only be accessed through the portion of the
site proposed to be utilized by GoKart Racer. As a Condition of Approval, GoKart Racer will need to allow the
Ungas to continue to access its portion of the lot through the GoKart Racer lot.
Parking Demand Study: The applicant hired Sandis to conduct a Parking Demand Study of the business as it is
currently in operation (refer to attached study dated January 27, 2015). The purpose of the study was to examine
the existing site parking demand, primarily during peak demand hours, and to determine the impact in the reduction
of parking spaces dedicated to the site. The Parking Demand Study was reviewed by the City’s Engineering
Program Manager. In his memo dated February 18, 2015, he notes that “the Public Works – Engineering Division
is in concurrence with the conclusions and justifications present in the analysis.”
There are a total of 32 parking spaces provided at 1541 Adrian Road (15 parking spaces located on the north end
of the site and 17 parking spaces on the south end of the site). Staff would note that 30 spaces are for GoKart
Racing and 2 spaces are for the property owners’ storage space. There are an additional 7 motorcycle parking
spaces provided at the north end of the site. In its study, Sandis included the motorcycle spaces and therefore
reflects a total of 40 on-site parking spaces.
Sandis conducted an occupancy survey of the parking spaces during peak use periods to determine the peak
parking demand. Peak use periods were identified to be Thursday evenings from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturdays
from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Occupancy data in Table 1 of the Parking Demand Study indicate that the off-street parking
demand is minimal even during peak use periods and did not exceed two (2) vehicles. The study also showed that
no vehicles were observed in the off-site lot at 960 David Road.
In addition to on-site parking counts, the survey also included data collection of on-street parking spaces within the
business vicinity, which varied from 4 to 23 vehicles during the collection periods. Sandis notes that given the
minimal parking demand observed on the subject property and at 960 David Road, it is likely that some patrons of
GoKart Racer are parking on the street. Sandis also notes that a conservative analysis of the parking demand
would be to assume that all on-street parking collected within the vicinity is associated with GoKart Racer. Using
this assumption, the combined on-street/off-street peak parking demand requires 24 parking spaces and occurs on
Saturday between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. (see Table 1 of Parking Demand Study). Since 32 parking spaces are
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance 1541 Adrian Road
3
provided on-site, the existing parking on-site has adequate capacity to meet the peak use parking demand for the
facility without requiring the use of on-street parking (24 parking spaces based on the Parking Demand Study).
Although based on the study no additional parking spaces would be required beyond those provided on the subject
property, the applicant is still proposing to provide 20 spaces at 960 David Road as potential overflow parking.
In conclusion, Sandis Engineering notes that “given the fact that there are spaces available within the Facility
parking lots during peak hours of operation and adequate on-street parking within the property vicinity, a parking
variance is warranted to reduce the required parking space supply for the Facility.”
Staff Comments: This application was placed directly on the regular action calendar because it includes a request
for an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance. If the Commission feels
there is a need for the applicant to provide additional information, this item may be continued to a future meeting.
See attached original memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal and Recycling Specialist.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to
secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that
do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an
potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
This space intentionally left blank.
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance 1541 Adrian Road
4
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and
consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings
supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission.
The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. Please note that conditions that no longer apply
contain strikethroughs and that all new conditions are in italics. 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 Department and date
stamped February 27, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-3, and date stamped March 13, 2003, sheet L-1; with a
total of 9, 502 SF of on-site landscaping and 2,981 SF of landscaping in the front setback along David
Road; that 32 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on site and used only for the proposed
commercial recreation use in the building at 1541 Adrian Road; and that the existing chain link fence
separating the 32 parking spaces for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road from the 49
parking spaces for 1565 Adrian Road shall remain and be maintained by the property owner;
2. that the hours of operation for the go kart recreation use shall be 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday
through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. to 12:00a.m. on Friday and Saturday; and that no persons under the age
of 18 shall be allowed inside the facility after 6:00 p.m., unless they are part of a previously scheduled
private party;
3. that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 13 persons, including the business
owner;
4. that all the existing and new landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler
system that shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times;
5. that the ambient noise level at the property lines shall not increase more than 5 dBA L10 when the go karts
are operating; in the event that the City of Burlingame receives a compliant about noise levels from the go
kart use, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a noise study by a qualified acoustical
engineer; and should the results of the study show that the proposed use is not in compliance with the
standards in the City's General Plan, the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission;
6. that the four existing catch basins on the site, two at the southwest corner of the building at 1541 Adrian
Road, one in the parking area between the buildings at 1541 and 1565 Adrian Road, and one at the east
side of the building at 1565 Adrian Road, and the one existing catch basin in auxiliary parking Lot A in the
drainage easement, shall have a petroleum filter (sock or pillow) installed, and the owner shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning and changing all filters on a biannual basis as well as immediately
prior to and once (at least) during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1), or as required by the City;
7. that off-site parking for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road shall be provided in parking Lot
A in the drainage easement to the west of 1561-1565 Adrian Road as shown on the Site Diagram, date
stamped February 4, 2015, that Lot A, measuring 64 feet in length by 255 feet in length, with 43 20 parking
spaces along the western portion of the site, and an entrance and exit off of David Road, shall be provided
and maintained solely for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road; that the lease of the 43 20
parking spaces in Lot A shall be a required condition for the lease of 1541 Adrian Road for a commercial
recreation use; and that if at any time in the future the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road
ceases, the parking variance associated with 1541-1565 Adrian Road shall be void;
8. that the applicant shall be responsible for erecting signage on site to direct customers to the appropriate
parking areas for 1541 Adrian Road; and that all on site signage, including directional and parking signs,
shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments;
9. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 12, 2002, the Recycling Specialist's November 8, 2002,
and the Building Official's November 4, 2002 memos shall be met; and
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance 1541 Adrian Road
5
10. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as
amended by the City of Burlingame.:
Off-Site Parking at 960 David Road (front, western portion of site):
11. that clear access to the parking area to the rear (north) of the site at 960 David Road shall be maintained at
all times through the GoKart Racer parking area;
12. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to flooding;
13. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the property, per §503
International Fire Code;
14. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
15. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
16. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators
shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to
ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
17. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm
water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into
the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil
separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the
rainy season (October 15 – April 1);
18. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from the adjacent
parcels;
19. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in regard to the
proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney
and executed prior to issuance of the permit.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Robert Edwards Jr., applicant
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Explanation Letter submitted by Robert Edwards, Jr., dated February 3, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Application
Variance Application
Parking Demand Study and attachments prepared by Sandis, dated January 27, 2015
Memorandum from Augustine Chou, Engineering Program Manager, dated February 18, 2015
Approval letter for original project, dated April 8, 2003
March 24, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes
Staff Comments for originally approved project
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for
Amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for changes to an
existing commercial recreation facility at 1541 Adrian Road, Zoned RR, Frank Edwards Co. Inc.,1565
Adrian Road, Burlingame, CA, 94010 property owner, APN: 025-271-050, -060, -070 and -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 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that existing facilities,
consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical
features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
agency's determination are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance is approved subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Conditional
Use Permit and Parking Variance 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 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
and Parking Variance.
1541 Adrian Road
Effective March 5, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped February 27, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-3, and date
stamped March 13, 2003, sheet L-1; with a total of 9, 502 SF of on-site landscaping and
2,981 SF of landscaping in the front setback along David Road; that 32 parking spaces
shall be provided and maintained on site and used only for the proposed commercial
recreation use in the building at 1541 Adrian Road; and that the existing chain link fence
separating the 32 parking spaces for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian
Road from the 49 parking spaces for 1565 Adrian Road shall remain and be maintained
by the property owner;
2. that the hours of operation for the go kart recreation use shall be 10:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. to 12:00a.m. on Friday and Saturday;
and that no persons under the age of 18 shall be allowed inside the facility after 6:00
p.m., unless they are part of a previously scheduled private party;
3. that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 13 persons,
including the business owner;
4. that all the existing and new landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an
automatic sprinkler system that shall be maintained by the property owner in good
operating condition at all times;
5. that the ambient noise level at the property lines shall not increase more than 5 dBA L10
when the go karts are operating; in the event that the City of Burlingame receives a
compliant about noise levels from the go kart use, the applicant shall provide to the
Planning Department a noise study by a qualified acoustical engineer; and should the
results of the study show that the proposed use is not in compliance with the standards
in the City's General Plan, the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission;
6. that the four existing catch basins on the site, two at the southwest corner of the building
at 1541 Adrian Road, one in the parking area between the buildings at 1541 and 1565
Adrian Road, and one at the east side of the building at 1565 Adrian Road, and the one
existing catch basin in auxiliary parking Lot A in the drainage easement, shall have a
petroleum filter (sock or pillow) installed, and the owner shall be responsible for
inspecting and cleaning and changing all filters on a biannual basis as well as
immediately prior to and once (at least) during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1), or
as required by the City;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
and Parking Variance.
1541 Adrian Road
Effective March 5, 2015
7. that off-site parking for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road shall be
provided in the drainage easement to the west of 1561-1565 Adrian Road as shown on
the Site Diagram, date stamped February 4, 2015, with 20 parking spaces along the
western portion of the site, and an entrance and exit off of David Road, shall be provided
and maintained solely for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road; that the
lease of the 20 parking spaces shall be a required condition for the lease of 1541 Adrian
Road for a commercial recreation use; and that if at any time in the future the
commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road ceases, the parking variance associated
with 1541-1565 Adrian Road shall be void;
8. that the applicant shall be responsible for erecting signage on site to direct customers to
the appropriate parking areas for 1541 Adrian Road; and that all on site signage,
including directional and parking signs, shall require a separate permit from the Planning
and Building Departments;
9. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 12, 2002, the Recycling Specialist's
November 8, 2002, and the Building Official's November 4, 2002 memos shall be met;
10. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame;
Off-Site Parking at 960 David Road (front, western portion of site):
11. that clear access to the parking area to the rear (north) of the site at 960 David Road
shall be maintained at all times through the GoKart Racer parking area;
12. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to
flooding;
13. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the
property, per §503 International Fire Code;
14. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
15. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
16. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all
sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately
following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers;
maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
and Parking Variance.
1541 Adrian Road
Effective March 5, 2015
17. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be
routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then
the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on
a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season
(October 15 – April 1);
18. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from
the adjacent parcels; and
19. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in
regard to the proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney and executed prior to issuance of the permit.
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in the
Drainage Right-of-Way
Address: 960 David Road Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage in the drainage right-of way in the RR
Zoning District.
Applicant: Tesla Motors APN: 025-271-090
Property Owner: Frank Edwards Company, Inc. Lot Area: 2.06 acres (89,851 SF)
General Plan: Industrial and Office Use Zoning: RR
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area – Central Rollins Road
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the
operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review.
Proposed Use: Automobile storage
Allowable Use: RR zoning requires a Conditional Use Permit for storage of operable vehicles including
automobiles and trucks subject to performance criteria (C.S. 25.44.060 (b) (2)).
History: An application for a Conditional Use Permit, Parking Variance and Landscaping Variance for a commercial
recreation facility (GoKart Racer) at 1541 Adrian Road was approved by the Planning Commission on March 24,
2003. The Parking Variance granted by the Planning Commission was for 41 parking spaces (30 on-site parking
spaces provided where 71 on-site spaces were required). To mitigate the Parking Variance, the applicant agreed to
provide 43 off-site parking spaces in the eastern portion of the drainage right-of-way at 960 David Road.
Concurrent with this application, GoKart Racer submitted a request to reduce the number of parking spaces
provided within the drainage right-of-way (from 43 to 20) and to relocate its parking from the eastern to the western
portion of the site. This allows Tesla Motors to submit a request for a Conditional Use Permit to use the eastern
portion of the site for vehicle storage.
Project Summary: The applicant, Tesla Motors (Tesla), is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow automobile
storage in the drainage right-of-way on the eastern portion of the property located at 960 David Road, zoned RR.
Tesla currently bases its sales and service operations at 50 Edwards Court in Burlingame but is proposing to utilize
68 spaces at 960 David Road for overflow short term parking. Tesla is not proposing to make any physical changes
to the site. The following application is required:
Conditional Use Permit to allow automobile storage in the drainage right-of-way (C.S. 25.44.060 (b) (2)).
960 David Road is approximately two acres in size and much of it was graded and paved for parking many years
ago. Tesla is proposing to utilize the eastern portion of the site measuring approximately 22,980 SF to store up to
68 vehicles (see Site Plan date stamped February 10, 2015). The other portions of the 960 David Road property are
leased to other entities and no changes are proposed to those areas with this application. For reference, 20 spaces
would be associated with the GoKart Racer business at 1541 Adrian Road (front, western portion of lot) and the
remainder of the paved lot is associated with the Unga family for vehicle storage (rear, western portion of lot).
The RR zoning district requires a Conditional Use Permit for storage for operable vehicles including automobiles
and trucks within the drainage right-of-way provided the following requirements are met: a) vehicles must be in
operable condition and must be managed at all times by a single, responsible person with access to the keys for all
Item 8e
Action Calendar
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
2
vehicles; b) vehicles shall be moved by appointment only and shall not be moved during a.m. and p.m. peak hour
traffic periods as defined by the City Engineer; c) minimum site size of 0.7 acres; d) site has approved access to a
public street; and e) no customers shall visit the site. The City Engineer defines the peak hour traffic periods as
weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on
Saturday and Sunday. Planning staff would note that the proposed use of the drainage right-of-way complies with
all of the listed requirements.
Tesla employees would be the only persons accessing the site and any vehicles on it, and no customers would ever
visit the site. The vehicles would be driven to and from the drainage right-of-way strictly by Tesla staff during off-
peak hours on both the weekends and the weekdays. Keys to the vehicles would be stored offsite at the 50
Edwards Court location and would be available to the manager of that location if it was necessary to relocate cars in
an emergency situation.
No structures are proposed for the site. As a Condition of Approval, if any structures or improvements (including
temporary or portable structures) are proposed for the site, the applicant will need to contact the Building Division
prior to the installation of those structures or improvements, to discuss City requirements.
Staff Comments: This application was placed directly on the regular action calendar because it includes a request
for an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance. If the Commission feels
there is a need for the applicant to provide additional information, this item may be continued to a future meeting.
There were no comments from the City divisions.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for parking in the drainage
easement the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section
25.52.020 a-c):
(a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
(b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and
the purposes of this title;
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to
secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
(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.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be taken by resolution and should include findings made for the Conditional Use Permit. The reasons for any action
should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 10, 2015, sheet A1.0; and that any changes to this application shall be brought back to the
Planning Commission as an amendment;
2. that the eastern portion of the site shall only be used by Tesla Motors for vehicle storage for up to 68
vehicles; that vehicles shall be brought to and from the site by Tesla employees only; that no customers
shall ever visit the 960 David Road drainage right-of-way site;
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
3
3. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to flooding;
4. that if any structures or improvements are proposed for the site (including temporary or portable structures),
the applicant must contact the Building Division, prior to the installation of those structures or improvements,
to discuss City requirements;
5. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the property, per §503
International Fire Code;
6. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
7. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
8. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators
shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to
ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
9. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm
water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into
the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil
separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the
rainy season (October 15 – April 1);
10. that vehicles associated with the business shall not be moved during the peak traffic hours (weekdays from
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday
and Sunday.
11. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from the adjacent
parcels;
12. that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility and liability
of the applicant;
13. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in regard to the
proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney
and executed prior to issuance of the permit; and
14. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Tesla Motors, applicant
Frank Edwards Company, Inc., property owner
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
4
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Explanation Letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped February 10, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Application
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for
Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage in the drainage right-of-way in the RR Zoning District at
960 David Road, Zoned RR, Frank Edwards Co. Inc.,1565 Adrian Road, Burlingame, CA, 94010
property owner, APN: 025-271-090;
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 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that existing facilities,
consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical
features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
agency's determination are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report,
minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
960 David Road
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 February 10, 2015, sheet A1.0; and that any changes to this application
shall be brought back to the Planning Commission as an amendment;
2. that the eastern portion of the site shall only be used by Tesla Motors for vehicle storage
for up to 68 vehicles; that vehicles shall be brought to and from the site by Tesla
employees only; that no customers shall ever visit the 960 David Road drainage right-of-
way site;
3. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to
flooding;
4. that if any structures or improvements are proposed for the site (including temporary or
portable structures), the applicant must contact the Building Division, prior to the
installation of those structures or improvements, to discuss City requirements;
5. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the
property, per §503 International Fire Code;
6. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
7. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
8. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all
sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately
following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers;
maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
9. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be
routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then
the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on
a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season
(October 15 – April 1);
10. that vehicles associated with the business shall not be moved during the peak traffic
hours (weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), with no time
restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday and Sunday.
11. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from
the adjacent parcels;
12. that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the
responsibility and liability of the applicant;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
960 David Road
Effective March 5, 2015
Page 2
13. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in
regard to the proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney and executed prior to issuance of the permit; and
14. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit
Address: 1260 California Drive Meeting Date: February 23, 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 requested 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 drive one car from the main location to the proposed storage site, and return with another car. On
occasion an employee may walk over from the main location to the storage site to shuttle a ca r back. There
would be no deliveries of new cars at this location. New cars would continue to be delivered to the dealership at
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.
Item No. 8f
Regular Action
Conditional Use Permit 1260 California Drive
-2-
25.12.041).
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 Commission Consideration on February 9, 2015: This application was considered by the Planning
Commission at the February 9, 2015 meeting. Following the public hearing, the Commission continued the
matter to the February 23, 2015 meeting with direction to the applicant to provide scaled drawings and more
details on the placement of the proposed fence, specifically as it relates to pedestrian access on the east side of
California Drive. The applicant submitted a response letter dated February 13, 2015 (date stamped February 17,
2015) along with scaled drawings, to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments.
Staff consulted with Public Works regarding the Planning Commission’s concern with pedestrian safety along the
east side of California Drive. However, Public Works did not want a sidewalk constructed on this side because it
would not lead to any destination point other than the Rector storage. Rector will be required to install a
pedestrian gate at the south end of the storage area, near Broadway and California, to provide for safe access to
the site. In addition there are no cross walks on California Drive, north of Broadway, until Murchison Drive.
Please refer to the February 9, 2015 Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of
Planning Commission questions and comments and public comments.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure op eration of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 15, 2015 and February 17, 2015, site plan, modified aerial and elevation;
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 proposed fence shall include a pedestrian gate located near the intersection of Broadway and
California;
Conditional Use Permit 1260 California Drive
-3-
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 applicant shall complete a street address application to be assigned a physical address;
6. 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;
7. that no additional lighting or loudspeakers shall be installed or used at this site;
8. 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
9. 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:
Response packet from E. James Hannay, Rector Motor Car Company
Letter, dated February 13, 2015
Revised Site plan
Aerial
Modified aerial/Fence elevation - date stamped January 15, 2015
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter from John Kevranian, Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District (February 7, 2015)
Response from Mayor Terry Nagel (February 8, 2015)
Application to the Planning Commission
CUP application
Commercial Application
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 30, 2015
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
712 Lexington Way
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Special Permit and Variances
Address: 712 Lexington Way Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, Side Setback Variance
and Parking Variances for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Wehmeyer Design APN: 029-171-180
Property Owners: Rahul Verma and Monali Sheth Lot Area: 5000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The existing one-story house and attached single-car garage contains 1,623 SF (0.32
FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing front porch
by 69 SF, add 140 SF at the rear of the house on the first floor and add a new 889 SF second floor. With
the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,652 SF (0.53 FAR) where 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed project is 48 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within
2% of the maximum allowed FAR.
The first floor wall along the left side property line is nonconforming because it is set back 3’-6” where 4’-0”
is the minimum required. The applicant is requesting a Side Setback Variance to extend the first floor wall
along the left side property line at the rear of the house (3’-6” existing and proposed where 4’-0” is the
minimum required).
The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed second story along
the right side of the house (29 SF, 1’-6” x 19’-0” extends beyond the declining height envelope) (see Proposed North
Elevation, sheet A3.0).
The existing house contains three bedrooms. The existing covered parking space is nonconforming in
length (16’-6” existing where 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing garage). The uncovered parking
space is also nonconforming in length (17’-0” existing where 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing
condition). With this project the number of bedrooms is increasing from three to four, which requires one
covered and one uncovered parking spaces to current code dimensions. Since the existing parking is
substandard and there are no changes proposed to increase the length of the parking spaces, the applicant
is requesting Parking Variances for substandard parking space length for the covered and uncovered
parking spaces.
The proposed project requires the following applications:
Design Review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2);
Side Setback Variance to extend the f irst floor wall along the left side property line at the rear of the
house (3’-6” existing and proposed where 4’-0” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c) (1));
Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for the proposed second story addition along the right side of
the house (29 SF, 1’-6” x 19’-0” extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a));
Parking Variance for substandard covered parking space length (16’-6” clear interior dimensions
existing/proposed where 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing garage) (C.S. 25.70.030 (a) (4)); and
Parking Variance for substandard uncovered parking space length (17’-0” existing/proposed where
18’-0” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.70.030 (a) (4)).
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 712 Lexington Way
2
712 Lexington Way
Lot Area: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 11, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
Garage:
19'-0"
n/a
15’-0” ¹
16'-6" to porch
32'-6"
no change
16'-1" (block average)
20'-0"
25’-0”
Side (left):
3'-6" ¹ 3’-6” ² 4'-0"
(right): 3'-0" ¹ 11’-6” 4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
40'-0"
n/a
37'-6"
37'-6"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1642 SF
32.8%
1851 SF
37%
2000 SF
40%
FAR: 1623 SF
0.32 FAR
2652 SF
0.53 FAR
2700 SF ³
0.54 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(9' x 16'-6” clear interior) 4
1 uncovered
(9' x 17') 4
no change to existing 5
1 covered
(9' x 18' clear interior)
1 uncovered
(9' x 18')
Height: 18'-5" 25’-7” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: n/a encroaches 29 SF 6
(1'-6" x 19'-0")
Special Permit
required
¹ Existing non-conforming front setback to attached garage and left and right side setbacks.
² Side Setback Variance required (3’-6” proposed where 4’-0” is required).
³ (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1100 SF = 2700 SF (0.54 FAR). 4 Existing nonconforming covered parking space length and uncovered parking space length. 5 Parking Variance required for substandard covered parking space length (16’-6” clear interior dimensions
existing/proposed where 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing garage) and substandard uncovered
parking space length (17’-0” existing/proposed where 18’-0” is the minimum required). 6 Special Permit required for declining height envelope for the proposed second story addition along the right side of
the house (29 SF, 1’-6” x 19’-0” extends beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater
Divisions.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer
Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 712 Lexington Way
3
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Variance Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 115 Occidental Avenue Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates APN: 028-314-190
Property Owner: JNL Occidental LLC Lot Area: 7,250 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon
documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, I nc., dated February 6, 2015.
The results of the evaluation concluded that 115 Occidental Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible
for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Planning Staff will prepare environmental
review documentation to support the findings of the Historic Resource Evaluation prior to the Planning
Commission Action Hearing for this project.
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and
detached 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 3,814 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,820 SF (0.52 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed project is 6 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within less
than 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.
The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope. There is approximately 98 SF
of the proposed second floor that encroaches into the declining height envelope along the right side. All other
Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application s:
Environmental Review for 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 (98 SF along the right side of the house extends beyond the
declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075).
Item No. 9c
Design Review Study
Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit 115 Occidental Avenue
2
115 Occidental Avenue
Lot Area: 7,250 SF Plans date stamped: February 9, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
26'-0”
32'-0”
25'-3” (block average)
20'-0”
Side (left):
(right):
5'-0"
10’-0”
4'-0"
4’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
57’-6”
60’-6”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,414 SF
33.3%
2,900 SF
40%
FAR: 3,814 SF
0.52 FAR
3,820 SF 1
0.52 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: 29’-9” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Request for Special Permit ²
98 SF extends beyond the declining
height envelope)
CS 25.26.075
1 (0.32 x 7,250 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,820 SF (0.52 FAR)
² Request for Special Permit for declining height envelope (98 SF along the right side of the house extends
beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division,
Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division.
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.
Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit 115 Occidental Avenue
3
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 structur al 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 st ructure 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 n ew 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.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates
JNL Occidental LLP
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc ., dated February 6, 2015
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 _9_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 115 Occidental 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 115 Occidental Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-314-190
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
115 Occidental Avenue is a one story over partially exposed basement, heavily altered Craftsman style bungalow constructed in
1917. The 1870 sq. ft. wood frame building occupies a 7250 sq. ft. rectangular lot on the west side of Occidental Avenue between
Howard Avenue and Barroilhet Avenue. The building is set back approximately 20 feet from the lot line and slightly south of lot
center; a concrete paved driveway is located at the north perimeter of the lot and leads to a detached garage behind the resi dence.
The residence is clad primarily in asbestos shingle and capped with a hipped roof with two large shed-roofed dormers and one
smaller hip-roofed dormer. The building is oriented slightly off of cardinal directions; cardinal directions will be used for ease of
description in this report.
*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,
01/28/2015
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1917, San Mateo County Assessors
Map Information
*P7. Owner and Address:
JNL Occidental Lp.
3260 19th Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
*P9. Date Recorded:
02/06/2015
*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 The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 9 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description: (continued)
The primary (east) façade faces onto a lawn and Occidental Avenue (Figure P5a). The primary entrance is located at the right of
the façade, and consists of a contemporary glazed wood panel door with a left side-lite of textured colored glass (Figure 1). The
entrance features a brick-edged concrete stoop surrounded by a galvanized metal railing, accessed by two concrete steps at the
right corner and one brick and concrete stair at left. The entry stoop is sheltered by a shed roof. At center, the primary façade
includes a simple decorative colored shingle arrangement which frames applied address numbers. At left, a large shallow corner
bay includes a six-part aluminum sash fixed and awning window group (Figure 2). The first story terminates with a boxed eave
overhang. At the center of the roof, there is a small hipped dormer with a metal sash sliding window. A large metal chimney pipe
rises from the roof at the left of the dormer.
The north façade faces onto a fully paved driveway which leads from the street to the rear of the lot to access the detached garage.
The partially exposed basement includes three small metal vents, evenly spaced along the facade. At the first story there are three
shallow square bays, each with an aluminum sash sliding window at its north facet (Figure 3). At the rear (west) of the façade
there is a small aluminum sash sliding window. The façade terminates with a boxed eave overhang. At the center of the roof, there
is a large shed roof dormer with an aluminum sash sliding window.
The rear (west) façade faces onto a yard that is largely paved with a small area of lawn at the south between the house and t he
garage. The rear façade is clad in vertical wood siding (Figure 4). At the exposed basement level, a short concrete stair leads
below grade to access a wood door with a small window. At the first story, left of center , there is a glazed wood panel door and at
right there is an aluminum sash sliding window. The façade terminat es in a boxed eave overhang. The door is accessed via a small
wood porch, which is accessed via a large wood and concrete dog -leg ramp. The porch and part of the ramp are sheltered beneath
a shed roof, supported by square wood posts.
The south façade faces onto a narrow yard with mature trees. At the exposed basement level, at far left (west), there is a small
aluminum sash sliding window. At the first story, from left to right, there is an anodized aluminum sliding window, a large a luminum
fixed and sliding tripartite window group, a small aluminum sliding window, and, at far right, the large shallow corner bay that was
described as part of the primary (east) façade (Figure 5). Here the bay also includes the same six part aluminum sash fixed and
awning window group that is found at the primary façade. The south façade terminates with a boxed eave overhang. At the center
of the roof, there is a large shed roof dormer with a aluminum sash sliding window.
A detached garage is located at the southwest corner of the lot and abuts the southern lot line (Figure 6). The garage is clad in
stucco. The primary façade of the garage faces north and includes a solid wood pedestrian door at left and a broad articulated
wood and glazed overhead auto door at center. The façade terminates with a peaked parapet behind which the roof is flat. The
remaining facades of the garage have no windows or doors.
Figure 1: Primary (east) facade, primary entrance, stoop, and
address detail, facing northwest.
Figure 2: Primary (east) facade, left (south) corner bay window
detail, facing west.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 9 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 3: North facade, facing southwest. Figure 4: Rear (west) facade, facing east.
Figure 5: South facade, partial view of rear (west)
portion, facing northeast.
Figure 6: Garage, primary (north) facade and east facade, facing
southwest.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 9 *NRHP Status Code_6Z___________________
*Resource Name or # 115 Occidental Avenue
B1. Historic name: 115 Occidental Avenue
B2. Common name: 115 Occidental Avenue
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence
B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman style bungalow, altered
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Original building plans or construction permits for 115 Occidental Avenue are not on file with the Burlingame Building Department,
and the architect is unknown. The San Mateo County Assessor reports a construction date of 1917. Building permits on file with the
Burlingame Building Department include: Garage construction and house alterations (Jun. 11, 1930, Permit #1869); Exterior
alteration including change location of front and back doors (Jun. 1, 1967, Permit #unknown); Electrical work in kitchen (Aug. 1,
1967, Permit # M109); Unspecified remodel (Aug. 7, 1973, Permit #U-1157); Remodel front door, living room (add freestanding
fireplace), add second story bedroom (May 7, 1977, Permit #X-482, builder Enar Eric Holm); Unspecified room addition (July 6,
1979, Permit #Z-877); Demo existing garage and construct two car garage (July 16, 1990, Permit #8496); Reroof (Nov. 9, 2005,
Permit #unknown).
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________
*B8. Related Features: Garage, constructed 1990.
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 i ntegrity)
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 t o
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 dev elopment 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 7)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: February 6, 2015
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2013.
Modified by Page & Turnbull.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 5 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
B10. Significance (cont’d):
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 construc tion 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 Co untry Club area was also annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Park Neighborhood
The house at 115 Occidental Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (includi ng
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 t o
develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a pla n
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 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. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a
period of about fifty years. 115 Occidental Avenue was constructed in 1917, in the subdivision’s 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. Many of these were designed in high architectural styles and were much grander in scale t han
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 t he
early twentieth century building boom, to the present day.
115 Occidental Avenue
According to information provided by the San Mateo County Assessor, the house at 115 Occidental Avenue was constructed in
1917, twelve years after the Burlingame Park neighborhood was first platted. No original building permit is available and,
consequently, the architect and builder are not known. The house appears on the 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, which is the
earliest available Sanborn Map for this area of Burlingame. At that time, the house was addressed as 113 Occidental, and the lot
was larger, extending west past its current boundary, possibly to the creek line (Figure 7). The footprint of the house at that time
differed from its current configuration, with a broad open porch across the primary façade, without the projecting corner bay that
currently exists at the southeast corner of the house (Figure 8). The footprint was the same in the 1949 Sanborn Map, and can be
seen in photographs of the house taken in 1954 and 1966 (Figures 9, 10, 11).
The first known owner of 115 Occidental Avenue was Fred E. Harmon, who lived here with his wife Minnie from approximately
1925-1928. It appears through record research that Harmon owned the property through at least 1930, as his name appears on a
building permit from that year. Harmon was a salesman in various industries including newspaper sales. During Harmon’s
ownership, a garage was constructed on the property and unspecified permitted alterations were made to the house. From 1931 to
1967, the house was owned and occupied for short periods of time by a variety of different people. In 1931, the house was
occupied by L. B. Hillsinger, a mariner. From 1932 through 1939, the house was occupied by real estate salesm an John
Montgomery Reynolds and his wife Louise. From 1940 through 1946, the house was occupied by George A. Bawart, a meat
market employee, and his wife Mary Jane. In 1947, the house was owned by Ethel G. Ginno and occupied by her son, John W.
Ginno. From 1948 to 1950 the house was occupied by Sydney E. Jordan, an engineer at McCormick Steamship Company, and his
wife Eva. In 1951 the house was occupied by Elmer B. Longfellow, an employee at Ampex Elec. Co., and his wife Marge. In 1953,
the house was occupied by Robert Krollpfeiffer, an electrician, and his wife Betty. From 1954 through 1961 the house was
occupied by Robert R. Gowland, and employee at Swift & Co. in San Francisco, and his wife Arabella. From 1963 through 1965,
the house was occupied by Frances Wellbridge, a carpenter, and his wife Margaret.
On January 1, 1967, the house was purchased by James C. Conklin and his wife Patricia, from previous owner George E. Welch,
who does not appear to have ever occupied the property. James C. Co nklin was an electronics technician at Lenkart Electronics,
and during his ownership extensive alterations were made to the property, including the removal of the original front porch, change
of location of front and back doors, alteration of living room including construction of a new corner bay, replacement of original
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 6 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
windows with aluminum windows, conversion of the house from one story to two with the addition of a second story bedroom,
replacement of the dormer on the primary façade and construction of two larger side dormers, another unspecified room addition,
demolition of the existing garage and construction of a two car garage, recladding, and reroofing. The Conklin family remained in
ownership of the property until it was purchased in 2014 by the current owner.
Evaluation (Significance):
The residence at 115 Occidental 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 Californ ia
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 1917, the house at 115 Occidental 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 contributi on to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritag e of California or the United States. The house does convey
contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, but it is not among the
oldest homes in the neighborhood and it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. Therefore, the
property does rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion A/1.
The house at 115 Occidental Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register
under Criterion 2 (Persons). The house has been owned and rented over the years by a series of middle class people, none of
whom appear through research to have made specific important contributions to national, state, or local history that meet the
significance threshold for historic register inclusion.
The house at 115 Occidental 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 o f
construction. The building as constructed appears to have been a good example of the size and quality of residences constructed
in the Burlingame Park neighborhood and also displayed architectural features identified with the Craftsman bungalow style.
However, the property no longer conveys its original appearance due to a series of major alterations. The architect and builder are
unknown and cannot be considered masters. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and
does not appear eligible for register inclusion 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 144 Occidental Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Evaluation (Integrity):
The house at 115 Occidental Avenue retains integrity of location and setting. It is situat ed on its original lot, and the surrounding
Burlingame Park neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single -family houses. The property has undergone
extensive alterations since its construction, including the reconfiguration of the primary (east) façade, the addition of large dormers
visible from all facades, replacement of all original windows, and recladding . Therefore, integrity of design, materials, and
workmanship are no longer intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early twentieth century residential
development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains integrity of association, but has lost its integrity of feeling
because it no longer expresses the overall historic appearance that it had when it was constructed. Overall the property does not
retain integrity.
Conclusion
115 Occidental Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any cr iteria.
The property was constructed early in the period of residential settlement of Burlingame Park subdivision. However, it is not among
the very oldest homes in the neighborhood, nor is it the first, only, or best example of a Craftsman style bungalow in the area;
instead, the building has been significantly altered and no longer conveys its historic appearance . It has no association with any
notable persons, and is not the site of any specific significant event. 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 l ocal
designation through survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A curs ory
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 eligibili ty as
a historic district. However, due to significant loss of integrity, 115 Occidental Avenue would not likely be a contributo r to a potential
historic district.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 7 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B12. References:
- Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.
- Building Permit Records, 144 Occidental Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingam Historical Society files.
- Burlingame Planning Department, Property file: 144 Occidental Avenue.
- 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: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940.
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
Figure 7: 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company, 115 Occidental Avenue lot outlined in red; edited by author. Source: San Francisco
Public Library Online Database System.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 8 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 8: Footprint of 115 Occidental Avenue (addressed as 113) in 1921. Source: Source: San Francisco Public Library Online
Database System.
Figure 9: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 115 Occidental Avenue lot outlined in red; edited by author. Source: San Francisco Public
Library Online Database System.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 9 of 9 Resource Name or #: 115 Occidental Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 6, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 10: 115 Occidental Avenue, 1954. Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 11: 115 Occidental Avenue, 1966. Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
PROJECT LOCATION
226 Lorton Avenue
Item No. 9e
Action Item
1
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit for a Full Service Food Establishment
and Commercial Design Review
Address: 226 Lorton Avenue Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment and Commercial Design
Review for changes to the façades of an existing commercial building.
Applicant: Nick Swinmurn, Nachoria LLC APN: 029-211-190
Designer: Glenn Cunningham Lot Area: 7000 SF
Property Owner: S.L. Griffiths, Inc. Zoning: BAC
General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District
Previous Use: Produce market (currently vacant)
Proposed Use: Full service food establishment
Allowable Use: Full service food establishment with approval of a Conditional Use Permit
Summary: The subject property contains a single-story 2,758 SF vacant space at the front of the site and a two-
story 3,672 SF office space at the rear. The subject space is currently vacant, but was most recently occupied
by a produce market. The applicant, Nick Swinmurn, representing Nachoria LLC, is proposing to operate full
service food establishment at 226 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC. The proposed restaurant will be open for lunch
and dinner and will serve Mexican cuisine specializing in nachos. Please refer to the applicant’s letters, dated
October 31, 2014 and January 16, 2015, for a full description of the food establishment. Beer and wine would
also be offered upon approval of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
The food establishment would contain customer seating, a kitchen, back of house area and restrooms.
Customer seating would also be offered in a new outdoor covered patio area along the left side of the building,
where there are currently five parking spaces (see Off-Street Parking discussion on page 2). The proposed food
establishment will have approximately 1,213 SF of customer seating (741 SF indoor + 472 SF in covered patio).
The proposed tenant space measures approximately 3,284 SF in area, including the 526 SF covered patio.
A full service food establishment is defined as a business which sells food prepared indoors on the premise with
a full menu and provides an indoor seating area of at least two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Such businesses
may provide for the sale of alcoholic beverages as an accessory and secondary use. Operating criteria to define
a full service food establishment include most or all of the following: served by waiters to seated customers and
where payment is made at the end of the meal; presence of a full commercial kitchen and commercial
dishwasher; and food is served on ceramic plates with metal flatware and cloth napkins. The proposed food
establishment meets most of these operating criteria. Please refer to the applicant’s letter, dated January 16,
2015, for a description of the proposed business operation.
The proposed food establishment would open seven days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. When the
business opens, there will be up to three full-time and up to four part-time employees. In five years, the number
of employees is not expected to increase. At opening, the applicant projects a total of 72 customers per day on
weekdays and weekends. In the future, the applicant anticipates no change in the number of customers per day.
A maximum of 78 people are expected on site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers.
The following applications are required:
Conditional Use Permit for a new full service food service food establishment in the BAC Zoning District
with 1,213 SF of on-site customer seating area (741 SF indoor + 472 SF in covered patio) (CS 25.32.070
(b) (2)); and
Commercial Design Review for changes to the façades of an existing commercial building in the BAC
Zoning District (CS 25.32.045 (b)); and
Item No. 9e
Design Review Study
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
2
Commercial Design Review: With this application, changes are proposed to the front and left side façades of
the existing building. This project is subject to Commercial Design Review because it includes changes to the
façade of a commercial building located within the BAC zoning district. Please refer to sheet A-5 for a
comparison of the existing and proposed building elevations.
The front of the building contains stucco siding, wood trim around non-gridded windows and a canvas awning.
With this application, the existing windows would be replaced with aluminum clad wood windows with simulated
true divided lites in the upper one-third of the windows. The existing canvas awning would be replaced with a
new canvas awning to represent the proposed food establishment.
The left side of the building contains stucco siding at the front half of the building and painted CMU at the rear
half of the building. Aluminum sliding front entry doors and sidelites and a canvas awning are also located along
this side of the building. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing sliding entry doors and sidelites with
aluminum swinging doors. The proposed outdoor patio along the left side of the building would be covered by a
new fabric awning and enclosed with a 3’-0” tall CMU wall painted to match the building. Lastly, there would be a
12’-0” long opening in the wall with counter seating on either side of the opening. The opening would be filled by
a metal roll up door when the business is closed.
The City Arborist is requiring installation of a street tree and tree grate in front of the tenant space t be completed
by the applicant as part of the building permit for the tenant improvements. The City Arborist has specified one
24-inch box Pyrus calleryana ‘Red Spire’ to be planted. The required street tree and grate are shown on the
Proposed Site Plan, sheet A-2.
Off-Street Parking: The subject property contains nine parking spaces along the left side of the building. With
this application, the applicant is proposing to replace six existing parking spaces with a new covered patio for
customer seating. Three parking spaces towards the rear of the site would remain (see Existing and Proposed
Site Plan, sheets A-1 and A-2, respectively).
This property is located within the boundaries of the Burlingame Avenue Off-street Parking District, which was
created in 1962. Assessments were collected from property owners within the district to pay 60% of the cost to
acquire and build public parking lots in the downtown area. Some property owners chose to take a credit for
parking which was provided on their site and did not pay the full assessment. Once a credit was taken, the
property owner was obliged to maintain the parking on the site which was the basis for the credit.
Planning records show that this property did not take a credit and therefore paid the assessment. As a result,
the existing on-site parking spaces do not need to be retained and a Parking Variance is not required to
eliminate the five existing parking spaces along the left side of the building. In addition retail, personal service
and food establishment uses on the first floor in the BAC zoning district, are exempt from vehicle parking
requirements as set forth in code section 25.70.090 (a). Therefore, no additional off-street parking is required for
the proposed food establishment.
This space intentionally left blank.
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
3
226 Lorton Avenue
Lot Area: 7,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 10, 2015
Existing Proposed Allowed/Required
Use: Retail uses
(currently vacant)
Full service food
establishment ¹
Conditional Use Permit required
for a full serviced food
establishment
Seating Area: n/a 1,213 SF
(741 SF indoor + 472
in covered patio)
at least 250 SF of seating area
Off-Street Parking: 9 spaces 3 spaces Property paid assessment in
Burlingame Avenue Off-street
Parking District; existing parking
spaces do not need to be
retained; food establishment use
on ground floor is exempt from
providing parking
¹ Conditional Use Permit for a new full service food establishment in the BAC Zoning District with 1,213 SF of
on-site seating area (741 SF indoor + 472 in covered patio) (CS 25.32.070 (b) (2)).
Staff comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Nick Swinmurn, Nachoria LLC, applicant
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Applicant’s Letters of Explanation, dated October 31, 2014 and January 16, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Application
Commercial Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
February 20, 2015
Planning Commissioners
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: 226 Lorton Avenue
Honorable Planning Commissioners:
I am thrilled to see new life breathed into a former tire and appliance business dating from 1930 that has since
been home to a variety of businesses, the most recent of which put a great deal effort into nice improvements to
the interior.
I live nearby and frequently dine on Lorton Avenue with my family.
The idea of outdoor dining in the significant space of the former parking area is going to be a great addition to
that property. More importantly, it should provide a nice boost to liven up the far end of Lorton as it approaches
Howard Avenue, something we strived to do with our goals in the creation of the Downtown Specific Plan a
few years back.
The changes suggested to the plain, fixed 1970s windows on the Lorton Ave. side offer an improvement and
detailed touch on an otherwise stark and uninteresting exterior.
I’d like to suggest, however, that the new windows be made moveable, either in the form of double-hung, as is
the case with La Boulange on Burlingame Avenue, or perhaps accordion type, or sliders used extensively in the
downtown area.
Anyone who has walked by or frequented such businesses can appreciate that the ability to open windows onto
a sidewalk brings dimension into the street, thereby not only making the streetscape more friendly and fluid, but
also certainly attracting potential customers into establishments that they might otherwise have walked past.
Having frequented the former café, I also think the additional ventilation to the space would be a real asset.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Ave.
Burlingame
02.23.15 PC Meeting
Item #9E
226 Lorton Avenue
Page 1 of 1
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
FEB 20 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD – PLANNING DIV.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 18, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1709 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1709
Ray Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 2014 (see
attached April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued
in December 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 February 18, 2015.
1. In the nook, change the originally approved French doors to windows (see Proposed
Main Floor Plan and Proposed Rear Elevation, sheets A.3 and A.5, respectively).
2. In the family room, change the originally approved windows to French doors (see
Proposed Main Floor Plan and Proposed Rear Elevation, sheets A.3 and A.5,
respectively).
3. Change the originally approved roofing material from wood shake to a higher quality
composition shingle (see Proposed Building Elevations, sheets A.4 through A.7).
Specifically, the applicant is proposing to use CertainTeed Landmark Pro Premium Max
Def (see attached literature).
The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed floor plans and
building elevations, date stamped February 9, 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
c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc., applicant and designer
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, dated February 18, 2015
April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped February 9, 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 19, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: FYI – REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 60 EDWARDS COURT,
ZONED RR.
Summary: On July 22, 2013 the Planning Commission approved an application for commercial
design review, a conditional use permit, and a parking variance for a 61,700 square foot indoor
tennis facility. As approved, the project will consist of six indoor tennis courts and various
ancillary uses. The ancillary uses initially proposed include locker rooms, office space, storage
space, a multi-purpose room, a stretching room, a tennis video review room, three lounges, and
a café to serve users of the facility. The project is now under construction and nearing
completion.
The project applicant is requesting an FYI to modify a landscaped area between the building
and parking lot. The request is to substitute a lawn area in place of the approved landscape
planting and concrete bands. According to the applicant, the intent is to provide a small sports
agility area in front of the building.
Initially the FYI request was submitted with specifications for artificial turf. Upon further
consideration, the applicant amended the request to specify natural grass turf instead. The
attached site plan shows the proposed turf area; any references to artificial turf should be
disregarded. A copy of the previously approved landscape plan has also been provided for
reference.
The architect submitted a letter, date stamped February 18, 2015, to explain the proposed
change to the previously approved Commercial Design Review project. Other than the
proposed revision described above, there are no other changes proposed to the landscape plan
or design of the building.
As the FYI request involves changes to landscaped area, the request was routed to Public
Works and Stormwater Division staff for comment. Provided natural grass turf is installed as
specified in the amended request, staff from Public Works and Stormwater Divisions have no
comment.
Planning staff has designated the project to be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. If
the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Community Development Department Memorandum
February 19, 2015
Page 2
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
c. Jeffrey Wheeler, Swatt Miers Architects, 5845 Doyle Street #104, Emeryville, CA 94608,
architect.
ATTACHMENTS:
Explanation letter from architect, date stamped February 18, 2015
July 22, 2013, Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes
Stormwater Division no comment form, dated February 17, 2015
Proposed landscape plan, date stamped February 4, 2015
Previously approved landscape plan
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, July 22, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
1
2. 60 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION
USE AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY. (ANNE & HORACIO
MATTA, APPLICANTS; SW ATT MIERS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; RILCO-EDWARDS, LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER
No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff
report dated July 22, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Thirty-four (34) conditions were suggested for consideration. Community
Development Director Meeker described the applicant’s request for a waiver of development impact fees,
and provided his recommendations relative to this request.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
John Ward, Horacio Matta, George Miers (project architect), and Gary Black (Hexagon Transportation
Engineers) represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Wondered if a second outdoor seating area could be provided near the fire truck turnaround. (Miers
– have considered this arrangement, but the area is part of the stormwater runoff system, it would
be difficult to place tables and seating in the area.)
Likes the fact that the seating is placed in the front of the building. There is some area on the
exterior at the front that could be used for exercise stations such as a “paracourse.” (Miers/Matta –
Could use the area as a warm-up area prior to playing a match.)
Likes the landscape plan. This is going to bring a lot of value to the community.
The changes made are good. The outdoor courtyard activates the space. (Miers – given that a
large portion of the clientele are children, the courtyard area was provided.)
Will there only be four staff on site at a time? (Matta – Will normally have three or four coaches,
plus a manager on the site at any given time. Meeker – noted that condition 6 may need to be
revised to a maximum of 74-75 individuals on the property at any time.)
Feels the mitigated negative declaration is supportable.
Agrees with the Director’s determination regarding the fee reduction.
If there was a situation with overflow parking, where would they be parked? (Black – there is street
parking in the area. Didn’t believe that they would even come close to exceeding parking on site.)
Public comments:
Unidentified individual and Ken Robinson spoke:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
2
Has worked with the Mattas for many years.
They have been supporting a program in East Palo Alto for many years, and they have a track
record of supporting the community.
Mattas have helped on the courts as coaches.
The Mattas have been instrumental in providing support for improvement of the programs in East
Palo Alto.
Support doing the best with the kids.
Has had private instruction at private clubs over his tennis playing experience.
World class instruction with world-class pros will be at the facility.
Will be able to play tennis year round.
Tennis is a game for life; provides opportunities to meet people from all walks of life.
Suggested approval.
Additional Commission comments:
Will be a great facility.
How will the café be advertised? (Meeker – Will not be allowed to advertise the café as a free-
standing use; it is part of the tennis facility.)
Storage of construction materials – encouraged construction staging on the site during the
construction process.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
City Attorney Kane asked the Commissioners to confirm the adequacy of the findings in the staff report, and
additionally she encouraged adopting separate resolutions for CEQA and the project entitlements. Review
and make the findings for the variance as well.
Further Commission comments:
The project will be improving runoff in the area.
With respect to the CEQA evaluation – given the occupancy of usage of the facility, there will be
adequate parking for the use.
The design is good, it will be a great addition to the community.
Lighting concerns will not be an issue based upon the evaluation.
Noise analysis also shows that there will not be an impact.
The conditional use permit for the height is supportable due to the volume of space needed for the
use; there will not be a second story involved.
Agrees with the approach regarding the trail; the design accommodates the future construction of
the trail when warranted.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to adopt a resolution declaring the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and that, subject to conditions of approval and mitigation measures, implementation of the
project will not result in a significant impact upon the environment.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of the motion:
Add language to condition 11 reinforcing that all construction materials and staging be kept on the
site.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
3
Clarified that the maximum number of people on the site should be clarified as 75, regardless of
whether they are staff or visitors.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the CEQA resolution. The motion passed 4-
0-3-0 (Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones absent).
Motion by Commissioner Yie to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the indoor tennis facility shall be limited to 62,985 SF of commercial recreation space, as shown
on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 12, 2013, sheets CS, A-1,
A-6, A-8 and L-1; and date stamped April 2, 2013, sheets A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, C-1.1, C-2.1, C-
3.1, C-4.1, C-5.1, C-5.2, C-6.1, C-6.2, C-6.3, C-6.4, C-6.5, ER-1, ER-2, SW -1, SU1, SU2 and SU3;
2. that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed and maintained as shown on the
Landscape Plan sheet L-1, date stamped April 2, 2013;
3. that fencing shall be installed along the western property line (adjacent to 25 Edwards Court and
1400 Marsten Road) as shown on the diagram date stamped June 13, 2013;
4. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variances shall apply only to an indoor tennis facility
and shall become void if the indoor tennis facility ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever
expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement;
5. that all activities associated with the tennis facility shall occur indoor only; no portion of the exterior
of the site shall be used for activities associated with the indoor tennis facility;
6. that the indoor tennis facility shall only be open seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
with a maximum of 75 people on-site at any one time, including the owner, employees and
customers;
7. that tournaments shall be hosted a maximum of twelve times a year, that the tennis facility will be
closed to the general public during tournament days, that each tournament would start on Saturday
and run from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and would continue on Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and
that the starting times for matches would be staggered so there would be a 90-minute break from
conclusion of one match and the start of a subsequent match;
8. that the café may be open to the general public but shall not be advertised with signage on site, nor
advertised in any media;
9. that any changes to the floor area, use, or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as
stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit;
10. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s April 25, 2013 and February 25, 2013 memos, Chief
Building Official's April 10, 2013, April 4, 2013 and February 28, 2013 memos, the Parks
Supervisor’s April 4, 2013 and February 28, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal’s February 25, 2013
memos, and the NPDES Coordinator’s April 12, 2013 and March 4, 2013 memos shall be met;
11. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall
be prohibited, and that all construction staging shall be conducted on site;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
4
12. 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;
13. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the
Public Impact fee in the amount of $11,022.38, made payable to the City of Burlingame and
submitted to the Planning Division;
14. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the building, the applicant shall pay the
second half of the Public Impact fee in the amount of $11,022.37, made payable to the City of
Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
15. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the
North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $15,431.33, made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
16. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the building, the applicant shall pay the
second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $15,431.33,
made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
17. that demolition or removal of the existing paving and structures 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;
18. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around
the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site;
19. 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;
20. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame;
The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the
inspections noted in each condition:
21. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building envelope;
22. 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;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
5
23. 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;
24. 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;
Mitigation Measures from Initial Study
Air Quality
25. During construction, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement the
following measures required as part of BAAQMD’s basic and enhanced dust control procedures
required for all construction sites. These include:
a. Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds
exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the
top of the trailer).
c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
e. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if
visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
f. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. In addition, building pads
should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Cultural Resources
26. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during
ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after
notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative
to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines
15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public
Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine
the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting
archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources,
the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such
as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible,
other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other
parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources
is carried out;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
6
27. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or
impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within
100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if
necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame;
28. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction,
all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame
and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State
Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains
are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be
adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a
professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of
the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As
necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant,
including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be
responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the
provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources
Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by
the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where
the remains were discovered;
Geology and Soils
29. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of
Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include
recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent
California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed
by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations performed by a
California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from the
engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall
ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures
and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction.
Hydrology and Water Quality
30. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)
for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the
following:
a. A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading
activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30)
to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall
indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils;
b. Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term
biodegradable erosion control blankets;
c. Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream
storm drain inlets;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013
7
d. Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and
activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials,
litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and
e. The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of
debris and sediment.
31. The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent
with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES
Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post-construction treatment and control of storm water
runoff from the site. Post-construction treatment measures must be designed, installed and
hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals
shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and
maintenance of the post-construction stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance
agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of a final construction inspection.
Noise
32. The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures:
a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control
techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
b. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they
shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other
measures to the extent feasible.
Transportation/Traffic
33. Tournaments shall be limited to no more than 12 tournaments per year, consisting of two-day
tournaments on up to one weekend per month. There shall be a 90-minute break between the end
of one round of matches and the beginning of the next round of matches.
34. The project sponsor shall obtain approval for a Parking Variance for providing 48 off-street parking
spaces on the subject site where 299 spaces are required based on the findings of the parking study
done as a part of the Broadway Tennis Center Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants dated June 5, 2013.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion of motion:
Requested that if the applicant does determine a location for an outdoor seating area that the
information be provided to the Commission as an FYI.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3-0
(Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 7:54 p.m.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 20, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: FYI CLARIFCATION – REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 60 EDWARDS
COURT, ZONED RR.
An FYI request has been submitted to substitute a lawn area in place of the approved
landscape planting and concrete bands at 60 Edwards Court, currently under construction.
However there may be some confusion with the request in reference to revision bubbles on the
landscape plans. The landscape plan included with the FYI memo marked “Original Approval”
(dated 10/08/13) shows a revision bubble around an area of the side setback on the north side
of the building. This plan dates to a Design Review Amendment approved by the Planning
Commission on October 28, 2013. At that time, the Planning Commission was presented with
two options for the referenced setback area: one option was to add additional parking spaces,
the other was to add four trees. The Planning Commission specified trees, and those will be
planted accordingly. Attached is a landscape plan (Sheet L4.1) showing the location of
landscape trees for reference.
To reiterate, other than the proposal to substitute lawn area in front of the building as described
in the applicant’s letter, there are no other changes proposed to the landscape plan or design of
the building.
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager
c. Jeffrey Wheeler, Swatt Miers Architects, 5845 Doyle Street #104, Emeryville, CA 94608,
architect.
ATTACHMENT:
Landscape Plan Sheet L4.1