HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2015.03.09Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, March 9, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 23, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga.
February 23, 2015 Draft Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period .
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak "
card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust
the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
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
a.
1260 California Dr memoAttachments:
7. STUDY ITEMS
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007 – 1025 Rollins Road – Public comment on Draft
Environmental Impact Report for a new 268-unit residential apartment building and
22-unit residential condominium project (SummerHill Apartment Communities,
applicant; Seidel Architects, architect; Stucker Family Trust and Oscar F. Person
Testamentary Trust, property owners) (134 noticed) Staff Contact: Maureen Brooks
a.
1008-1028 Carolan DEIR Comment Staff Report
1008-1028 Carolan DEIR Comment Attachments
1008-1028 Carolan DEIR Comment Recd After
Attachments:
8. 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.
9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
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) (XX noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
a.
226 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
226 Lorton Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
1846 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit for retail alcohol
sales associated with an existing business (Jeffrey Meisel, applicant; 1846 Rollins
Road LLC, property owners) (15 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
b.
1846 Rollins Rd - Staff Report
1846 Rollins Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
149 Pepper Ave - zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Scoping and Design
Review for first and second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling and a
Conditional Use Permit for an existing accessory structure (Jeff Alan Guard, JAG
Architecture, architect and applicant; Jill and Derek Johnson, property owners (40
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
a.
149 Pepper Ave - Staff Report
149 Pepper Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
2209 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Side Setback Variance
for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Briggs
McDonald, bmod Office of Design, applicant and architect; Ann Stephens and Keith
Bol, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
b.
2209 Ray Dr Staff Report
2209 Ray Dr Attachments
Attachments:
1549 Meadow Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single -family dwelling (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates,
applicant and designer; James and Luciana Witherspoon, property owners) (56
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
c.
1549 Meadow Ln - Staff Report
1549 Meadow Ln - Attachments
Attachments:
1901 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
height for a major renovation and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling, with detached garage (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and
architect; Edward Ted McMahon and Grace Han, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Barber
d.
1901 Hillside Dr- Staff Report
1901 Hillside Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a
new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling
Terrones Architecture Inc, applicant and architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner )
(33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
e.
12 Vista Ln - Staff Report
12 Vista Ln - Attachments
12 Vista Ln - Received After 1
Attachments:
11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
12. DIRECTOR REPORTS
- Commission Communications
- City Council regular meeting March 2 , 2015
FYI: 1428 Vancouver Avenue - review of as -built changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
a.
1428 Vancouver Ave - Memorandum
1428 Vancouver Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
FYI: 1534 Los Altos Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
b.
1534 Los Altos Dr - Memorandum
1534 Los Altos Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
FYI: 2020 Hillside Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
c.
2020 Hillside Dr FYI - Memorandum
2020 Hillside Dr FYI - Attachments
Attachments:
13. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on March 9, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2015, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2015
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 23, 2015
CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A
a.Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
b.Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council
on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time.
c.Adjournment into Closed Session
d.Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation - Gov. Code §54956.9 (a) and
(d) (4): One Case
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:09 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. ROLL CALL
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and GumPresent6 -
TerronesAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioners Yie and Sargent abstained because they were absent from the February 9, 2015
meeting.
Vice Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the meeting
minutes. The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, and Gum4 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Abstain:Yie, and Sargent2 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
None.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a.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
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.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)
Commissioner DeMartini was recused because he has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of
the subject property.
Commissioner Sargent was absent from the last meeting but watched the video so is familiar with the
application.
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jeff Chow and Peyling Yap represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Made right choices in making changes.
>Great improvement but disappointing that this happened. Commission spent a lot of time refining the
design originally. Not sure this would have been approved in its current form. Is very tall for the
neighborhood, with abnormally high first floor plate height. Changes that were made on the fly
exacerbate the shortcomings.
>Bulked out trellis adds interest.
>When presented with three options and one is a "winner" makes it easier to make a choice.
>Isn't there a framing certification and roof ridge survey? (Hurin: Typically yes, but in this instance the
original approval did not include an increase in roof ridge height so a roof ridge height was not ordered.)
>Shared with neighbors? (Chow: Reception at open house was favorable.)
Public comments:
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
None.
Commission discussion:
>Would not have approved this at this height. Other applicants are able to follow approvals without
trouble.
>This kind of egregious issue seems rare. It is a framing issue, whereas typically the issues are with
finishes.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, and Gum4 -
Nay:Sargent1 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
b.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: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Minerva Abad represented the applicant, and Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang represented the property
owners.
Commissioner comments/questions:
>Windows on rear elevation shown dark - is this a treatment? (Abad: No, printing error.)
>Shows process has worked, is a better result.
Public comments:
>None.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c.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
Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioners Gum and Sargent met with neighbor across the street .
Commissioner DeMartini previously met with the neighbors at 1551 and 1554 Los Montes Drive, and
before this meeting had a brief email exchange about the story poles.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Farnaz Khadiv represented the applicant, and Jiries Hanhan represented the property owner:
>Raised garage 1 foot instead of 2 feet.
>Instead of going up from garage level, steps down 2 feet. Clears view from across the street.
Commission comments:
>Great improvements.
>Has eliminated view impacts. House hugs topography.
>Design review consultant letter mentioned a more horizontal garage door, entry doors, and
landscaping. (Khadiv: Garage door was originally vertical, has been changed to have horizontal doors .
Front entry doors have been matched in same style, following horizontal pattern.)
>Painted window frames? (Khadiv: No. They will be anodized.)
>Plate heights not shown on some of the plans. Need to be added to Sheet A -4.2. Also show plate
heights on right-side elevation.
>What will driveway slope be? (Khadiv: Not sure, but will be less steep than currently.)
>Appreciated talking to neighbors.
Public comments:
Craig Ho, 1551 Los Montes spoke on this application:
>Supports project. No view impacts.
Commission discussion:
>Can support Special Permit on left side because of site topography.
>Landscape plan as FYI. Drafting changes on Sheet A-4.2.
>Special Permit for attached garage fits pattern of neighborhood. Steep topography would make it
difficult to have a rear garage.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item
with the following amendments:
>An FYI will be submitted to the Planning Commission for review prior to issuance of a
Building Permit to address the following items: (1) A Landscape Plan to be submitted for review;
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and (2) drafting errors on Sheet A-4.2 to be corrected.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
d.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
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Have there been any code enforcement complaints against this business? (Hurin: In reviewing the
Planning file, did not find any code enforcement items .)(Kane: Anecdotally not aware of any complaints,
but would need to review files to be certain.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Marshall Hydorn represented the applicant:
>GoKart does not need the 20 off-site parking at all, based on experience and the parking study .
Would prefer to have those additional spaces removed from the CUP completely.
Commissioner questions:
>Where do employees park? (Hydorn: On site, particularly on southern end. Sometimes in front or
northern section.) How many would there be in a busy time? (Hydorn: Does not know. Has not seen
much use of parking in their lots. Majority of business is after-hours.)
>There is a parking problem in the area, but not related to this particular business. Customers from
neighboring businesses may be parking in Go -Kart parking lot. Recommends Go -Kart have signage to
designate its on-site parking.
>Wants to reduce from 43 off-site to zero? (Hydorn: Yes. The business does not need any off -site
parking.)(Kane: Would need to re -notice the item since it would be a different project .)(Hydorn: Will keep
application as is.)
>If neighboring business needs additional parking in future, could approach Go -Kart and amend
permits.
Public comment:
>None.
Commission comments:
>11 years of experience has shown there is not a need for the existing amount of off -site parking.
Further supported by the parking study.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the item. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
e.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
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Matthew Mefford represented the applicant:
Commission questions/comments:
>None.
Public comments:
>None.
Commission discussion:
>A good use of the property. Conditions in staff report are applicable.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
f.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
Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner DeMartini spoke with the owner of Nuts for Candy and the
owner of Potpourri.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Craig Mucci represented the applicant:
Commission comments/questions:
>Do other Rector lots have fences? (Mucci: The lot on Cadillac Way has a fence.) Why is it
necessary here? (Mucci: Security. Also in last meeting there was concern about pedestrian safety. Has
changed plans to have pedestrian gate. Aesthetically wants to make the property to look better.)
>Would applicant still consider splitting space? (Mucci: Needs the property as business the grows .
Concerned with shared liability with insurance.)
>Investigated other lots? (Mucci: Yes.)
>Does not understand liability issue.
>Did applicant meet with Broadway merchants? (Mucci: Yes exchanged an email. Needs lot to
support growth of dealership.)
>Dealership had previously been granted a variance for reduced parking, but now needing overflow
parking. (Mucci: Wants to relieve congestion on Cadillac Way. By the time inventory, service and
carryover was considered, the existing facility was at capacity.)
>Will employees park in the lot, or is this purely for storage? How many employees? (Mucci: 72
employees.) Is there a possibility to have employees park during the day and have Broadway
merchants use the lot at night? (Mucci: The logistics of putting the new car storage and some of the
long-term service vehicles there would make that difficult.)
>If this is meant to relieve the congestion on Cadillac Way, would this just be moving the traffic to
California Drive? California Drive is narrow with lots of traffic. Concerned with traffic backing up. (Mucci:
At peak periods could be faster to turn right onto California Drive and access the dealership via Rollins
Road.)
>There would be a total of between 10 and 15 vehicles moved to and from the site in a day - does
that include both to and from? (Mucci: Yes.)
>Is there a flooding problem on the site? (Mucci: Not aware of.)
>Will there be a temptation to have For Sale signs on cars? (Mucci: Will not do that.)
>Concern of overpass and electrification of Caltrain in future. The lot may need to be used by Caltrain
in the future. Has that been taken into consideration, given construction of the fence? (Mucci: Intent is to
utilize the lot for 5 years.)
Public comment:
None.
Commission discussion:
>The concept of having the lot be shared between Rector employees and Broadway patrons sounds
interesting. Can the City condition this? (Kane: No. Rector has a lease with its own terms. They may
consider that, but we don ’t know what terms they would be able to offer. It would in effect be a sublet
back to the City or a merchant group. They can consider it but it cannot be required since it would be
changing the terms of a lease that they have with third parties. That cannot be done through a CUP.)
>Sharing the lot would only work if there was not a fence.
>Shared use proposal sounds reasonable, and understands parking on Broadway can be
challenging, but even when it ’s busy never thinks of parking in Lot T, even during day. Would be even
worse at night.
>In 5 years can decide whether lot would be needed for other purposes.
>There had been discussions of valet parking for Broadway. Thought the lot could be used for that at
night. Caltrain lot could also be used for this purpose.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>No evidence that there is demand for this lot for parking besides what is in this application.
>Broadway parking needs to be considered holistically, not piecemeal.
>Concerned about traffic, but vehicles could not be moved between 7-9 am and 4-7 pm as a condition
to mitigate potential traffic impacts.
>How to enforce conditions of CUP if there is violation? (Kane: If any holder of a CUP violates its
conditions the CUP may be revoked.)
> Would restrictions on hours not work for employee parking?
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
>Would employees park in the lot or would it just be inventory? (Mucci: A combination. New car
inventory would probably only be moved once per week.)
>Would the hours in the Conditions of Approval work for employee parking? (Mucci: Some shifts start
as late as 11 am. Most employees will be there before 7 since the facility opens at 7:30.)
>Could set the hours at 7:30-9:30 to accommodate employees but still control for traffic.
>Could 5 spaces be allocated for other businesses? (Mucci: Yes, provided it does not infringe on
insurance liability.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application with the conditions in the staff report. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Commission discussion:
>If approved, there is no motivation to investigate anything further. Wants more investigation, or
changing of timing to accommodate employees. (Kane: Other Caltrain lots are not on the table as an
alternate location. Cannot impose terms that would be contrary to the leases in place.)
>Is envisioning solutions to a problem that does not currently exist. CUP is for 5 years, if conditions
change can be revisited at that time.
>Concerned with traffic congestion and safety.
>Anticipated to only have 10-15 cars being moved per day. Traffic will be higher if it is a public
parking lot.
>Does not see proposed use is injurious to properties or uses in the vicinity. Is in keeping with the
use, and is a lot the City does not control.
>If congestion is the concern, this proposal will limit congestion more than anything else that has
been discussed in relation to this lot.
>Amend Condition #4 to restrict moving cars between 7:30-9:30 am to allow potential for employees
to utilize the lot.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, indicating a 4-2-0-1 vote in
favor of the application.
Chair Bandrapalli took a roll call vote on the motion. Through the roll call vote, the motion failed by the
following vote:
Sargent – Aye
Yie – Aye
Loftis – Aye
Bandrapalli – Nay
DeMartini – Nay
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Gum – Nay
(Kane: A commissioner changed his vote between the voice vote and roll call. The motion fails, but it is
unusual for a commissioner to change his vote in this manner. Would require research to determine
validity of the final roll-call vote.)
Commission discussion:
>Concerned employees would be parking in the lot during the restricted hours.
>If employees parked in this lot, inventory could be where employees currently park, closer to
showroom.
>Applicant did not request to use this lot for employees. Commission should not be trying to
determine what the applicant wants.
>There will be more traffic if employees use the lot rather than inventory.
>Concern over impacts on the neighborhood and the neighboring businesses.
>Sharing the lot between employees and Broadway businesses would address community needs and
also serve the needs of the business, but would create congestion.
>(Kane: The lot is not available for the public. It has been leased to a private party. Commission
needs to decide whether the use as proposed can meet the findings of a CUP. The lot would not revert
to the City if the CUP is not approved without the termination of existing leases.)
>The lease is held by Rector, but they could possibly be sublet to Broadway merchants. (Kane:
Commission cannot require an agreement between the applicant and another party, or require changes
to lease terms. If the use pattern were substantially changed might need to come back to the Planning
Commission for amendment.)
Commissioner Loftis made a motion to approve the application with the amended conditions that the use
would be for vehicle storage only, with no intensification of use or employee parking, and no more than
15 vehicle movements per day.
Commission discussion:
>Definition of vehicle storage? Does that include employee parking? (Gardiner: Typically the nature of
vehicles is not differentiated. Vehicle storage refers to vehicles being parked in a parking lot. The
application is to store vehicles, with conditions of when those vehicles could move in and out of the lot .)
(Kane: The impacts on the neighborhood are related to the numbers of trips and times of trips, not who
is driving the vehicle.)
>Would still like to see some shared use of the lot.
Commissioner Loftis withdrew his motion. A condition that the parking lot be shared cannot be imposed
by the Commission.
Commission discussion:
>Could stipulate that vehicles not utilize the Broadway /California Drive intersection, and instead go
around the block. (Gardiner: The 7-9 am and 4-7 pm condition is a standard peak hour definition that
has been applied to other projects as well. It would be difficult to enforce turning movements or who is
driving the vehicles, but the time restrictions would be easier to enforce and are related to peak traffic.)
>Unclear whether item can be continued. (Ordinarily when a vote is taken, it is the action. The
irregularity here is that a roll -call was called immediately after the voice vote and one of the votes
changed, so it is unclear which is the effective vote. Item may be held until a formal legal opinion can be
issued.)
Commissioner Sargent moved that the item be held until a formal legal opinion can be rendered. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to hold the item until a
formal legal opinion can be rendered. The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.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
Ex-Parte Communications: DeMartini met with the property owners. Commissioner Gum met with the
neighbor to the left, and a gentleman across the street.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that an email in support of
the project was received after publication of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Is the 11'-6" side setback dimension the first floor or second floor? (Hurin: 11'-6" is the proposed
side setback to the addition, on the right side of the house.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant, and Rahul Verma represented the property owner:
>Likes the charm and qualities of the house.
>Requesting variance to extend wall 4 feet along the same line as the original home.
>Fireplace and bookcases in Living Room intrude into garage, so makes the garage substandard.
>Wanting to retain as much of existing house, rather than rebuild.
>Massing pulled back so not right on street.
Commission questions/comments:
>Driveway and garage are both too small. Needs to have some functional parking on the lot. Is
garage not usable at all? (Verma: Can get a car into the garage but can't open the doors because it is
too narrow.)(Wehmeyer: It has been this way since the house was built. The depth is not an issue, it can
be lengthened, but the width impacts the interior fireplace and bookcases.)
>Is right-side wall of the garage at the setback already? (Wehmeyer: Left is constrained by
bookcases, right is at setback.)
>Look at 1813 Ray Drive application as an example. This also has a layer -cake effect, looks like an
addition. 1813 Ray Drive application made changes such as window sizes that made a big difference.
>Proportions of front entry gable end seem odd, feels too vertical. Perhaps lower it, maybe have
sidelites rather than the chandelier to provide human scale. Columns are very tall and stretch further
down than they should - typically they only extend down to the landing and then have a base.
>Consider shifting massing to integrate it better. The contrast is not as dramatic as the 1813 Ray
Drive application was at first however.
>Would like to have at least one of the parking areas be conforming. Could push the laundry room
wall back to make the garage conforming in length. (Wehmeyer: Has looked at it, can move the back
wall to make it conforming. Driveway is just one foot too short.)
>Garage is conforming in width, so bookcases do not need to be removed.
>Short driveway causes bumper to be close to sidewalk. If back wall of garage is pushed back,
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
perhaps push front wall back too to lengthen driveway. Driveway is more likely to be used for parking
than garage. (Hurin: 18-foot length is for existing conditions only. Once walls are touched and part of
work, would need to conform to standard 20-foot depth. Otherwise will still need to request a variance .)
(Wehmeyer: Can push front garage wall back to get 18-foot driveway, and rear wall to extend length of
the garage.)
>Opportunity to mitigate shading and declining height envelope for neighbor to right? (Wehmeyer:
Pushing massing back will help avoid shading.)
>Chimney is being removed, but wants to retain fireplace? (Wehmeyer: Yes, for aesthetics.)
>Shared plans with neighbors? (Wehmeyer: Has talked to neighbors to left and right, still needs to
talk to rear neighbor.)
Public comments:
Leslie Reisfeld spoke on this item:
>Glad to hear the discussion about having the parking work. Parking issues on the street.
>Encouraging neighbors to talk about what they are doing is good for the community.
Commission questions/discussion:
>Question whether there is a need to move the laundry room wall in as well as move the front of the
garage in.
>Design challenge to have parking spaces be closer to conforming. Parking is tight on street, so this
would make it more possible to have two cars parked on site.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion was approved
by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
b.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
Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1333 and 1341 Laguna
Avenue, and the neighbor to the left.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Setback. (Hurin: 11'6" is measured to addition at rear of house, but it is the right-side setback.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant:
>Owners wanted a contemporary house, but neighborhood preference is for traditional homes so it
looks traditional on the outside.
>Wants to retain "lumpy" stucco from first floor.
>Large roof over existing house, with shed dormers to limit amount of stucco on second floor.
>No changes to landscaping.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission questions:
>Have neighbors seen plans? Concern over rear balcony. (Robertson: Has shown plans to all
neighbors in the vicinity, has not received any negative comments. Homeowner has support letters.)
>Additional trees seem close to the sidewalk, will end up needing to replace sidewalks. (Robertson:
Wants a "redwood grotto" look. Closest tree is 8 feet from sidewalk.)
>Seems top-heavy - should lower plate height of second story to 8 feet.
>Entry area is narrow, then there is a massive roof above. Could widen entry to create more of a
base.
>Roof pitch of dormers looks flat.
>Red roof doesn't seem to fit with preference for contemporary style (Robertson: Owners like the red
roof.)
>Design seems confused.
>Existing house holds together, but new design does not seem to improve it.
>The roof is massive, looks like a lot of roof area, and a lot of glazing - doesn't feel in proportion. A lot
of glass on north elevation.
>There is no articulation. It is a two-story plane with a lot of glazing.
Public comment:
>None.
Commission discussion:
>Would benefit from consultation with a design review consultant.
>It is a challenging design problem.
>Constraints are creating a tension between what is being retained and what is being added.
>Focus on: amount of glazing in proportion to house, entry porch (original entry works better with
gabled roof rather than shed roof), roof structure, plate height, and upstairs balcony.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
c.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
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission comments/questions:
>Neighbor to right has a porch facing this property. Is there an opportunity to provide additional
space, or some type of screening trees? Might need more space than what has been allotted. (Chu: Can
look into it.)
>Well massed, but front elevation is so symmetrical compared to the side elevations.
>Curved round element on the front above the door is distracting.
>Side elevations are really good, rear elevation is acceptable.
>Terrific porch.
>Driveway is very long because of deep lot. Consider turnaround so doesn't have to back out.
>Special Permit is requested in order to allow symmetry - not sure.
>Existing house has asbestos tile siding - precautions should be taken during demolition.
>Right and left elevations fit Burlingame Park, but front elevation looks like Easton Addition. Would
rather see design approach from sides also applied to the front. Front does not fit into neighborhood.
>Width is 50 feet wide, which is more typical of Easton Addition.
Public comments:
Mike Ortiz, neighbor at 117 Occidental Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Appreciates comment about the side porch. It is highly used and concerned new house might block
use of side porch.
>Front looks massive, without much depth or setback.
>Special attention to demolition.
>Concerned with whether there needs to be a variance and encroachment into the declining height
envelope given the size of the lot.
Mark Henderson, 112 Pepper Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Burlingame Park has not had as many large two -story houses as other parts of Burlingame. Will
change character of neighborhood over time.
>Existing house is a tear-down, but concerned with privacy.
>Has English laurel hedge that has done well but would be in area that would look directly into the
house.
Chu:
>Special Permit does not create more floor area - it is an encroachment into the declining height
envelope.
>Will work with neighbor on privacy.
>There is a wide distance between the house to the right. Can have some landscaping for privacy.
Commission discussion:
>Having the garage on the right side will add distance and privacy compared to existing house.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
d.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;
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Easton Estates LLC, property owner) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Sargent had a brief text conversation with the contractor, and
Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors to the left and behind.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report and noted that a received -after
communication had been received.
Questions of Staff:
>How does the tree removal permit factor in to the process? (Kane: The Planning Commission has
jurisdiction when it is part of a development application.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal represented the applicant, and Frank Wong represented the property owner:
>Would prefer not to take down trees, but they are infected with bark beetles so will die regardless .
Neighbor has asked to retain existing tree to the left, and while it does not have bark beetle is concerned
with how far it is leaning. Concerned with pine canker.
>Owners are willing to work with neighbors to left on landscaping.
>Property is not conducive to a 2-car garage at back since it narrows to back, and rises.
>Special Permits for basement height, and door to basement.
>Property slopes up the hill, so is one of the reasons for the flat roof. Did not want to apply for a
variance for the height of the house.
Commission questions/comments:
>How does flat roof fit into the neighborhood? (Deal: Would need a Special Permit or Variance to
have a roof high enough to have a pitch. Suspects it would need to be higher than 36 feet. Style of
house is what owners are looking for. Has a lot of articulation, is not a box. Has cascaded it up the hill.)
>Not sure the desire to avoid a Special Permit or Variance is justification to have a flat roof.
>Can support the front garage since the neighboring house will have one too, but does not think the
style of the house fits into the neighborhood. Plate heights should be reduced to 8 feet, otherwise it looks
like a ship. Choice of materials, wide fascias, big overhang, skinny columns. House does not fit location.
>Could be a nice house - is articulated well, massed well.
>Columns look skinny, and tubed steel and glass rail seems cold.
>Details are critical with this type of architecture. Examples provided in neighbor's letter have the type
of details that could allow the house to fit into the neighborhood.
>Street has a very woodsy, serene quality. Material choices are important.
>Lot sloping up furthers need for plate height to come down. (Deal: Typically with an 8'-1" plate height
there is a sloped roof above which creates more mass. With flat roof there is not roof mass above so
plate height could be higher .)
>Proportions of overhang and columns - columns look to spindly compared to the big overhangs .
(Deal: Overhangs are only 24 inches. But can have thicker columns.)
>Would look better with wood. Does not specify whether it is stained or painted. (Deal: Rendering
shows hardiplank, but was intended to be wood.)
>There has not been tree maintenance, and construction equipment has been in carport for a long
time. (Wong: Had initially thought would be using construction equipment sooner. Arborist report did not
think trees were worth saving.)
>Should look at landscape plan more critically. Having trees on perimeter does not seem to fit the
pattern of the neighborhood. (Deal: According to the City Arborist, pine trees in this area are not doing
well because of pine canker and bark beetle infestation. Trees cannot be saved.)
>Landscape plan needs to help house fit into the neighborhood. Should take extra step to fit better
into neighborhood, not just trees on perimeter. The example on Drake Avenue has landscaping that fits
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the neighborhood. (Wong: Has been talking with neighbor about trying to keep tree to the left.)
>Look and feel of the house does not fit in with the neighborhood. Landscaping seems spartan.
>Left side elevation has a blank face of stucco – maybe a small window or something to break up the
space.
>Window patterns on the Drake Avenue example make the house fit much better for Easton Addition.
>Siding on left side terminates arbitrarily. (Deal: Is supposed to give the impression of wrapping
around, but doesn ’t want to have the wood continue all the way across. Would prefer to remove it rather
than add more.)
>Vertical volume void near Bedroom #1 does not continue all the way up – vertical volume is broken
up by the horizontal line. Instead could have volumes with wood all the way to the top, or stucco all the
way up. Articulating the volume all the way up could be beneficial to the house.
>A window across from the washer /dryer will add natural light and break up the expanse of
windowless wall. Could also have a window in the entry of the bedroom.
Public comment:
Resident, 1320 Drake Avenue, spoke on this application:
>Can move the construction equipment.
>Trees have been there but are not in good condition. House to the right has problems with pine
needles in the gutters, and the grass is dying.
Commission discussion:
>Applicant should look at material choices, muntin patterns, second floor plate heights, landscaping,
and composition of materials horizontally and vertically.
>Special Permit - will improve the articulation of the house.
>Design of the house has good bones and may be improved, but not sure it fits into the
neighborhood.
>Needs a more organic feel to fit into the neighborhood.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion was approved
by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
e.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
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that a received -after letter
had been submitted.
Questions of Staff:
>Businesses that did not take credits, and instead took the assessments, could do the same thing?
(Hurin: Yes)
>Does the City have a position on this? (Hurin: No. Parking for restaurant space on the ground floor is
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
not required. While some properties with spaces paid the assessment rather than take the credit and
continued to maintain the spaces for their own use, those paces could be removed if the assessment
had been paid originally.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Nick Swinmurn represented the applicant, and Remy Sijbrant of Remy's Quality Construction
represented the contractor:
>Committed to establishing businesses in Burlingame.
>Hoping Nachoria will be a good addition to Burlingame.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is there an easement for the use of Radio Shack in the back that needs to be maintained?
(Swinmurn: Does not know.)
>Needs to fix parking diagrams on plan - not consistent locations and numbers on the plan sheets .
(Swinmurn: Not changing any of the parking in the back.)
>Why close at 10:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays? (Swinmurn: Primarily a restaurant; 10:00 seems
to be when things close down. After 10:00 attracts a different crowd.)
>Likes indoor/outdoor seating. A bit nervous about cinderblock wall - should be matched to the slump
block of the building, which gives it some texture.
>Accessible path of travel shown in the drive aisle, will need to be striped. (Hurin: The required
accessible path of travel is provided through the interior of the space. The site plan is mislabeled - it is a
path of travel for exiting, but not accessibility.)
>Could the front windows be movable? (Swinmurn: The current windows can be opened. They are
single-hung.)
>What would a typical occupancy be, versus maximum? (Swinmurn: 109 maximum, 78 average)
>Consideration of entry from Lorton rather than corner? Would be entering off the driveway, and the
seating is right alongside the drive aisle. Maybe some planter boxes or something to make it a bit softer .
(Swinmurn: Kept entry where it exists today. There is a block wall between the seating and driveway. It
will be a decorating challenge.)
>Cafe seating in front? (Swinmurn: Secondary application for sidewalk seating on the Lorton side will
be submitted.)
Ron Karp spoke on this item, as property manager and leasing agent:
>As Downtown property owner supports the project. Will bring something different to Lorton Avenue.
>Door already exists and is reinforced.
>Will have sidewalk seating under different permit.
>Will verify easement - does not believe there is an easement.
>Radio Shack space will become something else in the future.
Commission discussion:
>The softening of the edge will happen once people start using the seating. Hanging plants coming
down from the awning, etc.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.Commission Communications
None.
b.City Council regular meeting February 17, 2015
No report.
c.FYI: 1709 Ray Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
Accepted.
d.FYI: 60 Edwards Court - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design
Review project
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:54 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on 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 17City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
The City of Burlingame
OFFICE OF THE CITY HALL — 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7204
CITY ATTORNEY BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 342-8386
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
Cc: City Council, Staff
From: Kathleen Kane
Re: Request for Legal Opinion Re: Vote Change Between Voice Vote and Roll Call
Date: March 5, 2015
At its last regular meeting, on February 23, 2015, the Planning Commission requested a legal
opinion on a question of procedure. This memorandum has been prepared in response to that
request.
Procedural Issue: An item was heard (continued from the previous meeting) regarding a request
for a Conditional Use Permit, which would authorize use of a former City parking lot as a private car
storage and employee parking area under leases secured by the applicant. After considerable
discussion, a motion was made to approve the CUP, with minor modifications. The Chair called for a
vote, which was 4-2 in favor of the motion. The Chair then called for a roll call vote, and one
Commissioner changed his vote from yes to no. When asked, he confirmed that he had in fact
changed his vote between the two polls. With that second vote tally, the motion was defeated for
lack of a majority. After additional discussion, it appeared that the Commission’s deadlock likely
continued and no further motion was made, except to secure a legal opinion on the effect of the prior
vote. The question now presented is which vote – the voice vote or the roll call – controls.
Conclusion: The second, roll call vote controls, and the application is deemed denied. In the
interest of preserving due process and providing adequate notice to the public, the appeal and call-
up period shall run beginning with the Planning Commission meeting at which this report will be
presented and for 10 days thereafter.
Legal Opinion March 5, 2015 2
Summary of Research: After a search of case law, Attorney General Opinions, and secondary
sources, no dispositive precedent or authority has been identified on this question. Several key
principles do emerge from these sources: (1) No governmental body may change its vote after a
vote has been announced, except as authorized by adopted rules of procedure controlling motions to
reconsider or similar mechanisms; (2) a governmental body has generally broad authority to set its
own procedural rules provided that due process is protected; and (3) a vote may not be changed
where an individual’s property or other interests are directly affected.
The City Council and Planning Commission have adopted rules governing conduct of Commission
meetings. These recognize the informal nature of the proceedings before the Commission (i.e.,
formal rules of evidence do not apply). No rules of parliamentary procedure have been adopted.
Instead, the only guidance as to voting procedure comes from Rule IV.D, which provides:
D. Manner of voting. Votes may be taken by voice vote or roll call
at the discretion of the Chair. Any Commissioner may request a roll call
vote, which shall then be taken. No votes shall be by secret ballot.
In this case, a vote was taken by voice vote and roll call. Roll call votes are frequently employed and
legitimately used where the tally on a voice vote is uncertain. In this case, a Commissioner
acknowledged a deliberate change of vote between the voice vote and roll call.
There is some precedent from California courts and Attorney General opinions indicating that an
informal vote that affects the property interests of concerned parties (such as an appointee to a
council/commission position or property owners benefitted by an ordinance under review) may not
be later changed except by a formal motion to reconsider made by a member of the majority or by
duly noticed superseding amendments to legislative acts. However, these authorities do not
explicitly address the question of when a vote becomes effective and do not directly contradict the
discretion provided to the Chair of the Planning Commission by our rules. And, while the reversal at
issue here did operate to injure the property interests of the applicant, the closeness in time between
the voice and roll call votes and the fact that a f inal vote had not been declared, mean that no
substantial invasion of the applicant’s due process rights occurred.
In the absence of binding authority to the contrary or a violation of substantive or procedural due
process, application of the Planning Commission’s rules indicates that the Chair had discretion to
call for a roll call vote prior to the time that the initial vote was declared final. Once a vote has been
announced, it cannot be retaken without a motion to reconsider and appropriate evaluation of the
rights of affected parties.
Item No. 7a
Public Comment
on Draft EIR
City of Burlingame
Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
Development of a New 290-Unit Multiple Family Residential Project
Address: 1008-1028 Carolan Ave. & 1007-1025 Rollins Rd. Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
Request: Public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for
development of a new 290-unit multiple family residential project on a 5.40 acre site.
The proposed project consists of 268 apartment units in two 5-story buildings, and 22
two-story townhome condominiums in four buildings. Applications include Design
Review, Vesting Tentative and Final Map to merge and subdivide the existing four
parcels, Condominium Permit to establish the 22 townhomes, Conditional Use
Permits for the multiple family residential use and for building height for the two
apartment buildings with heights up to 61'-6" tall, and Special Permits for a driveway
within the required 20-foot setback along the southerly property line and to allow a
building 34'-4" in height for the condominium structures where a special permit is
required for buildings between 30 feet and 36 feet in height.
Applicant and Architect: Alex Seidel, Seidel Architects APN: 026-240-290, -340, -360 & -370
Property Owners: Stucker Family Trust (APNs 026-240-340, -360 & -370)
Oscar F. Person Testamentary Trust (APN 026-240-290)
General Plan: Commercial Uses (Carolan Rollins Commercial Area)
Housing Element: Listed on Housing Sites Inventory
Lot Area: 235,030 SF (5.40 Acres) Zoning: C-2/R-4 Overlay
Adjacent Development: Multiple-Family Residential and Single Family Residential
Public Review on Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR): On February 6, 2015, the
Draft EIR for the proposed development at 1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007 – 1025
Rollins Road was released for public review. The City of Burlingame is the lead agency for the
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA requires a 45-day review period for the DEIR when approval of a State agency is
required for certain aspects of the project. In this case, Caltrans approval is required for the
proposed extension of the sound wall along U.S. 101 adjacent to the project site.
On February 13, 2015, an Updated Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to agenc ies,
interested persons and to the State Clearinghouse. The updated notice was sent to
acknowledge and transmit two additional documents to be included in Appendix H of the Draft
EIR (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Peer Review). The public comment period
was extended to April 3, 2015 to allow for review of the additional documents.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs):
CEQA requires that governmental agencies must give “major consideration to preventing
environmental damage when regulating activities affecting the quality of the environment.” An
environmental impact report (EIR) is an information document used to inform decision makers
and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to
minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
The EIR consultant for the project, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc., has provided an
overview of the CEQA process (refer to attached document “The California Environmental
Quality Act”) that outlines the necessary steps in the review and preparation of an EIR.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 2 of 21
Public Comment Process: The Planning Commission public comment meeting is intended to
be an opportunity for the public and affected agencies to comment on the EIR document,
pertaining to:
The overall adequacy of the environmental review; and
Issues that may require further analysis.
At this time, the Planning Commission should take public comment on the Draft EIR. This
meeting is not a hearing to consider approval of the project, nor is it the time to discuss the
merits of the project. Once all comments are received at the end of the review period, a
Response to Comments document will be prepared to respond to all comments made on the
Draft EIR during the public review period. The Response to Comments document, together with
the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR for the project. Once the Final EIR is complete, the
Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings to consider certification of the
EIR and approval of the project.
Draft EIR – Summary of Potential Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures: The Draft
EIR analyzes the impacts of the proposed development at 1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue and
1007 – 1025 Rollins Road. The following table is a brief summary of the potential significant
environmental impacts of the project identified and discussed within the text of the EIR, and the
mitigation measures proposed to avoid or reduce those impacts. The issues identified in the
Draft EIR as having potential significant impacts are:
Noise (Exterior and interior noise and construction noise);
Air Quality (Construction emissions and air pollutants);
Biological Resources (nesting birds and raptors);
Cultural Resources (buried cultural resources);
Hazardous Materials (soil and groundwater contamination); and
Geology (undocumented fill).
It should be noted that all of the above identified potential significant impacts can be reduced to
less than significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the
table below.
Impact Mitigation Measures
Noise
Impact NOI-1: The proposed residences and
Central Courtyard would be exposed to exterior
and interior noise levels greater than the City’s
General Plan noise goals of 60 dBA CNEL and 45
dBA CNEL, respectively.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM NOI-1.1: The proposed project includes a six-
foot tall, acoustical glass fence at the opening of
the central courtyard along the northern boundary
of the project site to shield the outdoor use area
from traffic noise along Carolan Avenue. The total
length of the proposed fence would be
approximately 45.5 feet, stretching from unit 2A to
unit 1G, with approximately 3.5 feet used as an
access gate.
The proposed fence shall be continuous from
grade to top, with no cracks or gaps, and have a
minimum surface density of three pounds per
square feet [e.g., one-inch thick marine-grade
plywood, ½-inch laminated glass, concrete
masonry units (CMU)]. A fence height of six feet
would be sufficient for reducing noise levels to 60
dBA CNEL or less. The fence height shall be
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 3 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
measured relative to the elevation of the central
courtyard.
MM NOI-1.2: At the time of final site design, a
qualified acoustical consultant shall review the
final site plan, building elevations, and floor plans
prior to issuance of a building permit and project
construction to calculate expected interior noise
levels. Specific acoustical analyses shall be
completed to confirm that the final site design
results in interior noise levels reduced to 45 dBA
CNEL or lower for all floors in each building on the
project site. Buildings on the project site would
need sound-rated construction methods and
building facade treatments to maintain interior
noise levels at or below acceptable levels. These
treatments could include, but are not limited to,
sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall
constructions, acoustical caulking, and protected
ventilation openings. Implementation of these
measures will result in reductions of at least 33
dBA CNEL in interior noise levels nearest US 101
having the worst-case noise exposure, which will
achieve resulting interior noise levels of 45 dBA
CNEL or less at the units. Similarly, interior noise
levels within the remaining units have a relatively
lower future noise exposures will also be
maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL with the
implementation of these measures.
The specific determination of what noise
insulation treatments are necessary shall be
conducted on a unit-by-unit basis during final
design of the project. Results of the analysis,
including the description of the necessary noise
control treatments, shall be submitted to the City
along with the building plans and approved design
prior to issuance of a building permit.
MM NOI-1.3: Building sound insulation
requirements shall include the provision of forced-
air mechanical ventilation for all perimeter
residential units so that windows could be kept
closed at the occupant’s discretion to control
noise.
Impact NOI-2: Construction of the proposed
project would result in a significant, though
temporary, noise impact at nearby residences.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM NOI-2.1: The project shall implement the
following standard construction best management
practices during all phases of construction:
Construction activities shall be limited to the
daytime hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, between 9:00 AM and
6:00 PM on Saturdays, and between 10:00 AM
and 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays (per
Chapter 18.07.110 of the City of Burlingame
Municipal Code).
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 4 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
Equip all internal combustion engine-driven
equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that
are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
Unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines shall be strictly prohibited.
Locate stationary noise-generating equipment,
such as air compressors or portable power
generators, as far as possible from sensitive
receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to
screen stationary noise-generating equipment
when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.
Temporary noise barriers could reduce
construction noise levels by five dBA.
Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.
Control noise from construction workers’ radios
to a point where they are not audible at existing
residences bordering the project site.
The contractor shall prepare a detailed
construction plan identifying the schedule for
major noise-generating construction activities. The
construction plan shall identify a procedure for
coordination with adjacent residential land uses so
that construction activities can be scheduled to
minimize noise disturbance.
Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who
would be responsible for responding to any
complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator will determine the cause
of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and
will require that reasonable measures be
implemented to correct the problem.
Conspicuously post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the construction site
and include in it the notice sent to neighbors
regarding the construction schedule.
Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: The project would generate
significant dust during construction activities that
would affect nearby sensitive receptors, if best
management practices are not implemented.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM AIR-1.1: The project shall implement the
following standard BAAQMD dust control
measures during all phases of construction on the
project site:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas,
staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other
loose material off-site shall be covered.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 5 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent
public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be
limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be
paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by
shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes
[as required by the California Airborne Toxics
Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations (CCR)]. Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers
at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained
and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall
be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior
to operation.
A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the
telephone number and person to contact at the
City of Burlingame regarding dust complaints.
This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management Air District’s phone number shall
also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Impact AIR-2: Construction of the proposed
project would result in significant health risks to
nearby sensitive receptors from DPM emissions
unless mitigated.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM AIR-2.1: All diesel-powered off-road
equipment larger than 50 horsepower and
operating at the site for more than two days
continuously shall meet US EPA particulate
matter emission standards for Tier 2 engines or
equivalent.
MM AIR-2.2: All portable pieces of construction
equipment (i.e., air compressors, cement mixers,
concrete/industrial saws, generators, and welders)
shall meet US EPA particulate matter emissions
standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.
MM AIR-2.3: Avoid staging diesel-powered
equipment within 100 feet of adjacent residences.
Impact AIR-3: Pollutant emissions from US 101
and Caltrain would pose significant health risk
MM AIR-3.1: Install air filtration for residential
units that have predicted cancer risks in excess of
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 6 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
impacts to proposed residences on the ground
floor and podium-level located nearest the freeway
and rail lines unless mitigated.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Please note that if the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project is approved and implemented
as currently proposed, the health risk from
locomotives on the Caltrain rail line would be less
than significant and mitigation is not required for
health risk impacts from the rail line (refer to
Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts), though the below
mitigation would still be required to reduce health
risk impacts from US 101 to a less than significant
level.
10 in one million or PM2.5 concentrations above
0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) from
either US 101 or the Caltrain rail line. Air filtration
devices shall be rated MERV13 or higher. To
ensure adequate health protection to sensitive
receptors, a ventilation system shall meet the
following minimal design standards (Department
of Public Health, City and County of San
Francisco, 2008):
• A MERV13 or higher rating;
• At least one air exchanges(s) per hour of fresh
outside filtered air; and
• At least four air exchange(s) per hour
recirculation.
Alternately, at the approval of the City, equivalent
control technology may be used if it is shown by a
qualified air quality consultant or heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) engineer
that it would reduce risk below significance
thresholds.
MM AIR-3.2: Require an ongoing maintenance
plan for the buildings’ HVAC air filtration system.
Recognizing that emissions from air pollution
sources are decreasing, the maintenance period
shall last as long as significant excess cancer risk
or annual PM2.5 exposures are predicted.
Subsequent studies shall be conducted by an air
quality expert approved by the City to identify the
ongoing need for the filtered ventilation systems
as future information becomes available.
MM AIR-3.3: Ensure that the lease agreement
and other property documents (e.g., CC&Rs):
• Require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring
of the affected units for air flow leaks;
• Include assurance that new owners and tenants
are provided information on the ventilation
system; and
• Include provisions that fees associated with
owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include
funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and
replacements of the filters, as needed.
MM AIR-3.4: Require that, prior to building
occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant
or HVAC engineer verify the installation of all
necessary measures to reduce toxic air
contaminant (TAC) exposure.
MM AIR-3.5: The type of MERV-rated filtration
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 7 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
required to be installed as part of the ventilation
system in the residential building shall be as
follows:
• A minimum of MERV13 shall be installed unless
the increased cancer risk can be demonstrated to
be less than 10 in one million; and
• MERV16 filtration shall be utilized for areas
where the increased cancer risk is greater than
20.0 in one million for unmitigated cancer risks.
Note that PM2.5 concentrations at all sensitive
receptor locations across the site would also be
reduced to a level of less than significant by using
MERV13 and MERV16 filters necessary to
mitigate excess cancer risk.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Development of the project would
impact nesting birds and raptors, if present on-site
or in the immediate vicinity.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM BIO-1.1: Avoidance and Inhibit Nesting.
Construction and tree removal/pruning activities
shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to
the extent feasible. If feasible, tree removal and/or
pruning shall be completed before the start of the
nesting season to help preclude nesting. The
nesting season for most birds and raptors in the
San Francisco Bay area extends from 1 February
through 31 August.
MM BIO-1.2: Preconstruction Survey(s). If it is not
possible to schedule construction activities
between 1 September and 31 January then a
qualified ornithologist shall conduct a
preconstruction survey to identify active bird nests
that may be disturbed during project
construction. This survey shall be completed no
more than seven (7) days prior to the initiation of
demolition/construction activities (including tree
removal and pruning). During this survey, the
ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other
possible nesting habitats in and immediately
adjacent to the construction areas for nests.
If the survey does not identify any nesting birds
that would be affected by construction activities,
no further mitigation is required.
If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work
areas to be disturbed by these activities, the
ornithologist (in consultation with the CDFW) shall
designate a construction-free buffer zone (typically
300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non-raptors)
to be established around the nest to ensure that
no nests of species protected by the FMBTA and
California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed
during construction activities. The buffer shall
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 8 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
remain in place until a qualified ornithologist has
determined that the nest is no longer active.
MM BIO-1.3: Reporting. A final report on nesting
birds and raptors, including survey methodology,
survey date(s), map of identified active nests (if
any), and protection measures (if required), shall
be submitted to the Planning Manager and be
completed to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director prior to the start of grading.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Construction of proposed project
would result in significant impacts to archaeological
resources, unique paleontological resources/sites,
unique geologic features, or human remains, if
present on-site.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM CUL-1.1: Unique Paleontological and/or
Geologic Features and Reporting. Should a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature be identified at the project site
during any phase of construction, all ground
disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and
the City Planning Manager notified immediately.
A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find
and prescribe mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. The
identified mitigation measures shall be
implemented. Work may proceed on other parts of
the project site while mitigation for paleontological
resources or geologic features is carried out.
Upon completion of the paleontological
assessment, a report shall be submitted to the
City and, if paleontological materials are
recovered, a paleontological repository, such as
the University of California Museum of
Paleontology.
MM CUL-1.2: Undiscovered Cultural Resources.
A testing program to assess the potential
presence or absence of undiscovered cultural
resources shall be implemented by a qualified
archaeologist after all buildings and other
materials obscuring the ground surface have been
removed, but before any construction related
grading or trenching, in order to search for
possible buried archaeological resources.
In the event archaeological deposits are
discovered, work shall be halted within a
sensitivity zone to be determined by the
archaeologist. The archaeologist shall prepare a
plan for evaluation of the resource to the
California Register and submit the plan to the
City’s Planning Manager for review and approval
prior to any construction related earthmoving
within the identified zone of archaeological
sensitivity. The plan shall also include appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance of
the find and the appropriate mitigation. The
identified mitigation shall be implemented and can
take the form of limited data retrieval through
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 9 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
hand excavation coupled with continued
archaeological monitoring inside of the
archaeologically sensitive zone to ensure that
significant data and materials are recorded and/or
removed for analysis. Monitoring also serves to
identify and thus limit damage to human remains
and associated grave goods.
MM CUL-1.3: Human Remains. Pursuant to
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and
Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of
the State of California, in the event of the
discovery of human remains during construction,
there shall be no further excavation or disturbance
of the site within a 100-foot radius of the remains
or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County
Coroner shall be notified and shall make a
determination as to whether the remains are
Native American. If the Coroner determines that
the remains are not subject to his authority, he
shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours. The Native
American Heritage Commission shall attempt to
identify descendants of the deceased Native
American. If no satisfactory agreement can be
reached as to the disposition of the remains
pursuant to this State law, then the land owner
shall re-inter the human remains and items
associated with Native American burials on the
property in a location not subject to further
subsurface disturbance.
MM CUL-1.4: Report of Archaeological
Resources. If archaeological resources are
identified, a final report summarizing the discovery
of cultural materials shall be submitted to the
City’s Planning Manager prior to issuance of
building permits. This report shall contain a
description of the mitigation program that was
implemented and its results, including a
description of the monitoring and testing program,
a list of the resources found and conclusion, and a
description of the disposition/curation of the
resources.
Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Construction workers and future
residences could be exposed to contaminated soils
and groundwater located on-site.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM HAZ-1.1: Thirty-two above ground lifts were
noted in the auto servicing areas of CalBay
Collision, Anchor Auto Body & Detailing, Hyundai
of Burlingame, Chilton Auto Body, Topline
Automobile, and Cammisa Motor Car Company.
Seven below ground lifts were observed inside the
auto servicing area of CalBay Collision. Two
above-ground auto lifts, two capped grouted lifts
and six former lifts were noted at Chilton auto
body. The existing lifts shall be removed in
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 10 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
accordance with local regulations. Selective
sampling shall also be conducted to confirm that
residual contamination, if present, does not
exceed residential ESLs and RSLs.
MM HAZ-1.2: A Health and Safety Plan (HSP)
shall be developed to establish appropriate
protocols for working in contaminated materials.
Workers conducting Site investigation and
earthwork activities in areas of contamination shall
complete a 40-hour HAZWOPER training course
(29 CFR 1910.120 I), including respirator and
personal protective equipment training. Each
contractor will be responsible for the health and
safety of their employees as well as for
compliance with all applicable federal, state, and
local laws and guidelines. This document shall be
provided to the City and the oversight agency
prior to issuance of demolition and grading
permits.
MM HAZ-1.3: A Ground Water Management Plan
shall be prepared to evaluate water quality and
discharge/disposal alternatives; the pumped water
shall not be used for on-site dust control or any
other on-site use. If long-term dewatering is
required, the means and methods to extract, treat
and dispose of ground water also shall be
presented.
MM HAZ-1.4: Some components encountered as
part of the building demolition waste stream may
contain hazardous materials. Universal wastes,
lubrication fluids, CFCs, and HCFC’s shall be
removed before structural demolition begins.
Materials that may result in possible risk to human
health and the environment when improperly
managed include lamps, therm ostats, and light
switches containing mercury; batteries from exit
signs, emergency lights, and smoke alarms;
lighting ballasts which contain PCBs; and lead
pipes and roof vent flashings. Demolition waste
such as fluorescent lamps, PCB ballasts, lead
acid batteries, mercury thermostats, and lead
flashings have special case-by-case requirements
for generation, storage, transportation, and
disposal. Before disposing of any demolition
waste, the Owner, Developer and Demolition
Contractor shall determine if the waste is
hazardous and shall ensure proper disposal of
waste materials.
MM HAZ-1.5: Significant quantities of asphalt
concrete (AC) grindings, aggregate base (AB),
and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) will be
generated during demolition activities. AC/AB
grindings shall not be reused beneath building
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 11 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
areas.
MM HAZ-1.6: During demolition and construction
activities, contaminated material may be
encountered. A Soil Management Plan (SMP),
prepared by ENGEO, establishing management
practices for handling contaminated soil,
groundwater, or other materials for the site has
been approved by the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department. The SMP
(refer to Appendix H) includes the following
protocols and safety measures:
ENGEO will provide full-time observation
services during demolition and grading activities.
Soils encountered across the entire property will
be observed for discoloration/staining or olfactory
evidence of contaminant impacts, with particular
attention given to the location of identified soil
impacts. In the event unforeseen environmental
conditions, such as those listed above, are
encountered during demolition and pre-grading
work, the site SMP shall be implemented.
Once the buildings on-site have been
demolished and the debris removed from the site,
the soil beneath the buildings in the area of the
planned underground parking structure will be
characterized for removal to the appropriate
landfill. The findings from this study will be used
to begin to quantify the soil for the various
disposal options prior to beginning the excavation.
Refer to the SMP in Appendix H for a full
methodology on soil characterization.
Primarily, visual and olfactory evidence will be
used to screen for contaminated soil; however, a
photo-ionization detector (PID) will also be used to
further screen soils for potential contaminates, as
well as ambient air during excavation work. The
specific locations of air monitoring will be field-
adjusted based on potential access and safety
limitations, but will generally include within the
excavation area, along with the perimeter of the
excavation. PID readings will generally be taken
at least every hour and whenever suspect
material is encountered. Refer to Appendix H for a
complete methodology of the PID screenings.
With regard to ambient air screening, any PID
reading for volatile organics that is 10 ppm above
background for more than three minutes will result
in a stop work order. Background shall be
determined at the beginning of the day prior to
excavation activities. Work shall not continue until
PID readings have attenuated below the action
level.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 12 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
The PID will provide real-time data on the
presence of potentially hazardous compounds to
provide for proper selection of Personnel
Protection Equipment (PPE). The initial PPE will
be Level D (modified) which includes safety
glasses, hard hat, steel-toed boots, gloves,
hearing protection, and high visibility vests. In the
unlikely event significant unforeseen
environmental conditions are discovered, work
shall stop and San Mateo County Environmental
Health will be contacted.
A primary and backup PID unit will be maintained
onsite for the duration of fieldwork. Each unit will
be fully charged and calibrated daily.
Work activities shall be conducted Monday
through Friday between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
Excavation will be performed using a combination
of scrapers, backhoes, track-mounted excavators
and/or loaders. The contractor will adhere to
OSHA guidelines. If excavations require shoring, it
will be provided by the contractor.
The development will include an engineered
cut of up to six (6) to nine (9) feet below the
ground surface in the northern portion of the site
for the construction of the underground parking.
Prior to beginning the excavation, the soil in the
planned excavation area will be characterized to
determine the appropriate disposal options and to
allow for excavation and off-haul without first
stockpiling on site.
A PID will be used to screen soils during the
excavation. Also, if soils exhibiting evidence of
environmental impact (e.g., odor or staining) are
identified at the proposed margins or bottom of
the excavation, the excavation shall be advanced
to a greater depth and/or lateral dimension as
appropriate until impacted soils exhibiting
evidence of impact have been removed.
Impacted soils, if encountered, will be stockpiled
onsite. To prevent potential impacts to underlying
soils or surfaces, stockpiles shall be placed on 10-
milimeter (mil) plastic sheeting, as appropriate.
The soil stockpiles shall be covered with 10-mil
plastic sheeting and secured to prevent dust or
runoff during storm events. Appropriate dust
control and stormwater best management
practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during the
soil mitigation activities.
The soil stockpiles shall be profiled for landfill
disposal in general accordance with the “CAL-
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 13 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) Information Advisory – Clean Imported Fill
Material” document. The specific laboratory profile
will be determined prior to excavation activities;
however, it is anticipated that as a minimum, the
stockpile samples will be analyzed for Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel and motor oil
with silica gel cleanup (EPA 8015) and CAM 17
metals (EPA 6010B).
Where impacted soils are encountered and
removed, verification samples shall be collected
from the resulting excavations. Sample areas
exhibiting levels (see list below) in excess of the
corresponding screening levels will be excavated
an additional 12 inches vertically and laterally,
with subsequent confirmation sampling. This
process shall continue until all concentrations are
below the applicable screening levels.
Discrete soil samples shall be recovered from the
center of 20 by 20 foot excavation grids identified
with soil impact for laboratory testing (minimum
one base sample per excavation). Sample grids
exhibiting COPCs in excess of the corresponding
residential ESLs will be excavated an additional
twelve inches vertically with subsequent
confirmation sampling. A minimum of one sample
shall be recovered for each sidewall on a 20 lineal
foot basis. Sidewall samples shall be recovered
from the mid-point of the sidewall on a three
vertical foot interval. This process shall continue
until the laboratory testing shows that the soil left
in place is below the corresponding ESLs. If
groundwater is encountered within any remedial
excavation, a grab water sample will be recovered
in addition to the base sample(s). Refer to
Appendix H for a full methodology of the
verification sampling.
It is anticipated that following soil stockpiling and
characterization of impacted materials, these soil
materials will be transported to an appropriate
landfill facility. Prior to off-site disposal, soils shall
be sampled and characterized. A minimum of one
stockpile sample will be collected. As necessary,
one sample per 250 cubic yards of stockpile
volume will be collected.
MM HAZ-1.7: Upon completion of the soil
excavation, confirmation sampling and backfill, a
final report documenting work for submittal to the
County of San Mateo Environmental Health
Department. The report will include details
regarding soil excavation, sampling, and landfill
disposal documentation.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 14 of 21
Impact Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1.8: A permit may be required for facility
closure (i.e., demolition, removal, or
abandonment) of any facility or portion of a facility
(e.g., lab) where hazardous materials are used or
stored. The Property Owner and/or Developer
shall contact the Fire Department and San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department to
determine facility closure requirements prior to
building demolition.
MM HAZ-1.9: Due to the age of the on-site
structures, building materials may contain
asbestos. Because demolition of the buildings is
planned, an asbestos survey is required by local
authorities and/or National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
guidelines. NESHAP guidelines require the
removal of potentially friable asbestos containing
building materials prior to building demolition or
renovation that may disturb these materials.
MM HAZ-1.10: The Consumer Product Safety
Commission banned the use of lead as an
additive in paint in 1978. Based on the age of the
buildings, lead-based paint may be present.
Because demolition is planned, the removal of
lead-based paint is not required if it is bonded to
the building materials. However, if the lead-based
paint is flaking, peeling, or blistering, it shall be
removed prior to demolition. In either case,
applicable OSHA regulations must be followed;
these include requirements for worker training, air
monitoring and dust control, among others. Any
debris or soil containing lead must be disposed
appropriately.
Geology
Impact GEO-1: The presence of undocumented fill
and expansive soils on-site would damage future
buildings and improvements on-site unless
mitigations are incorporated.
MM GEO-1.1: The project shall be designed and
constructed in conformance with the
recommendations in the design-level geotechnical
report prepared for the project and peer review
(see Appendix I), which includes the removal and
replacement of undocumented fill with engineered
fill; measures addressing construction dewatering,
hydrostatic uplift, and building waterproofing; and
seismic design standards.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 15 of 21
Project Summary: An application has been submitted for development of a new multiple-family
residential development consisting of 268 apartment units in two buildings up to five stories in
height, and 22 two-story townhome condominiums to be located on the south side of the site.
The five-story apartment buildings would be located on the north side of the site.
Based on the most recent plans submitted dated November 5, 2014, planning staff has
identified the following applications required for this project:
Design Review;
Vesting Tentative and Final Map to merge and subdivide the existing four parcels;
Condominium Permit to establish the 22 townhomes;
Conditional Use Permits for the multiple family residential use and for building height for
the two apartment buildings of up to 61’-6” feet tall, where buildings over 35' tall (up to
75') require a conditional use permit; and
Special Permits for a driveway within the required 20-foot setback along the south
property line and to allow a 34'-4" building height for the condominium structures where
a special permit is required for buildings between 30 feet and 36 feet in height.
The townhome portion of the project is proposed to have six (6) two-bedroom units, eight (8)
three bedroom units, and eight (8) units with 3+ bedrooms with a room that could either be used
as an additional bedroom or a den/office space.
The apartment portion of the project is proposed to have a mix of 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units.
The following table shows a breakdown of the number of bedrooms and average unit size for
the apartment units:
TABLE 1 – Apartment Bedroom Count and Average Size
APARTMENTS
Unit Type Average Size Count Mix
1 Bedroom 805 SF 149 56%
2 Bedroom 1,178 SF 111 41%
3 Bedroom 1,396 SF 8 3%
977 Average Overall 268 100%
The project proposes a total of 524 parking spaces. The apartment portion of the project
includes 466 parking spaces, with 430 spaces in a semi-subterranean garage for residents, and
an additional 27 spaces available for guests. The townhome condominium portion of the project
will provide 58 parking spaces, 52 of which will be provided in private garages, and 6 additional
parking spaces for residents and guests.
The apartment portion of the project also includes a central courtyard above the parking garage
with amenities for residents. Amenities include a pool and spa, lounge seating, fireplaces,
outdoor kitchens, landscaping, and tables and chairs. The apartment buildings will further
include a club room, a fitness studio, a Wi-Fi lounge, a business center and conference room.
The project also includes a leasing center on site. In addition, there will be walking paths, a
fountain and a dog walk area and washing station.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 16 of 21
The project also proposes to provide four electrical vehicle (EV) charging stations at build-out,
with preparation for an additional ten EV charging stations in the future. In addition all townhome
garages would be set up for future installation of EV charging stations. There will also be ten
guest bicycle parking spaces and a bike repair station.
Between the apartment buildings and the townhomes, the project will include a tree-lined public
pedestrian paseo with landscaped areas and seating, creating a walking connection between
Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road. The paseo will be a public pedestrian access easement,
open to public access through the site.
Work Share Community Access Space: As a part of the project application the applicant is
also proposing to offer the work share space in the apartment building to be available for
community use by local community organizations (refer to attached letter from SummerHill
Apartment Communities dated February 5, 2015 regarding Carolan Avenue – Rollins Road
"Work Share" space). The space for this use is about 1,200 square feet and located at the
ground floor of the apartment building. The space would include the following design elements
and amenities: collaboration work tables and chairs; seating area; conference room with audio-
visual screen and white board; copy nook to include an area for printing; under-counter
refrigerator and wet bar sink; a meeting lab for private work space or small private meeting
room; unisex restroom; café vending service; speakers for background music; Wi-Fi; and will be
disabled accessible.
The applicant is proposing that if the City is interested in this program, SummerHil l and the City
would enter into a Use Agreement to formalize the following "Work Share" proposal:
Hours of Availability to Community Groups
6:00p.m. to 9:00p.m. Monday-Thursday (breakdown/clean-up permitted until 9:30 p.m.).
Eligible Community Group Users
Group A – City of Burlingame, Burlingame Elementary School District, Burlingame High
School sponsored meetings.
Group B – Burlingame non-profit groups or organizations (including, but not limited to,
AYSO, BGS, BYBA, SMUHSD, Scouts, etc.) that are compatible with a residential
setting.
Management/Use Terms
Maximum number of people - estimate 30 (subject to final space plan design).
No charge for Group A. Use fee for Group B would be same as Burlingame Recreation
Center Social Room fee, updated annually.
Reserve up to 21 days in advance, minimum of 72 hours' notice required; $750 security
deposit required.
Property management would coordinate reservations, payment and fobs during business
hours; access provided via fob outside of business hours and property management
secures after use.
Users must provide insurance certificate naming property, owner and management as
additional insured for use.
Parking in guest parking area of garage and on street. Parking is currently permitted on
west (train track) side of Carolan until10 p.m.
No parties or alcohol use permitted; meetings only. Users to adhere to same code of
conduct as residents.
Property management can alter interior design and amenities at their discretion over
time.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 17 of 21
Review program after first 90 days and then annually with property owner, management,
and Community Development Director.
Project Site and Zoning Code Requirements: The project site is bounded by Carolan Avenue
and the Caltrain right-of-way to the west, Rollins Road to the east, the 510-unit Northpark
Apartments to the north, and a single family residential neighborhood to the south. The site is
currently occupied by automobile sales, repair and rental facilities.
Table 1 – 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Lot Area: 235,030 SF (5.40 Acres) Plans date stamped: November 5, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Use Multi-Family Residential Use1 Multiple Family Residential Use
requires a Conditional Use Permit
SETBACKS
Front 20'-0"
15'-0" or block average (28'-8")
Or as shown on approved subdivision
map – Vesting Tentative Map for the
project proposes to establish a 20'
front setback along Carolan Avenue
Left Side Ground
flr:
(1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(3rd flr):
(4th flr):
19'-4" minimum
17’-5"
17'-5"
18'-5"
19'-6"
7'-0"
8'-0"
9'-0"
10'-0"
11'-0"
Right Side (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
31'-11"
29'-10"
Driveway proposed within 20'
setback2
20'-0"
20'-0"
Special Permit req'd for driveway
within 20' setback
Rear (Rollins Rd)
Ground flr:
(1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(3rd flr):
(4th flr):
20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
21'-1"
26'-10"
20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
1 Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Family Residential Use within the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area – R-4
Overlay Zone (CS 25.031.065)
2 Special Permit required for vehicular circulation within the 20-foot setback along the southerly property line (CS
25.31.065(b)(1).
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 18 of 21
HEIGHT & LOT COVERAGE
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Lot Coverage: 117,366 SF
49.93%
117,515 SF
50%
Height: Apartment
Buildings: 61'-6"3 Heights over 35'-0" require conditional
use permit (up to a maximum of 75-0")
Height:
Townhome
Buildings:
34'-4"4 Heights between 30' and 36' require
special permit
OFF-STREET PARKING
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Number of
Parking Spaces:
Apartments: 466 parking
spaces
Townhomes: 58 parking
spaces
Total: 524 parking spaces
Apartments:
149 one-bdr x 1.5 = 223.5
111 two-bdr x 2.0 = 222.0
8 three-bdr x 2.5 = 20.0
Total = 466 spaces
Townhomes:
6 two-bdr x 2.0 = 12.0
9 three-bdr x 2.5 = 22.5
8 four-bdr x 2.5 = 20.0
Guest Parking Spaces = 3.0
Total = 58.0
Grand Total = 524 spaces
Number of
Compact Spaces:
Apartments: 144 compact
spaces
Townhomes: 8 compact
spaces
Total: 152 compact spaces
(29%)
262 compact spaces
(50% of spaces may be compact as
incentive for affordable units)
Clear Back-up
Space: 24'-0"* 24'-0" or all spaces can be exited in
three maneuvers or less
Parking Space
Dimensions:
Standard spaces = 9' x 20'
(10' x 20' next to wall)
Compact spaces = 8' x 17'
Standard spaces = 9' x 20'
Compact spaces = 8' x 17'
Covered Spaces: 514 spaces 419
(80% must be covered)
Driveway Width:
20'-0"
Parking areas with more than 30
vehicle spaces shall have two 12'-0"
wide driveways or one 18'-0" wide
driveway
3 Conditional Use Permit required for 6'-6" building height where a conditional use permit is required for heights over
35'-0" up to a maximum of 75'-0"
4 Special Permit for a structure between 30'-0" and 36'-0" within 100 feet of the southerly property line (34'-4"
proposed) CS 25.31.065(a)(1).
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 19 of 21
LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front Setback
Landscaping:
69.76%
(4870 SF)
50%
(3495 SF)
Private and Common Open Space – for Condominium Townhomes only
Private Open
Space: 80 SF to 177 SF/unit 75 SF per unit
Common Open
Space:
SF Landscaped:
7,602 SF
4,061 SF (60.5% of total)
2200 SF
1100 SF (50% of required)
Design Review: Design Review is required for the proposed project. Design Review was
instituted for all multiple family residential projects when the zoning code was updated in 2010
to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and the 2009-2014 Housing Element. Although this
site is not within the Downtown Specific Plan area and there are no Design Guidelines adopted
for multiple family residential projects that are not within a specific plan area, the following
criteria for multiple family projects are outlined in the zoning code:
1. Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using different
architectural styles;
3. Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the
architectural style used; and
4. Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future.
General Plan and Zoning: The Burlingame General Plan designates this site for Commercial
Uses. In 2002, the Housing Element identified the property as also having the potential to be a
housing site, noting that it is located between two residential areas and within proximity to
transit. In 2009, an amendment to the text of the General Plan was adopted by the City Council
which added the following language to describe the Carolan Rollins Road Commercial Area,
which encompasses the project site.
Carolan Rollins Commercial Area. When the General Plan was first adopted in
1969, the entire area south of Broadway to Toyon, between Carolan Avenue and
Rollins Road was designated for service and special sales uses, and was zoned
M-1. In 1963, the site of North Park Apartments (south of Cadillac Way) was
rezoned to the R-4 zone district, and in 1972, North Park Apartments were built.
This left a pocket of M-1 zoned property between North Park Apartments and the
residential area along Toyon Drive.
In 1992, this property was rezoned from M-1 to the C-2 zone district. The uses at
the time were similar to those which exist today (automobile dealers and repair
facilities). These uses are permitted in the C-2 zone district, and it was felt that C-
2 zoning would allow uses which were more compatible with the surrounding
residential areas.
Since this area is surrounded by residential uses, it would also be appropriate for
residential development. In order to provide a transition between the higher
density residential area to the north and the single family residential development
along Toyon Drive, special setback and height standards should be considered
adjacent to the single family homes.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 20 of 21
In 2009, the zoning code was also amended to establish the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area –
R-4 Overlay Zone, which encompasses this property. The R-4 overlay zone takes into account
the proximity of the single family neighborhood to the south along Toyon Avenue by establishing
special height and setback requirements along the property line adjoining the adjacent
neighborhood. The zoning establishes a 30-foot base height within 100 feet of the southerly
property line, with the opportunity for heights between 30 and 36 feet upon approval of a special
permit. The overlay zone also establishes a twenty-foot setback line along the southerly
boundary of the site, and requires a special permit to allow vehicular access within this twenty
foot setback. The applicant has applied for special permits to allow a maximum 34'-4" building
height for the townhomes, and to allow a controlled access driveway to serve the 22 townhomes
adjacent to the southerly property line.
Housing Element: This site is listed on the Housing Sites Inventory in the 2015-2023 Housing
Element adopted by the City Council on January 5, 2015. Because the application was
submitted in March, 2014, it is subject to the programs, policies and adopted implementing
zoning of the current 2009-2014 Housing Element. New policies and programs proposed by the
2015-2023 Housing Element update would not apply to this project because they were not yet in
place when the application was submitted.
Front Setback: Code Section 25.29.075 (a) indicates that the front setback shall be fifteen feet,
provided that the setback line delineated on any approved subdivision map shall supersede any
provision of this chapter. Section 25.29.050(f) indicates that the Planning Commission and the
City Council may, in the considerations and acceptance of any tentative or final map submitted
pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, approve or accept any such tentative or
final map wherein one or more lots or parcels of land do not conform to all of the provisions of
Chapter 25.34, when the planning commission and the city council find that by reason of
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the approval or acceptance of such maps will not
adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
The Vesting Tentative Map for the project proposes to establish a 20-foot front setback on
Carolan Avenue. The proposed setback line is consistent with the character of the Carolan
Avenue neighborhood, and the Planning Commission and/or Council may incorporate the
appropriate findings into their actions on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and the project.
Moderate-Income Units: As a community benefit, the applicant is proposing to include 29
moderate-income units to respond to the community’s goals for providing housing affordable to
a range of households. In San Mateo County, the “Moderate Income” category is defined as
households earning between 81%-120% of San Mateo County Area Median Income (AMI),
which in 2014 corresponded to up to $86,500 for a single-person household or $123,600 for a
family of four. The units would be maintained at moderate-income rents for at least 10 years.
The units would be comprised of 22 one-bedroom units, 6 two-bedroom units, and one three-
bedroom unit. They are proposed to be spread throughout the two buildings and are similar size
and layout to the other apartment units.
As part of the arrangement, the applicant is proposing an increase in the number of compact
spaces (152 compact spaces are proposed, representing 29% of the spaces) as an incentive for
providing the moderate-income units. Without the incentive, the number of compact spaces
allowed is 20% of the spaces (104 spaces).
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Chief Building Official, Parks Supervisor,
City Engineer, and Fire Marshal.
Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 21 of 21
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public comment
session to accept comments from the public on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Draft EIR) in identifying any potential environmental effects of the project, as well as in
setting forth mitigation measures to minimize the impacts of these effects. Following comments
from the public, Commission members should also make comments on the adequacy of the
Draft EIR.
Maureen Brooks
Project Manager
Attachments:
“The California Environmental Quality Act” prepared by David J. Powers and Associates
Application to the Planning Commission
Project Description, submitted by the applicant
Environmental Information Form, submitted by the applicant
Conditional Use Permit Application
Special Permit Application
Sheets A2.1.1 through A2.4, Affordable Unit Designation Plan
Description of the Carolan Avenue – Rollins Road "Work Share" Space
Applicant Response to June 23, 2014 Planning Commission Comments
Staff Comments
Notice of Availability of Draft EIR and Notice of Completion of DEIR – Mailed & Published
February 6, 2015
Updated Notice of Completion mailed February 13, 2015
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed and Published February 27, 2015
Aerial Photo
Submitted Separately:
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Carolan Avenue/Rollins Road Residential Development
Project dated February 2015 (SCH# 2014062050
c: Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant
Alex Seidel, Seidel Architects, architect
1
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit for a Full Service Food Establishment
and Commercial Design Review
Address: 226 Lorton Avenue Meeting Date: March 9, 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
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines,
which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and
electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review.
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 six 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.
Item No. 9a
Action Item
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
2
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)).
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: Based on a field visit, there are six angled parking spaces and three parallel spaces along
the left side of the building. However, Planning staff would note that the sixth angled parking space along the
wall is not considered a space since it is located directly in front of two exit doors from the building. Therefore,
the site is considered to contain a total of eight parking spaces.
With this application, the applicant is proposing to replace five 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.
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
3
226 Lorton Avenue
Lot Area: 7,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 25, 2015 and 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: 8 spaces ² 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)).
² The sixth existing angled parking space along the wall is not considered a space since it is located directly in
front of two exit doors from the building.
Staff comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on February 23,
2015, the Commission did not have any suggested changes for the project, however they did ask the applicant
to correct several discrepancies on the plans (see attached February 23, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped February 25, 2015, which show the following corrections:
The number of existing parking spaces and existing parking spaces to remain are correctly shown on the
Existing Site Plan (sheet A-1) and Proposed Site Plan (sheet A-2). Based on a field visit, there are six
angled parking spaces and three parallel spaces along the left side of the building. However, Planning
staff would note that the sixth angled parking space along the wall is not considered a space since it is
located directly in front of two exit doors from the building.
The parking area behind the RadioShack building is consistently labeled on sheets A-1 and A-2. The
parking space striping has been removed (not required to be shown) and is simply labeled as “(E)
Asphalt Parking Lot” on both sheets.
On sheet A-4, the path of travel from the kitchen to the public right-of-way (along the new patio area) is
correctly labeled “Path of Travel”. The required “Accessible Path of Travel” is provided through the
interior of the space and is shown on sheet A-4.
The plans were also revised to clarify that the new windows along the front façade of the building will be double-
hung (operable), aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites.
Planning staff would note that the preliminary title report, provided by the property manager/leasing agent,
verifies that there are no existing easements on the subject property.
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
4
Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a limited food
service food establishment, 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.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652
adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows:
1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas;
2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of
the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street
frontages;
3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development;
4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby;
5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among
primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features,
and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and
6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
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 25, 2015, sheets A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 and date stamped February 10, 2015, sheets A-0, A-3,
A-6 and FS-0.0 through FS-1.1;
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
5
2. that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 1,213 SF of on-site
customer seating area (741 SF indoor + 472 SF in covered patio), may change its food establishment
classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment
for the establishment, and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be
approved;
3. that the 1,213 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or
extended to any other areas within the tenant space or covered patio area only by an amendment to this
conditional use permit;
4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the
streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any
additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and
within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business;
6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this
premise;
7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of
the property line;
8. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food
establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void;
9. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit
issued by the city;
10. that the conditions of the Building Division’s February 11, 2015, January 28, 2015, January 26, 2015 and
November 19, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s January 27, 2015 and December 15, 2014 memos, the
Fire Divisions November 24, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 1, 2014 memo shall
be met;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
2013 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or
any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an
amendment to this use permit;
12. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior
walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
13. 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);
14. 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;
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 226 Lorton Avenue
6
15. 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;
16. 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;
17. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
18. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and
19. 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. Nick Swinmurn, Nachoria LLC, applicant
Attachments:
February 23, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter from Jennifer Pfaff, dated February 20, 2015
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
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 27, 2015
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
226 Lorton Avenue
Item No. 9a
Action Item
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 23, 2015
e.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
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that a received -after letter
had been submitted.
Questions of Staff:
>Businesses that did not take credits, and instead took the assessments, could do the same thing?
(Hurin: Yes)
>Does the City have a position on this? (Hurin: No. Parking for restaurant space on the ground floor is
not required. While some properties with spaces paid the assessment rather than take the credit and
continued to maintain the spaces for their own use, those paces could be removed if the assessment
had been paid originally.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Nick Swinmurn represented the applicant, and Remy Sijbrant of Remy's Quality Construction
represented the contractor:
>Committed to establishing businesses in Burlingame.
>Hoping Nachoria will be a good addition to Burlingame.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is there an easement for the use of Radio Shack in the back that needs to be maintained?
(Swinmurn: Does not know.)
>Needs to fix parking diagrams on plan - not consistent locations and numbers on the plan sheets .
(Swinmurn: Not changing any of the parking in the back.)
>Why close at 10:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays? (Swinmurn: Primarily a restaurant; 10:00 seems
to be when things close down. After 10:00 attracts a different crowd.)
>Likes indoor/outdoor seating. A bit nervous about cinderblock wall - should be matched to the slump
block of the building, which gives it some texture.
>Accessible path of travel shown in the drive aisle, will need to be striped. (Hurin: The required
accessible path of travel is provided through the interior of the space. The site plan is mislabeled - it is a
path of travel for exiting, but not accessibility.)
>Could the front windows be movable? (Swinmurn: The current windows can be opened. They are
single-hung.)
>What would a typical occupancy be, versus maximum? (Swinmurn: 109 maximum, 78 average)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/4/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Consideration of entry from Lorton rather than corner? Would be entering off the driveway, and the
seating is right alongside the drive aisle. Maybe some planter boxes or something to make it a bit softer .
(Swinmurn: Kept entry where it exists today. There is a block wall between the seating and driveway. It
will be a decorating challenge.)
>Cafe seating in front? (Swinmurn: Secondary application for sidewalk seating on the Lorton side will
be submitted.)
Ron Karp spoke on this item, as property manager and leasing agent:
>As Downtown property owner supports the project. Will bring something different to Lorton Avenue.
>Door already exists and is reinforced.
>Will have sidewalk seating under different permit.
>Will verify easement - does not believe there is an easement.
>Radio Shack space will become something else.
Commission discussion:
>The softening of the edge will happen once people start using the seating. Hanging plants coming
down from the awning, etc.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/4/2015
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a
Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review for a full service food establishment and
changes to the facades of an existing commercial building at 226 Lorton Avenue, Zoned BAC, S.L.
Griffiths Inc., P.O. Box 117536, Burlingame, CA, 94011-7536, property owner, APN: 029-211-190;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March
9, 2015, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which
states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing,
and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review are approved subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit and
Commercial Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said
meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 9th day of March, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Conditional Use Permit and Commercial
Design Review.
226 Lorton Avenue
Effective March 19, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped February 25, 2015, sheets A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 and date stamped
February 10, 2015, sheets A-0, A-3, A-6 and FS-0.0 through FS-1.1;
2. that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 1,213
SF of on-site customer seating area (741 SF indoor + 472 SF in covered patio), may
change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon
approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment, and the criteria
for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved;
3. that the 1,213 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be
enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space or covered patio area
only by an amendment to this conditional use permit;
4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city
consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the
entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City
Engineer and Fire Department;
5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of
the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business;
6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of
prepared food from this premise;
7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any
opening within 10' of the property line;
8. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a
food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall
become void;
9. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any
encroachment permit issued by the city;
10. that the conditions of the Building Division’s February 11, 2015, January 28, 2015,
January 26, 2015 and November 19, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s January 27,
2015 and December 15, 2014 memos, the Fire Divisions November 24, 2014 memo and
the Stormwater Division’s December 1, 2014 memo shall be met;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and
California Fire Code, 2013 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that
failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site
which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use
permit;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Conditional Use Permit and Commercial
Design Review.
226 Lorton Avenue
Effective March 19, 2015
Page 2
12. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or
adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
13. 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);
14. 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;
15. 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;
16. 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;
17. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
18. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; and
19. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit
Address: 1846 Rollins Road Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
Request: Conditional Use Permit to add retail sales of alcoholic beverages.
Applicant: Jeffrey Meisel APN: 025-169-240
Property Owners: 1846 Rollins LLC Lot Area: 16,117 SF
General Plan: Commercial – Service and Special Sales Zoning: RR
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.
Current Use: Office and warehouse.
Proposed Use: Add retail sales of alcoholic beverages to existing business (office and warehouse).
Allowable Use: Retail sales of alcoholic beverages as accessory use to a permitted or conditional use in
the RR zoning district C.S. 25.44.003(o).
Project Description: The applicant, Jeffrey Meisel, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for retail sales of
wine, distilled spirits, and beverage accessories such as crystal glasses, carafes, barware and books.
Currently the site contains office space for a marketing company (Merchants of Beverage) and warehouse
space for alcohol storage. The applicant was awarded a Type 21 license by ABC (Alcohol Beverage
Control) for off-sale general sales of alcohol. A Type-21 license authorizes the sale of beer, wine and
distilled beverages for off-site consumption.
The applicant anticipates that no more than 5% of the business operations will be from retail sales from the
subject property, with 95% balance of the business being internet sales. There will be approximately 5
deliveries per day between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Tuesday through Friday. The trucks delivering to the site will
not be larger than 20 feet in length. Packages shipped to customers are shipped via couriers, such as
FedEx or UPS and are usually either dropped off at the shipping facility or picked up by the courier.
The proposed retail sales area will have hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, closed on Saturday and Sunday. There will be no public tastings offered on-site. There will be
approximately six employees for the retail operation.
Parking is calculated for all of the uses on site as follows:
USE PKG RATIO SQUARE
FOOTAGE
PKG
REQUIRED
PKG
PROPOSED
Office 1:300 SF 507 SF 1.69 spaces
Retail 1:400 SF 530 SF 1.32 space
Warehouse &
Storage
1:1,000 SF 4,217 SF 4.2 spaces
TOTAL (7.21) 8 spaces 10 spaces
The uses on-site are required to provide one parking space per 400 SF of retail space, one space per 300
SF of office space, and one space per 1,000 SF of warehouse. Based on these standards, a total of eight
parking spaces are required for the site, with the proposed retail area. Given that the existing office area
Item No. 9b
Action Item
Conditional Use Permit 1846 Rollins Road
-2-
would be converted to retail space, which has a lower parking requirement, the overall parking demand on-
site was reduced by one space. The subject property is in compliance with the parking requirement with a
total of ten existing parking spaces on-site where eight spaces are required.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity: As part of this project the applicant has requested a
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to sell beer, wine and distilled spirits for off-site
consumption (attached). City Council reviewed this application at their March 2, 2015 meeting and approved
the request determining that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the issuance of a
Type 21 (Off-General) alcohol sales license. Attached for reference is the Council staff report and memo
from Police Chief Eric Wollman, regarding the determination of the public convenience and necessity for
this business. The conditions of approval recommended by Chief Wollman are incorporated as
recommended conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Fire Division, Engineering Division, and Parks Division.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare
or convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general
plan and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems
necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner
compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining
properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the
application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should
include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by
resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record.
At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped February 10, 2015, site plan, parking plan, and floor plans;
2. that any changes in operation or the floor area used for retail sales shall be brought to the
Burlingame Planning Division for review and if needed, to the Planning Commission for approval;
3. that the conditions of the Fire, Public Works, and Parks Divisions December 31, 2015 memos shall
be met;
4. that the approved retail alcohol sales use shall not include tastings or samples;
Conditions of Approval Suggested by the Burlingame Police Department:
5. no noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee (s) as defined on the
ABC-257;
Conditional Use Permit 1846 Rollins Road
-3-
6. the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over
which they have control;
7. graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under the control of the licensee
within seventy-two (72) hours of the application. If the graffiti occurs on a Friday or weekend day, or
on a holiday, the licensee shall remove the graffiti within seventy-two (72) hours following the
beginning of the next weekday;
8. the exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make
easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the premises. Additionally,
the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring
residences; and
9. loitering (loitering is defined as “to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful business”) is
prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the
licensee as depicted on the ABC-257.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. Jeffrey Meisel, applicant
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Application
Commercial Application
Business Plan-Overview
City Council Staff Report – March 2, 2015
Inter-Department memo from Chief Eric Wollman, dated February 5, 2015
Application to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Approved City Council Resolution 20-2015
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 27, 2015
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Variance
Address: 2209 Ray Drive Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review and Side Setback Variances for first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Architect: Briggs McDonald, bmod Office of Design APN: 025-182-440
Property Owners: Ann Stephens and Keith Bol Lot Area: 10,214 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The subject property is 10,214 SF in area. A tributary to Mills Creek runs through the
rear half of the property. The existing one-story house and attached two-car garage contains 1,831 SF (0.18
FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a single story addition at the rear of
the first floor and a new 1,074 SF second floor. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to
3,138 SF (0.31 FAR) where 4,368 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The first floor wall along the right side property line is nonconforming because it is set back 5’-0” where 6’-0”
is the minimum required for a 60’ wide lot. The applicant is requesting a Side Setback Variance to extend
the first floor wall 9’-2” further along the right side property line at the rear of the house with a 5’-0” side
setback. A Side Setback Variance is also being requested for a 9’-0” portion of the second floor that would
be in line with the first floor wall below, with a 5’-0” setback. This portion of the second floor encroaches
slightly into the declining height envelope for the right side, but meets the window enclosure exception
allowed under C.S.25.26.075(b)(2).
The existing house contains two bedrooms and would increase to five bedrooms with the proposed addition.
The code requires two covered parking spaces (20’ x 20’) and one uncovered space (9’ x 20’) for single
family dwellings with five or more bedrooms. The existing attached garage is 19’-5” x 19’-7”, and is
considered a two-car garage, with one uncovered parking space in the driveway. C.S. 25.70.030(a)(3)(4)
allows existing garages that are at least 18’ x 18’ to be considered compliant in meeting the dimensional
requirement for two covered 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); and
Side Setback Variances to extend the first floor wall along the right side property line at the rear of
the house and for a 9’-0” portion of the new second floor (5’-0” existing and proposed where 6’-0” is
the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c) (1)).
2209 Ray Drive
Lot Area: 10,214 SF Plans date stamped: March 2, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
9’-0"1
n/a
No change
24’-6"
15'-0" or (block average)
20'-0"
Side (left):
5'-0"1 No change 6'-0"
(right): 5'-0"1 5’-0” ² 6'-0"
Item No. 9b
Design Review Study
Design Review and Variance 2209 Ray Drive
2
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
46'-5"
N/A
No change
54'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 3,330 SF
32.6%
3,402 SF
33.3%
4,085 SF
40%
FAR: 1,831 SF
0.18 FAR
3,138 SF
0.31 FAR
4,368 SF ³
0.54 FAR
# of bedrooms: 2 5 ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered
(19’-5” x 19’-7”) 4
1 uncovered
(16' x 23'-6”)
no change to existing
2 covered
(20' x 20' clear interior)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 13' 24’-2” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: N/A Complies CS 25.26.075
1 Existing non-conforming front setback to roof eave and right/left side setbacks.
² Side Setback Variances required for first and second floor (5’-0” proposed where 6’-0” is required).
³ (0.32 x 10,214 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,368 SF (0.42 FAR).
4 Existing nonconforming covered parking space width/length.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater
Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by
the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
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;
Design Review and Variance 2209 Ray Drive
3
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. Briggs MacDonald, bmod Briggs MacDonald Office of Design Wehmeyer, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 27, 2015
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1901 Hillside Drive Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
Request: Design Review and Special Permit for height for a major renovation and second story addition.
Applicant and Architect: Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture APN: 026-057-010
Property Owner: Edward Ted McMahon and Grace Han Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in
an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Project Description: The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Hillside Drive at Drake
Avenue. The existing house is one story with a detached garage. The main entrance is along Hillside Drive,
however for zoning purposes Drake Avenue (the narrowest portion) is considered the front. The property
abuts a 10-foot wide alley along the rear (west side).
The applicant proposes a major renovation and second story addition to the existing house. The total
proposed floor area is 3,161 SF (0.52 FAR), where 3,170 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The
proposed addition will increase the number of potential bedrooms on site from three to four. This increase
does not change the parking requirement, one covered and one uncovered parking space.
The existing parking on-site is considered non-conforming with an existing detached garage with interior
dimensions of 17'-2" x 19'-1 1/2" where 18’ x 18’ is considered code complying for an existing two car
garage. The driveway area in front of the detached garage is only 14’-4” in length (to the inside edge of the
sidewalk) and therefore is not considered a parking space. C.S. 25.70.030(a)(1) states that single family
homes increasing in size from three to four bedrooms shall provide two spaces. The parking requirement
changes when the number of bedrooms increases to five or more bedrooms as per C.S. 25.70.030(a)(2),
but does not change when the bedrooms increase from three to four. Therefore, because there is no
intensification in the parking requirement from three to four bedrooms, and there are no modifications
proposed to the existing detached garage as part of the project, the existing non-conforming parking
configuration may remain as an existing nonconforming structure.
The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for overall building height for the proposed addition. The
proposed height is 33', where a special permit is required for a height between 30'-0" and 36'-0". The
applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and
Special Permit for Height (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)).
1901 Hillside Drive
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 18, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
17'-6"
N/A
No change
20’-0"
16'-1" (block average)
20'-0"
Item No. 10d
Design Review Study
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 1901 Hillside Drive
-2-
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
Side (left- interior):
- 5'-0 No change 4'-0"
(right- corner): 3'-0" No change- 1st floor
15’-0” – 2nd floor
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
38'-0"
N/A
No change
49'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,198 SF
36.6%
2,277 SF
37.9%
2,400 SF
40%
FAR: 2,183 SF
0.36 FAR
3,161 SF
0.52 FAR
3,170 SF ¹
0.52 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(17’-2” x 19'-1 1/2"
clear interior)*
no change to existing
1 covered
(9' x 18' clear interior)
1 uncovered
(9' x 18')
Height: 21'-2" 33’-0” 2
30'-0"
DH Envelope: N/A Complies CS 25.26.075
*Existing non-conforming
¹ (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 900 SF + 350 SF = 3,170 SF (0.52 FAR).
² Special Permit for height – 33’ proposed; heights between 30-36 feet requires a Special Permit
(C.S.25.26.060(a)(1)).
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.
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;
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 1901 Hillside Drive
-3-
(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.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
cc: Jeanne Davis- Davis Architecture, applicant and architect
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Form
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 27, 2015
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
and Special Permits
Address: 12 Vista Lane Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for
attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling
with an attached two-car garage.
Applicant and Designer: Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. APN: 027-093-320
Property Owner: Jiangnang Zhang Lot Area: 10,537 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
History: At its meeting of February 16, 2010, the City Council approved an application for Tentative
and Final Parcel Map for a lot split, Negative Declaration and Variance for lot frontage for creation of
two lots with 55-foot wide street frontage where 60 feet of street frontage is required at 12 Vista Lane,
located within a single family residential (R-1) zone (see attached Resolution No. 14-2010).
At its meeting on January 24, 2011, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two story
single family dwelling with an attached garage on a vacant parcel at 8 Vista Lane (adjacent to 12 Vista
Lane). The building permit for construction of the house was finaled on July 27, 2012.
The proposed project was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a
design review study item on August 11, 2014. However, based on concerns expressed by a
neighboring property owner regarding grading and retaining walls installed at the rear of the site
without a building permit, the item was pulled from the agenda until the applicant could address these
issues.
The properties at 8 and 12 Vista Lane have been owned by the same property owner for several
years. It appears that during construction of the project at 8 Vista Lane (adjacent parcel), soil from 8
Vista Lane was deposited on the vacant parcel at 12 Vista Lane, which raised the grade on the parcel
by approximately 1 to 10 feet towards the rear of the property. The original grade is shown on the
survey prepared by MacLeod and Associates and the current grade is shown on the survey prepared
by Dylan Gonsalves. These surveys are located at the end of the plan set. At the same time, two
retaining walls along the rear of 8 Vista Lane were extended across the rear of 12 Vista Lane. There
were no permits issued for either the grading or for the two retaining walls. In reviewing the proposed
project, the Planning Commission should not consider the raised grade or the retaining walls across
the rear of the property as existing conditions. Since August 2014, the project has been revised to
reflect the lower original grade.
The Community Development Department determined that while this application is being processed,
the applicant does not need to return the site to its original condition by removing the soil and retaining
walls. However depending on the outcome of this application, the applicant will be required to either
return the site to its original condition or obtain the necessary permits for any grading or retaining walls
to remain.
This space intentionally left blank.
Item No. 10e
Design Review Study
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane
2
Summary: The following description is based on the original grade of the site, as shown on the
Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map, prepared by MacLeod and Associates, dated July 6, 2007.
The existing vacant lot at 12 Vista Lane measures 10,537 SF in area. The lot is located within the City
of Burlingame boundaries but is surrounded by properties located in San Mateo County
(unincorporated land). Based on an average of the property corners, the lot slopes downward
approximately 24 feet from front to rear (13% slope). At the front of the property, the lot has a cross-
slope of approximately seven feet.
The applicant is proposing to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached two-car
garage. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 4,373 SF (0.41 FAR)
where 4,472 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 99 SF below the
maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 2% of the maximum allowed FAR.
The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed attached
garage and house along the left side property line; 151 SF (4’-3” x 37’-0”) along the left side of the
structure extends beyond the declining height envelope.
The proposed attached two-car garage will contain two, single-wide doors and will be set back 25'-0"
from the front property line. The attached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the
proposed five-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway.
The office room on the lower floor qualifies as a bedroom since it is enclosed, measures 70 SF and
contains a window. Three parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a five-
bedroom house. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the
following:
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S.
25.57.010 (a) (1));
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached
garage (C.S. 25.61.020);
Special Permit for attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)); and
Special Permit for declining height envelope (left side of structure extends beyond the
envelope by 151 SF (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)).
An arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated April 30, 2014, was submitted
with the initial application. The report evaluates the condition of the existing trees on the property and
provides tree protection guidelines. There are three trees on the site, all of which are Coast Live
Oaks. Two of the trees, which are not protected size, are proposed to be removed. The tree to
remain (identified as Tree #1 in the report), is a four-stem Coast Live Oak located in the middle of the
property. The report notes that “the 4 stems of this tree lean away from the center at their main
attachment” and that “there is a moderate amount of interior deadwood in the canopy and excess end
weight on the lateral limbs.” The report recommends routine maintenance, which should include root
crown excavation, deadwood removal, and end weight reduction. With this application, the applicant
is proposing to remove two of the stems located closer to the proposed house. The report notes that
“the removal of the 2 southeast-leaning stems and the pruning of the stem to the southwest should
increase circulation to the remaining canopy and potentially increase its vigor.” The report concludes
that the remaining portion of the tree should survive with minimal stress.
Subsequently, the adjacent property owner at 16 Vista Lane, Mr. Arthur J. Thomas, expressed a
concern regarding impacts from the proposed construction to Tree #1, and hired Walter Levison, a
certified arborist, to prepare an arborist report (see attached arborist report, dated September 18,
2014). Mr. Levison concludes that “the subject tree is a native coast live oak in good overall condition
which will be severely impacted by proposed site work at 12 Vista Lane, if the site plan is built out as
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane
3
proposed on the sheet reviewed by WLCA.” In addition, he notes that “construction as currently
proposed will likely cause premature decline of the tree, and a decline in health and structure over
time”.
The City’s Park Supervisor/City Arborist reviewed both arborist reports. In his Tree Evaluation, dated
September 30, 2014 (see attached), the City Arborist discusses the findings in both reports and notes
that both reports are reasonable. In the Tree Evaluation, the City Arborist notes that he “would also
consider a third arborist report to evaluate this tree with respect to the Mayne and Levison reports,
and with regards to future landscape and foundation installation.”
Based on that direction, the applicant submitted a third arborist report, prepared by Kielty Arborist
Services, dated January 29, 2015 (see attached). The Kielty report concludes that “the tree will
survive the trimming and the construction but will be slightly misshapen. The new building will shade
the trunk helping to prevent sun scald on the exposed trunks. The tree should be inspected by an
arborist regularly and maintained as needed. Powdery mildew and decay at the base are always a
concern when heavier than normal trimming is carried out on a coast live oak.” The City Arborist
reviewed and accepted Kielty’s arborist report and had no further comments.
12 Vista Lane
Lot Area: 10,537 SF Plans Date Stamped: February 13, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 22’-6” to solar shade 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 39’-6” to balcony 20'-0"
(attached garage): 25’-0” 1 25’-0” (for side by side)
Side (right):
(left):
6’-0”
6’-0”
6'-0"
6’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
71’-0” to wing wall
15’-6” to balcony pool wall
77’-6” to balcony
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 3887 SF
36.8%
4,215 SF
40%
FAR: 4373 SF
0.41 FAR
4472 SF
0.42 FAR 2
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered
(20'-0” x 20’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9'-0” x 20’-0”)
2 covered
(20'-0” x 20’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9'-0” x 20’-0”)
Height: 9’-4” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Structure extends 151 SF beyond
DHE along left side 3 CS 25.26.075
1 Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)).
2 (0.32 x 10,537 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,472 SF (0.42 FAR) 3 Special Permit for declining height envelope (left side of structure extends beyond the envelope by
151 SF (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)).
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane
4
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Engineering, Parks, Fire and
Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted
by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
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).
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):
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city;
and
4. 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.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc., applicant
Jiangnang Zhang, property owner
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane
5
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Forms
Resolution No. 14-2010 approving the Lot Split at 12 Vista Lane
Letter from architect to neighbors at 16 Vista Lane, dated August 5, 2014
Copy of easement document and attachments for vegetation and structure height limitations for
owners of 16 Vista Lane on 12 Vista Lane property
Arborist Report prepared Kielty Arborist Services, dated January 29, 2015
Tree Evaluation prepared by Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist, dated September 30, 2014
Arborist Report prepared by Walter Levision, dated September 18, 2014, included with letter
submitted by Arthur J. Thomas, dated September 22, 2014
Arborist Report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated April 30, 2014
Letter and Attachments from Tatiana Chekasina, dated August 8, 2014
Email from Arthur J. and Eileen A. Thomas, dated August 8, 2014
Email from Michelle and Eduardo Menendez, dated August 8, 2014
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 27, 2015
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
12 Vista Lane
Item No. 10e
Design Review Study
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 4, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1428 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and
detached garage at 1428 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning
Commission on January 27, 2014 Consent Calendar (see attached January 27, 2014 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in June, 2014 and construction is
underway.
An application for FYI to replace a window along the left side of the house with a chimney and a
smaller window was approved by the Planning Commission on November 24, 2014.
With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of an FYI for a change to the design of
the front porch (no change to lot coverage or FAR proposed), to change the design of the small
second floor windows on the Front and Right Elevations and eliminate a kitchen window on the
Right Side Elevation. Please refer to the attached explanation letter and revised plans, date
stamped February 26, 2015.
The designer submitted plans showing the originally approved and as-built plans and building
elevations, date stamped February 26, 2015, to show the changes to the previously approved
design review project.
Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other
changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing
with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, dated February 25, 2015
January 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and as-built plans, date stamped February 26, 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 4, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1428 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and
detached garage at 1428 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning
Commission on January 27, 2014 Consent Calendar (see attached January 27, 2014 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in June, 2014 and construction is
underway.
An application for FYI to replace a window along the left side of the house with a chimney and a
smaller window was approved by the Planning Commission on November 24, 2014.
With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of an FYI for a change to the design of
the front porch (no change to lot coverage or FAR proposed), to change the design of the small
second floor windows on the Front and Right Elevations and eliminate a kitchen window on the
Right Side Elevation. Please refer to the attached explanation letter and revised plans, date
stamped February 26, 2015.
The designer submitted plans showing the originally approved and as-built plans and building
elevations, date stamped February 26, 2015, to show the changes to the previously approved
design review project.
Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other
changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing
with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, dated February 25, 2015
January 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and as-built plans, date stamped February 26, 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 4, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1534 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major
renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1534 Los
Altos Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on May 27, 2014 (see
attached May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued
in September 2104 and construction is underway.
An application for FYI for clarifications to landscaping screening, front porch steps and the
aluminum windows was approved by the Planning Commission on July 28, 2014. The FYI
application also included eliminating a window along the South Elevation, changing the material
of the deck at the rear of the house from wood to concrete and frosting the third window from
the corner in the second story master bedroom along the North Elevation to address privacy
concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbors at 1538 Los Altos Drive.
With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of an FYI for changes to window sizes
along the South and East Elevations, removal of two clerestory windows on the South Elevation,
changing the roof slope above the entry way, changing the exterior siding from cement board
siding to smooth hard-trowel stucco and changing the material of the rear deck from concrete to
composite decking material over pressure treated wood framing. Please refer to the attached
explanation letter and revised plans, date stamped February 19, 2015, for a detailed list and
explanation of the proposed changes.
The designer submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed plans and building
elevations, date stamped February 19, 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. Ryan Morris, Viotti Architects, applicant and architect
Community Development Department Memorandum
March 4, 2015
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
Explanation letter submitted by applicant, dated February 19, 2015
May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped February 19, 2015