HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2015.03.23Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, March 23, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 23, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga.
February 23, 2015 Meeting MinutesAttachments:
March 9, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meetingb.
March 9, 2015 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. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a
commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
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
a.
1901 Hillside Dr - Staff Report
1901 Hillside Dr - Attachments.pdf
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
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
a.
960 David Rd - Staff Report
960 David Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
225 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Design Review for a first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc .,
applicant and designer; Sinhad and Medina Begic, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Barber
b.
225 Dwight Rd- Staff Report
225 Dwight Rd- Attachments.pdf
225 Dwight Rd - 03.23.15 - recd after 1.pdf
225 Dwight Rd - 03.23.15 - recd after 2.pdf
Attachments:
1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration, Design
Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design,
applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
c.
1516 Howard Ave - Staff Report
1516 Howard Ave - Attachments
1516 Howard Ave - Initial Study
1516 Howard Ave - Historic Resource Study
Attachments:
1364 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage (Nenad Vukic
Tr, applicant and property owners; Behravesh & Associates Architecture, architect) (55
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
d.
1364 Vancouver Ave- Attachments.pdf
1364 Vancouver Ave- Staff Report
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1428 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for
as-built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling with a
detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design, applicant and designer; Crocket Ln, LLC,
property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
e.
1428 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report
1428 Vancouver Ave - 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 dsigner; James and Luciana Witherspoon, proeprty owners (56 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
f.
1549 Meadow Ln staff report
1549 Meadow Ln attachments
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
1520 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review, Design
Review, Side Setback Variance and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a
first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use
Permits to add a cabana and toilet to an existing detached garage (Dreiling Terrones
Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Jeffrey Hessekiel, property owner) (72
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
a.
1520 Cypress Ave - Staff Report
1520 Cypress Ave - Attachments
1520 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Study
1520 Cypress Ave - Received After.pdf
Attachments:
1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-2 and R-3 - Application for Mitigated Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning of a portion of the site from R -2 to
R-3 and Condominium Permit for construction of a new three -story, 10-unit residential
condominium with at -grade parking (1509 El Camino LLC, applicant and property
owner; Rodrigo Santos, engineer) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
b.
1509 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1509 El Camino Real - Attachments
1509 El Camino Real - Public Comments for Previous 15-Unit Project
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R -4 - Application for Design Review, Conditional
Use Permit for building height, Front Setback Variance, Parking Variance for driveway
width, Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for construction of a new five -story, 29-unit
apartment building with at -grade and below-grade parking (Dreiling Terrones
Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (101
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
c.
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Staff Report
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Attachments
1128 Douglas Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
1132 Douglas Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
Attachments:
524 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Variance to demolish the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and replace it with
an existing house to be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue; the project includes a first
and second story addition to the house moved from Douglas Avenue and construction
of a new detached garage (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect;
Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
d.
524 Oak Grove Ave - Staff Report
524 Oak Grove Ave - Attachments
1128 Douglas Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
- Commission Communications
- City Council regular meeting March 16, 2015
FYI: 1119 Eastmoor Road - review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
a.
1119 Eastmoor Rd - Memorandum
1119 Eastmoor Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
FYI: 1433 Floribunda Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
b.
1433 Floribunda Ave - Memorandum
1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on March 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 April 2, 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.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
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 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
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 thisTime.
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 3/19/2015
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
1504 Drake Ave - Staff Report
1504 Drake Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
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)
1448 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1448 Laguna Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
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.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>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:
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, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, and Gum5 -
Nay:Sargent1 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
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
1813 Ray Dr - Staff Report
1813 Ray Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
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:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>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 -
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
1548 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report
1548 Los Montes Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
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.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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;
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
1541 Adrian Rd - Staff Report
1541 Adrian Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
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
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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.
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
960 David Rd - Staff Report
960 David Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
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
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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
1260 California Dr - Staff Report
1260 California Dr - attachments
Attachments:
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.
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.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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.
> 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
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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
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.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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:
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
712 Lexington Way - Staff Report
712 Lexington Way - Attachments
Attachments:
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:
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>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,
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
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1336 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1336 Laguna Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
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.
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:
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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
115 Occidental Ave study
115 Occidental Ave Attachments
115 Occidental Ave Historic Resource Evaluation
Attachments:
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.
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.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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;
Easton Estates LLC, property owner) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1906 Easton Dr - Staff Report
1906 Easton Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
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.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>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
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.
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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
226 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
226 Lorton Ave - Attachments
226 Lorton Ave - 02.23.15 - received after 1.pdf
Attachments:
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 .
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
(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
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.
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1709 Ray Dr - Memorandum
1709 Ray Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
Accepted.
d.FYI: 60 Edwards Court - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design
Review project
60 Edwards Ct FYI Staff Report
60 Edwards Ct FYI Attachments
60 Edwards Ct FYI Clarification
Attachments:
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 18City of Burlingame Printed on 3/19/2015
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 9, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent6 -
YieAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.February 23, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
February 23, 2015 Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Approval of the minutes of February 23, 2015 was deferred until the meeting of March 23, 2015.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
a.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
1260 California Dr memoAttachments:
City Attorney Kane summarized the contents of her memorandum to the Planning Commission of March
5, 2015. She noted that the roll call vote of the Planning Commission regarding 1260 California Drive is
the deciding vote. Since the roll call vote was a tied vote, the end result is that the motion failed and the
project is considered denied by the Planning Commission. The appeal period regarding the
Commission's action commences immediately and runs for a period of ten calendar days until 5 p.m. on
Thursday, March 19, 2015. A member of the City Council may also choose to call the item up for
consideration by the full City Council within that same time period. Council Member Brownrigg has
already informed the City Attorney that he will call up the item for City Council consideration. The item
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
will be considered by the City Council on April 6, 2015.
7. STUDY ITEMS
a.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
1008-1028 Carolan DEIR Comment Staff Report
1008-1028 Carolan DEIR Comment Attachments
1008-1028 Carolan DEIR Comment Recd After
Attachments:
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the item and introduced Special Project Planner
Maureen Brooks, and the consultant team from David Powers Associates (John Schwarz). The hearing
is an opportunity to provide public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); the
comment period concludes on April 3, 2015. Oral and written comments on the DEIR may be received
during this evening's hearing, and written comments on the DEIR will be accepted through April 3, 2015.
John Schwarz, David Powers and Associates provided an overview of the EIR process and touched
upon the main purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), where we are in the
process and the purpose of the hearing this evening. Noted that there are no significant unavoidable
impacts idenfied in the DEIR. Main issues include: hazards/hazardous materials, traffic /circulation and
noise and air quality.
Questions of staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Public comments:
Patrick Callahan, 921 Linden Avenue: submitted written comments. The fencing to the south which is
what affects me, seems to be a little bit of a conflict between the documents and the drawings, drawings
show eight feet, document says six or seven, what type of material, that kind of thing, I'm sure the
neighbors on Toyon would be more astute about what they want to see behind their house.
The construction impacts relative to trucking, if there's 27,000 cubic yards, that's a lot of truckloads of
dirt out of there, and I understand that the truck route plans don't come until later in the process, but I
would be very interested in how the trucking is going to be handled, where they go, how will they get in
and out. Looking at how many workers they are anticipating on the site, and the building looks like it
takes most of the site, so where is everybody going to park when they come to work, there will be a lot of
guys, we already have some impact from the existing operations, we have fewer people I believe.
And then the setting relative to along the south border, there's a landscape berm or landscape area
there, looking at the drawings, I can't tell how big the trees are or what species they are, that kind of
thing, obviously I'm concerned about how the height of the building relative to the existing residential and
what kind of barriers we can put up so if we have an option to put in larger trees, like they were talking
about on Carolan and Rollins, I think that would be a good idea, something that maybe grows a little
faster than others, hopefully not deciduous too, so that it remains a barrier during the winter.
And then, just the visual impacts, looking at the massing of the project, the building just seems a lot
larger compared to the rest of the area, with Northpark, and the residential, I know that the condos or the
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
townhomes are put in there to try and help that, but when you go down both sides, if you're going to put
that new wall up along the freeway, you're going to end up with almost a tunnel affect, it feels like to me,
and the building, even though it says it steps back, only parts of it step back and it feels like a high wall,
if it was me I'd be asking to push things down, maybe put it down another level underground, if that ’s the
case, keep that same height or take a floor out, the spatial requirements and all that, some of the
documents as I see in here on Page 95, talk about two four-story buildings compared to each other, but
it's really a five and a half story building because it's above grade because of the garage.
In the Complete Streets, I'm just concerned about what that looks like, I don't have any documents to
show me what that looks like, what's going to happen, maybe I can comment on that at another time.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission comments/questions:
>A little bit concerned about traffic. Part of it probably has to do with the fact that I'm not entirely sure
what all the terminology means. But the sense that I get from looking at it, on page 36, we have been
talking a lot in the last few weeks about the California intersection, and the California intersection looks
like it has extremely, well it's not extreme, very long traffic delays, and the other end that I find hard to
believe is the Carolan and Oak Grove intersection, which is a particularly bad intersection, it's a
three-way intersection, you can't tell when the traffic is coming across the tracks there, but that's not
even good now, so I can't believe it's going to be okay later, and I can't believe that it doesn't change
given that those two directions out to Broadway and the other direction to the primary street which would
be Oak Grove I think, I can't believe there's not a lot more traffic than that, so I would think there needs
to be some clarification of the traffic, I know that I've seen this happen in other EIRs, the methodologies
are not well understood by lay people, and even as a professional, they're not easy to understand, but
those two ends of Carolan I think are quite difficult. It's a tough place to put a lot of new traffic because
it's up against the railroad tracks in both directions and that's I think part of the problem with every one of
those intersections through there, they are against the tracks, and making the turns onto the streets and
across the tracks is quite challenging. The thing that I can see in here that concerns me the most is the
traffic, and I'd like to see some clarification and maybe further study, I'm not sure what to ask for
precisely. I guess probably clarification and I don't know what we do to mitigate these problems, the very
long traffic delays at California, I'm not sure what can be done to fix that, but that's my comments.
>On Page 19, they talk about the groundwater management plan and, if long -term dewatering is
required, the means and methods to extract, treat and dispose of ground water also shall be presented. I
guess I would like a little bit more information about when would a neighborhood expect to see
something like that, obviously, they ’ve talked about contaminated soil, there hasn't been a lot of talk
about contamination in the ground water, which wouldn't shock me, and I think the neighborhood needs
to understand completely exactly what's going to happen.
>On Page 21, they talk about the cut that they need to make and they say: “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 .” And then, the
next page says that if there's impacted soils, they will be stockpiled on site, so I guess my question is
are they assuming if it's clean, which I can't imagine if they're already talking about spills on the property,
I think that needs to be clear. It also says if soils exhibiting evidence of environmental impact are
identified, the excavation shall be advanced to a greater depth, and lateral dimension as appropriate,
except we have neighbors on both sides, some are residential neighbors, so I think that neighborhood
would like to know exactly what kind of excavation is going to be done. I know there are already
questions about property lines, so I think that would be helpful.
>Page 27, Alternative Land Use, they talk about an office plan and the first paragraph, they say the
existing General Plan and Zoning designations on the site allow for a variety of uses, and so they picked
an office plan. And then in the next paragraph, they say an alternative land use of office on the site
would not be consistent with the City's General Plan, so I guess my question is why are we picking a
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
land use that they say in the first paragraph is consistent and yet in the second paragraph it's not.
>The Alternative Design with Setbacks, I guess I'd like to know why they picked that particular option .
I think it was mentioned a little bit this evening already by one of the residents about impacts to an
established community, the sound wall to me has a rather significant impact, and I would like that
addressed in a few ways, one of which obviously would be noise and I think it's important to take into
account that while the freeway is there, I feel that the City is somewhat open in that part of town, and
you can see right into Burlingame and once you put a sound wall up, I think you do have an impact.
>In 2.1.2.3, Population and Housing Impacts, they talk about, "the project site however is identified in
the City's General Plan for multifamily residential development, for these reasons, the proposed project
would not induce substantial population growth in the area." I guess I question that, it sounds like we're
inducing substantial population growth in the area. One of my concerns, if you go to the Housing
Element, I guess there are two Housing Elements, one at the time of their original submittal and one is
the current one, but at the time of the original submittal, those particular parcels are identified as 185
units, and then in the new Housing Element, the total max is 212, in the document it says a realistic total
would be 80% of that total max, but because of the project already being submitted, 290 is input and so
to me, if you compare it to what the applicant had already submitted, than sure, 290 equals 290, but if
you compare it to the actual numbers in the Housing Element, I think there is substantial population
growth.
>On Page 22, the City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance, they talk about the project requiring a special
permit prior to exceed 30 feet in height, when we're talking about the townhouse portion, but then they
say the proposed apartments would not exceed the 75-foot height limit. I don't think that's accurate, I
think the 75 feet is with a Conditional Use Permit, and I believe the height limit is 35 feet, so I think they
should be consistent with what they've described as the other portion of the parcel. I think it's a little bit
misleading to tell somebody that the height limit is 75 feet when really it's not.
>The traffic, I would agree completely with Commissioner Loftis, I was actually a little bit surprised to
see the numbers, I budget at times in rush hour about 15 minutes to get off the freeway and to get all the
way down Broadway and to see numbers that I'm only delayed 30 seconds at certain intersections, I've
sat there through lights, and multiple lights, so I think they really need to take a look at that, one of their
comments on Page 40 was " the addition of project traffic at a particular intersection would increase
average delay per vehicle by only 4/10 of a second, and to me that ’s hardly anything. We're talking
about potentially 290 units and perhaps they know more than me but I question this, I really want to
understand the impacts of the interchange project and the Carolan road diet.
>Also on Page 40, Study Intersection No. 7, Carolan Avenue and Broadway, they say the baseline
condition is 42.8 on the average delay, the Baseline Plus Project is 42.6, it goes down, and yet their
increase in their table shows it went up by 0.5, so perhaps it's just a typo, but it has to be addressed and
also a couple of the intersections actually go down, which I would like to understand exactly how that is
going to happen. It sounds like perhaps Burlingame Point is taken into account in this, but I want to
make sure that is the case, because it's obviously a very significant project and a project that's been in
the news quite recently as potentially starting construction soon.
>Page 44, in the middle of the project they did a survey of four different apartment projects, it says
during the week of the parking survey, the existing apartment complexes were 90 to 95 per cent
occupied, I guess I'd like that broken out per apartment building, I'm shocked that there is a 90 per cent
occupied apartment building in the Bay Area right now. One of these was recent construction, so I just
want to make sure that they're talking about stabilized apartments in their analysis.
>Odors, the gentleman spoke recently that perhaps it doesn't affect the neighbors, and it's not a big
enough impact, but the concern obviously is there is a driveway so close to the backs of these people's
houses now that I would want that identified a little bit.
>On Page 126, the groundwater impacts, they talk about referring to Appendix I, and in Appendix I on
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
the first page, it says that the building will consist of four stories of wood frame residential units. It's
actually five stories. And in the next page it talks about an elevation of 4.4 feet from the finished floor of
the garage, it's actually 4.9 feet. I think the four stories and five stories, I question whether we're talking
about the same project quite honestly because based on the dates on this, I think they were looking at a
different plan because there's no mistaking that this project is five stories. So if that's the case then
obviously I think this whole section needs to be corrected and updated.
>On Page 132, it talks about exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding. On the following page, on sea level rise impacts, they talk about a sea level rise, and
they say that it's not anticipated that the proposed project would be significantly impacted, but they only
focus on the residential units, they don't focus on the subterranean parking spaces, so it's impacting a
building, and clearly the building could be impacted, and I don't know where all these people would park
then, if their garage is flooded.
>Page 136, we talk about the water supply in Burlingame, and we talk about 2010 – 2011, and also
2012 – 2013, we haven't seen 2013 – 2014, and I'm curious if we've taken into account some of the
rather significant projects that are proposed in this City. We obviously heard about a rather large one this
weekend, we know about one that's going to break ground soon on the other side of the freeway, and it's
easy to say we'll have plenty of water but I guess I'd like to see the analysis that takes into account all
the buildings that we know of on the development process in the pipeline, so hopefully we can do that.
>2.14.2.3, Impacts to Schools, Page 154, I just need to read this paragraph because it's stunning .
"The project proposes 290 new residential units that would generate school -aged children. The
proposed project (if approved) is anticipated to be constructed and occupied in 2019. The capacity of the
local schools (Roosevelt Elementary School, Burlingame Intermediate School, and Burlingame Highs
School) in 2019 cannot be determined at this time. If the local elementary, middle, and high schools are
at capacity at the time the project is constructed and occupied, project –generated students may need to
attend another school within the Burlingame School District and San Mateo Union High School District ."
It's rather cavalier to take an impact to the schools which to me drives this community. If we don't have
good schools in Burlingame, there are plenty of other places to live, and to me, to take one paragraph
and say it's not a problem, if there is a problem, we'll just send them somewhere else. To me, that's
entirely not acceptable. I think we need to look at every single school, we often see numbers from
schools in their estimates in the future, and I think we need to do that. I mean we can't have, we already
have overcrowded schools, if you take Roosevelt, kids are in portables right now, and to get those
portables, they took over their playfield. So part of that playfield is gone and now the kids are in
portables, so we're going to put more kids there potentially. We need to study that and study it in depth
before we start approving projects that harm our schools and then suddenly Burlingame's not the town
that we thought it is.
>The impact to parks, on Page 155, is also rather vague. It just says there won't be an impact to our
parks. How do you decide that.
>In the list of cumulative projects, on Page 159, talks about 60 Edwards Court, Tennis Facility, not yet
constructed, it's well under construction. I think there's a tour tomorrow of it, and Trousdale, I think this
list needs to be updated and perhaps updated with projects that have come by recently.
>The only question I have at this time is that the consultant mentioned other projects, in particular the
Broadway interchange, if we could get some clarification or answer to whether or not because it's still
sort of in the idea stage, whether or not the potential grade separation at Broadway and California needs
to be considered, and if not, then not, but at least some statements that we could have in the record in
response, I think that would be helpful.
>I reflect the concerns that the gentleman mentioned about the property line along the Toyon
properties. I remember that there was some concern about the property line as defined by the Carolan
project to the affect that it would actually take out a couple of trees of those folks that live on Toyon. That
was expressed to me by the folks there that live on Toyon, so I have some concern about that and it
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
would be nice to have a clarification as to that property line and if that would be a concern or not. My
other concern is one of a pedestrian nature, and that is pedestrian traffic moving to and from. I think on
the west side, it's not a problem, there seems to be plenty of sidewalk space, most of the traffic would
probably go downtown. But for those that want to go out to the park and out towards the Bay, that one
section of sidewalk is very narrow, and it is encroached upon by the chain link fence and by the ivy and
other things that are appurtenant to those properties along that side, so maybe we could look at that a
little more closely, and see what kind of pedestrian traffic is anticipated to flow in that direction.
>On the driveway on the south, I guess I'd like that looked at a little bit more closely, I think in some
regards that new transition to the houses on Toyon would be an improvement to what's there, because
it's already a parking lot, but I think the use pattern is going to change, now with this residential use, a
lot of the vehicle traffic will be at night and will impact those houses in a way that they are not impacted
now so I just want to make sure that is taken into account.
>Concerned about the parking, I realize the project meets the City requirement, but on condo
projects, larger projects like this, we often have projects that exceed the parking minimum, so I just want
to look at those numbers more closely.
>Commented on one of the proposed mitigation measures for interior noise that was brought up by
the applicant, particularly the vinyl windows, and on just about every project we have in the City,
applicants are told that vinyl windows aren't allowed in the City, and I usually don't do research outside
of what's presented in our documents, but I made one call to a window supplier, a national window
supplier, and he told me that an aluminum clad window could meet that STC requirement that's being
proposed in the EIR, so I think that's going to need to be looked at more closely, and I think there's going
to need to be a lot more justification in the documents to get that approved, or at least to make it
approvable.
>Concurred with all the comments made by fellow commissioners. I just want to reiterate that traffic is
the major concern. We really need to take a closer look at that. Because Carolan is a narrow street, and
we have one public school, BHS, we have so many seniors, juniors driving to school, and my daughter
goes to BHS so I drive every day and it is really hard, it takes me almost five minutes just waiting for the
stop light, and sometimes have to miss a couple of red lights. So that's something we really need to take
a look at. And also for construction workers, where are they going to park, on Carolan or some other,
what streets are they going to park, what's the plan for that, and if you have big trucks coming along,
what route are they going to take, maybe take that into consideration, and again, thinking about schools,
Commissioner DeMartini talked about what is the enrollment, need to look at that, how many children
can each school take, all the schools are already filled up, so Hoover is opening in 2016, but even then,
we need to do a study and see, because we need to ensure Burlingame, we brag about our schools,
Burlingame has the best schools in the County, and we need to continue to maintain that. The schools
are what drive our real estate prices so we want to make sure we provide all the kids the best education
in our City.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.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
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
226 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
226 Lorton Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
No ex-parte communications. All Commissioners had visited the property location.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Remy Sijbrant represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Wouldn't it be helpful if the area adjacent to the outdoor dining area and in front of the door were
striped for no parking? (Sijbrant - don't intend any parking at the location and are agreeable to striping it
as no parking. Kane - need to be certain that the Public Works Department is amenable to the striping.)
>Clarified that the existing frame and awning are what is referred to in the plans.
>Also clarified that the existing awning frame will be covered with new canvas.
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
request with an additional condition requiring that the installation of no-parking striping be
installed adjacent to the outdoor dining area, if acceptable to the Public Works Department. The
motion was approved unanimously by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Yie1 -
b.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
1846 Rollins Rd - Staff Report
1846 Rollins Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
Commissioner De Martini noted that he had had an e -mail exchange with the City's Police Chief. Chair
Bandrapalli indicated that she had had a conversation with the applicant. All Commissioners had visited
the subject property.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Has the use already been approved by the City Council? (Meeker - the City Council adopted a
finding of public convenience and necessity with provides the ABC with the ability to consider the
application. The Commission must still consider the land-use question.)
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jeffrey Meisel represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Noticed that the business is not open on the weekends. (Meisel - doesn't see that there will be a
large number of public members visiting the property, but if the demand is demonstrated, then the hours
may e increased.)
>Is it the expectation that most of the employees will be parking on the street? (Meisel - doesn't
forsee parking issues given that there will be very little foot traffic given that the primary business is
on-line. Also, the business is in close proximity to the Millbrae Intermodal Transit Facility.)
>The building is one of the most meticulous buildings in town.
>Is there any way to quantify how many people are likely to visit the site during the upcoming years?
(Meisel - have had about two requests out of one-thousand orders to date.)
>Question regarding amplified music? (Meisel - will be music from the computer playing inside, but
not outside.)
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve the request
as submitted, with conditions. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Yie1 -
10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.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
149 Pepper Ave - Staff Report
149 Pepper Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
Gum spoke to the neighbor on the right. DeMartini met with the property owner. All Commissioners had
visited the property.
Questions of staff:
>Requested clarification regarding the shower in the basement.
>When would the porte-cochere be required to be relocated? (Meeker - only if the vertical supports
were removed, then they would need to be replaced at a code-compliant location.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
Jeff Gard represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Feels that the front elevation does not work well with the exsting architecture. (Gard - the owners
like the modern interior of the house and the rear of the house. Wanted to create a more harmonious
design with the rear of the house. Trying to tie it into the garden a bit better.)
>The design makes the house function better, but it doesn't tie into the existing architecture of the
house. Sylistically, the new addition doesn't fit with the building - looks like the front was chopped off the
building and a new addition placed on the home. (Gard - this is essentially what is being done. Iit was
added to previously. Met with the neighbors who seemed to understand the intent of the design.)
>Confirmed that the plan for the garage is to reconvert it back to a garage as it is currently being used
as a playroom. (Gard - yes, it is the intent.)
>Why haven't divided light's been provided, they are common in the neighborhood?
>Understands that the point of providing artificial turf in the front yard as a play area, but is out of
character with the rest of the neighborhood which is characterized by lush landscaping. (Gard - is open
to negotiation. Is part of the low water-usage landscape plan.)
>Also concerned about the artificial turf.
>How does the three foot wall better integrate the yard into the neighborhood?
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Though the front addition is handsome, it is incongruous with the rest of the structure; doesn't
integrate with the side elevations.
>The addition on the front needs to better integrate with the existing structure.
>Is a good candidate for a design review consultant.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to remand the project
to a designer reviewer. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Yie1 -
b.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
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
2209 Ray Dr Staff Report
2209 Ray Dr Attachments
Attachments:
Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors to the right and left of the site. All Commissioners had
visited the property.
Questions of staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Briggs McDonald represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questtions:
>Noted that the first floor setback variance is commonly approved, but sees no justification for the
second floor setback variance. (McDonald - the wall itself is pushed back to the required setback, only
structural fins project into the setback.)
>Feels the additions do not integrate. The second floor addition is too high and the proposed setback
is too impactful upon the neighbor.
>This design has a problem with appearing like a layer cake; is especially apparent in the side
elevation. Design looks top heavy.
>The abrupt transition to smooth stucco above the vertical siding first floor is problematic.
>Need to look at the massing and better integrate the first and second floor.
>Feels that the design doesn't fit into the neighborhood; how does it fit? (McDonald - doesn't fit with
the neighborhood, but neither does the existing house with it's mid -century design. The roof design in
particular is out of character with the neighborhood, but the scale is similar.)
>The existing house's inconsistency with the neighborhood is more subtle than the proposed design.
>Could perhaps lower the plate height to reduce the apparent height.
>Have specific, style-compatible windows been selected? (McDonald - yes, are attempting to
conform with the existing windows.)
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (McDonald - yes, with some.)
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Is always difficult to integrate a second story addition to a mid -century modern architectural style .
There may be better means of integrating the scale and materials; may wish to soften the massing of the
stucco addition.
>Good candidate for design review.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
>Is more concerned with the right side setback; wants the first floor moved back and the second floor
to comply with the declining height envelope.
>Need more justification in support of the second floor side setback variance. Continuation of an
existing first floor condition has been granted before.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the project
to a design reviewer. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Yie1 -
c.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
1549 Meadow Ln - Staff Report
1549 Meadow Ln - Attachments
Attachments:
Chair Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion of the Agenda Item 10c
(1549 Meadow Lane) since she lives within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers
Commissioner Gum spoke to the owners on the right side of the property. All Commissioners had
visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice-Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal and James and Melissa Witherspoon represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Requested clarification of the garage dimensions. (Witherspoon - noted that the measurement of
the interior of the garage is 22-feet; it is only 16-feet in the area of the furnace.)
>Doesn't see as much detail on the side elevations as on the front. Could there be another
architectural element added on the side with the fireplace? (Deal - the existing fireplace will be replaced
with a new fireplace. The owner has a lot of items be be stored along that wall, so a window isn't
desired in that area. Witherspoon - there are also neighbor's bedrooms in that area.)
>Generally a pretty good design, but is bothered that the integration of the second floor addition
needs to be improved. Perhaps consider bringing the scale down by eliminating the bump out and using
a different finishing material within the gable of the second story. (Deal - tried several different
approaches in this area, and this was the one that was selected.)
>Feels the muntin pattern on the existing windows should be continued on the upper floor.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
>Concerned regarding a stack of rocks against a large tree in the front yard. Concerned that the tree
may be killed. (Witherspoon - the rocks will be reduced when some are distributed to the neighbors, or
distributed on the site.)
>Clarified that if the windows on the ground floor are not replaced, will eliminate the muntin pattern on
all windows. (Deal - this is correct. Witherspoon - very unlikely that the grids will be retained.)
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice-Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Massing is pretty typical for the style that predominates the neighborhood.
>Agrees that the front gable element could be brought back down a bit.
>Fits in with the neighborhood.
>Windows may need to come back as an FYI if necessary.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place
the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Yie1 -
Recused:Bandrapalli1 -
d.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
1901 Hillside Dr- Staff Report
1901 Hillside Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
Chair Bandrapalli returned to the dais.
Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda
Item 10d (1901 Hillside Drive) as he owns property within 500-feet of the property. He also indicated
that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 10e (12 Vista Lane) for
non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers and the meeting.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
Jeanne Davis represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Fits in very well with the neighborhood, perhaps better than the existing home.
>Has made a good argument for the additional height given the method of measuring the height on
the lot.
>Is a beautiful house.
>Is there a concern that the existing garage is out of character? (Davis - is intended to be a phased
project with the garage being changed in the future. She had encouraged the owners to consider
revisions at the same time as the additions.)
>Would be great if the garage could be modified.
>Is concerned about the two different coatings on the driveway apron.
>Call out the plant materials, etc. on the landscape plan.
>Why are the existing trees being removed in the front? (Davis - want to install more of a
canopy-type tree that may be a bit taller and provide more of a layered effect.)
>It looks like at least one of the trees in the easement next to the garage may be dead.
>Not sure if the house actually fits on the lot, and why should the height be increased? (Davis - there
is precedent where the structure height as measured from the top of curb exaggerates the height. If
measured from existing grade, falls within the height limit. Existing floor is six -feet, nine-inches above
the top of curb.)
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Bring back on consent calendar.
>The special permit request, based upon the measurement from the top of curb.
>Staff may wish to point out the difficulty with measuring height for non-flat lots.
>Have required height reductions in other circumstances, but the design in this instance also supports
the special permit.
Vice Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar when ready for Commission consideration. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Yie1 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
e.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
12 Vista Ln - Staff Report
12 Vista Ln - Attachments
12 Vista Ln - Received After 1
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda
Item 10e as he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers.
Commissioner Gum noted that he had conversations with the property owners to the left and right of the
project site. All Commissioners had visited the project site.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Was any thought given to pushing back the garage in an effort to reduce the impact upon the
declining height envelope? (Furlong - the garage is pushed back as far as possible and already includes
a 12% slope for the driveway. Will need to mitigate water issues.)
>Has any thought been given to reducing parapet heights and plate heights in order to reduce mass
along the left side? (Furlong - these elements were pushed down from what they were in the prior
design, but can look at further reductions.)
>Is there potential to step back the second story on the site to further reduce neighbor impacts?
(Furlong - unable to make further changes in this area as it would eliminate a bedroom. The story poles
have been installed and convey the impact of the height.)
>Have there been any complaints received after installation of the story poles? Has the applicant
reached out to the neighbor on Hillside? (Furlong - haven't consulted with that neighbor at this time.)
>Expressed concern about the impact of the construction debris upon the tree that is to be saved. Is
there the potential to retain a third stem of the tree? (Furlong - noted that there will be an arborist on site
during construction to assist in preserving it.)
>Shares concerns expressed regarding the plate heights.
>Not certain that the proposed design fits on the street. May fit into the neighborhood, but needs to
adjust plate heights.
>Look aggressively at reducing the plate height.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
>Should save as much of the tree as possible.
Public comments:
Neighbor at 2874 Hillside Drive: met with the applicant in advance of erection of the story poles. Is
concerned about the height of the garage. Will vehicle lifts be installed?
Arthur Thomas, 16 Vista Lane: referenced the letter that he submitted in advance of the hearing. Is
concerned about shadows upon his neighboring property as well as plate heights and the potential loss
ot the heritage treet.
Eilieen Shefsky, 24 Vista Lane: Opposed to the Modern architecture; doesn't fit in with the other homes
on the street. Concerned about the mass and bulk of the home. Feels property values in the area will
be negatively impacted. Concerned that the tree will eventually die. Concerned about the location of the
pool on the property; particularly about the safety from a structural perspective given that it will be built
on landfill. There are already drainage problems on the street. The noise from the pool equipment is
also a concern. Feels that a full CEQA review should be required.
Michelle Menendez, 23 Vista Lane: Doesn't feel that the architecture fits into the neighborhood. The
height and massing are a concern.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Installing a gable roof on the home would make it appear larger.
>Cannot prevent improvement of the property.
>Lower the plate heights.
>Development of the property will likely enhance property values.
>The design of the home properly steps down the hillside.
>Expressed concern about blockage of open space on the neighboring property to the left.
>Concerned about the stability of the property.
>Keep as much of the tree as possible.
>The declining height envelope request is completely driven by the slope of the lot.
>Is a nice piece of modern architecture.
>The project is not approvable today.
>Need a clear demonstration of view impacts upon neighboring properties.
>Could consider moving the garage further south and lower plate heights to address neighbor's
concerns.
>A color rendering would be helpful.
Chair Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the project on the
Regular Action Calendar when ready for Commission consideration0\. The motion was
approved unanimously by the following vote:
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum5 -
Absent:Yie1 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais.
There were no Commissioner's reports.
12. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Meeker noted that on March 2, 2015 the City Council approved a
finding of public convenience and necessity for on-site sale of alcoholic beverages at 1846 Rollins Road.
a.FYI: 1428 Vancouver Avenue - review of as -built changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
1428 Vancouver Ave - Memorandum
1428 Vancouver Ave - Attachments
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones requested that this matter be scheduled for a public hearing in order to permit
consideration of the changes to the front porch and the elimination of the kitchen window.
b.FYI: 1534 Los Altos Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
1534 Los Altos Dr - Memorandum
1534 Los Altos Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
c.FYI: 2020 Hillside Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
2020 Hillside Dr FYI - Memorandum
2020 Hillside Dr FYI - Attachments
Attachments:
13. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 10:03 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 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 16City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 3/20/2015
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1901 Hillside Drive Meeting Date: March 23, 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. 7a
Consent Item
Design Review 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 Study Meeting (February 9, 2015): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study
meeting on March 9, 2015, the Commission had the following comments:
Garage will not match architectural style of the new home;
Explain request for Special Permit for height.
In response to the Planning Commission comments the applicant submitted a letter and diagram dated
March 12, 2015. The response letter notes that the Special Permit is necessary for only a portion of the roof
ridge, which does not contribute to the bulk and mass of the building. The diagram provided illustrates, in
plan view and elevation view, the small portion of the roof that is over 30-feet in height. The letter also notes
that the property owner will repaint and remove the terra cotta tiles on the existing garage to help it blend in
with the architectural style of the renovated house.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by
the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Design Review and Special Permit 1901 Hillside Drive
-3-
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for Design Review: At the March 9, 2015 Design Review Study meeting the Planning
Commission noted that the proposed architectural style will fit in well with the neighborhood. Given the
corner location, the proposed second story addition and change to the existing architectural style is
appropriate. The mass and bulk of the structure, while larger than the existing home, is compatible with the
character of the neighborhood. There are no changes proposed to the garage location, and therefore would
not disrupt the existing parking and garage pattern. While the existing garage is not proposed to be
reconstructed, the applicant has agreed to remove the terra cotta tiles on the garage parapet and repaint so
that the garage is more compatible with the architecture style of the house. The aluminum clad wood
windows with simulated true divided lites and stained cedar shingle siding will complement the design of the
home, and the materials are consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. For these reasons the project
is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition
are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure
or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is
proposed is appropriate.
Special Permit Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning
Commission's March 9, 2015, Design Review Study meeting, the subject property slopes up from the street
which puts the structure at a higher starting elevation in terms of height measurement. While the subject
property has a Hillside Drive address, the front of the property is considered to be Drake Avenue. Height is
measured from the average top of curb elevation, along Drake Avenue. The architectural style lends itself to
steep roof slopes, with a 6:12 and 12:12 pitch proposed. The existing finished floor elevation is a little over 6
feet above the average top of curb elevation. A Special Permit is required for approximately 3 feet of the
roof ridge which extends beyond the 30 foot height limit. However, if measured from the adjacent natural
grade, the house would be less than 30 feet. The roof ridge that extends beyond the 30 foot height limit
does not contribute to the mass and bulk of the structures, but complements the architectural style of the
remodeled house.
Design Review and Special Permit 1901 Hillside Drive
-4-
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the
application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should
include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by
resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record.
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 18, 2015, sheets A0.1- through L1.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 20, 2015 memo, the Parks Division’s January
27, 2015 memo, the Engineering Division’s January 23, 2015 memo, the Fire Division’s January 26,
2015 memo and the Storm water Division’s January 20, 2015 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
Design Review and Special Permit 1901 Hillside Drive
-5-
12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
cc: Jeanne Davis- Davis Architecture, applicant and architect
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response Letter and diagram, dated March 12, 2015
March 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Neighbor Letters- dated March 7, 2015
From Ann Nejasmich & Steve Dylina
From Linda Rosen
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in the
Drainage Right-of-Way
Address: 960 David Road Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage in the drainage right-of way in the RR
Zoning District.
Applicant: Tesla Motors APN: 025-271-090
Property Owner: Frank Edwards Company, Inc. Lot Area: 2.06 acres (89,851 SF)
General Plan: Industrial and Office Use Zoning: RR
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area – Central Rollins Road
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the
operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review.
Proposed Use: Automobile storage
Allowable Use: RR zoning requires a Conditional Use Permit for storage of operable vehicles including
automobiles and trucks subject to performance criteria (C.S. 25.44.060 (b) (2)).
History: An application for a Conditional Use Permit, Parking Variance and Landscaping Variance for a commercial
recreation facility (GoKart Racer) at 1541 Adrian Road was approved by the Planning Commission on March 24,
2003. The Parking Variance granted by the Planning Commission was for 41 parking spaces (30 on-site parking
spaces provided where 71 on-site spaces were required). To mitigate the Parking Variance, the applicant agreed to
provide 43 off-site parking spaces in the eastern portion of the drainage right-of-way at 960 David Road.
Concurrent with this application, GoKart Racer submitted a request to reduce the number of parking spaces
provided within the drainage right-of-way (from 43 to 20) and to relocate its parking from the eastern to the western
portion of the site. This allows Tesla Motors to submit a request for a Conditional Use Permit to use the eastern
portion of the site for vehicle storage.
February 23, 2015 Planning Commission Action Meeting: At the February 23, 2015 Planning Commission
meeting, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent) to approve the application for a
Conditional Use Permit to store automobiles in the drainage right-of way at 960 David Road (see attached February
23, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes). Shortly thereafter, a Planning Commissioner realized that there was a
conflict of interest and should have recused from the discussion and voting on the application. Accordingly, the City
Attorney subsequently determined that the February 23, 2015 Planning Commission action was not valid and that a
new public hearing would be required. There are no changes to the application since it was reviewed by the
Planning Commission on February 23, 2015.
Project Summary: The applicant, Tesla Motors (Tesla), is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow automobile
storage in the drainage right-of-way on the eastern portion of the property located at 960 David Road, zoned RR.
Tesla currently bases its sales and service operations at 50 Edwards Court in Burlingame but is proposing to utilize
68 spaces at 960 David Road for overflow short term parking. Tesla is not proposing to make any physical changes
to the site. The following application is required:
Conditional Use Permit to allow automobile storage in the drainage right-of-way (C.S. 25.44.060 (b) (2)).
Item 8a
Action Calendar
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
2
960 David Road is approximately two acres in size and much of it was graded and paved for parking many years
ago. Tesla is proposing to utilize the eastern portion of the site measuring approximately 22,980 SF to store up to
68 vehicles (see Site Plan date stamped February 10, 2015). The other portions of the 960 David Road property are
leased to other entities and no changes are proposed to those areas with this application. For reference, 20 spaces
would be associated with the GoKart Racer business at 1541 Adrian Road (front, western portion of lot) and the
remainder of the paved lot is associated with the Unga family for vehicle storage (rear, western portion of lot).
The RR zoning district requires a Conditional Use Permit for storage for operable vehicles including automobiles
and trucks within the drainage right-of-way provided the following requirements are met: a) vehicles must be in
operable condition and must be managed at all times by a single, responsible person with access to the keys for all
vehicles; b) vehicles shall be moved by appointment only and shall not be moved during a.m. and p.m. peak hour
traffic periods as defined by the City Engineer; c) minimum site size of 0.7 acres; d) site has approved access to a
public street; and e) no customers shall visit the site. The City Engineer defines the peak hour traffic periods as
weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on
Saturday and Sunday. Planning staff would note that the proposed use of the drainage right-of-way complies with
all of the listed requirements.
Tesla employees would be the only persons accessing the site and any vehicles on it, and no customers would ever
visit the site. The vehicles would be driven to and from the drainage right-of-way strictly by Tesla staff during off-
peak hours on both the weekends and the weekdays. Keys to the vehicles would be stored offsite at the 50
Edwards Court location and would be available to the manager of that location if it was necessary to relocate cars in
an emergency situation.
No structures are proposed for the site. As a Condition of Approval, if any structures or improvements (including
temporary or portable structures) are proposed for the site, the applicant will need to contact the Building Division
prior to the installation of those structures or improvements, to discuss City requirements.
Staff Comments: This application was placed directly on the regular action calendar because it includes a request
for an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance. If the Commission feels
there is a need for the applicant to provide additional information, this item may be continued to a future meeting.
There were no comments from the City divisions.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for parking in the drainage
easement the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section
25.52.020 a-c):
(a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
(b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and
the purposes of this title;
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to
secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed.
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
3
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be taken by resolution and should include findings made for the Conditional Use Permit. The reasons for any action
should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 10, 2015, sheet A1.0; and that any changes to this application shall be brought back to the
Planning Commission as an amendment;
2. that the eastern portion of the site shall only be used by Tesla Motors for vehicle storage for up to 68
vehicles; that vehicles shall be brought to and from the site by Tesla employees only; that no customers
shall ever visit the 960 David Road drainage right-of-way site;
3. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to flooding;
4. that if any structures or improvements are proposed for the site (including temporary or portable structures),
the applicant must contact the Building Division, prior to the installation of those structures or improvements,
to discuss City requirements;
5. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the property, per §503
International Fire Code;
6. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
7. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
8. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators
shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to
ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
9. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm
water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into
the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil
separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the
rainy season (October 15 – April 1);
10. that vehicles associated with the business shall not be moved during the peak traffic hours (weekdays from
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday
and Sunday.
11. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from the adjacent
parcels;
12. that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility and liability
of the applicant;
13. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in regard to the
proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney
and executed prior to issuance of the permit; and
14. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Storage in Drainage Right-of-Way 960 David Road
4
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Tesla Motors, applicant
Frank Edwards Company, Inc., property owner
Attachments:
February 23, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Explanation Letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped February 10, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Application
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 23, 2015
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 -
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/18/2015
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for
Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage in the drainage right-of-way in the RR Zoning District at
960 David Road, Zoned RR, Frank Edwards Co. Inc.,1565 Adrian Road, Burlingame, CA, 94010
property owner, APN: 025-271-090;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March
23, 2015, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that existing facilities,
consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical
features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
agency's determination are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report,
minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
960 David Road
Effective April 2, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped February 10, 2015, sheet A1.0; and that any changes to this application
shall be brought back to the Planning Commission as an amendment;
2. that the eastern portion of the site shall only be used by Tesla Motors for vehicle storage
for up to 68 vehicles; that vehicles shall be brought to and from the site by Tesla
employees only; that no customers shall ever visit the 960 David Road drainage right-of-
way site;
3. that signs shall be posted along the perimeter of the site denoting area subject to
flooding;
4. that if any structures or improvements are proposed for the site (including temporary or
portable structures), the applicant must contact the Building Division, prior to the
installation of those structures or improvements, to discuss City requirements;
5. that fire lanes and fire apparatus access be maintained to 150 feet of all parts of the
property, per §503 International Fire Code;
6. that there shall be no loose trash or litter on the property;
7. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
8. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all
sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately
following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers;
maintenance records shall be kept on-site;
9. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be
routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then
the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on
a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season
(October 15 – April 1);
10. that vehicles associated with the business shall not be moved during the peak traffic
hours (weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), with no time
restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday and Sunday.
11. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from
the adjacent parcels;
12. that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the
responsibility and liability of the applicant;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit.
960 David Road
Effective April 2, 2015
Page 2
13. that the applicant executes a separate hold-harmless and indemnification agreement in
regard to the proposed use at this particular site, and that the agreement shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney and executed prior to issuance of the permit; and
14. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 225 Dwight Road Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Request: Design review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc. APN: 029-254-300
Property Owner: Sinhad and Medina Begic Lot Area: 10,395
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The subject property is 10,395 SF and is an L-shaped lot with a 50’ x 50’ portion that
wraps around the rear of the adjacent property to the right (223 Dwight Road). The existing house is one-
story with 5 bedrooms (includes office) and 3 bathrooms. There is a detached two-car garage located at the
rear of the property. The applicant proposes a first and second story addition. The first floor addition will add
68 SF at the front of the house expanding the front porch and foyer. The new second floor will total 1,372
SF. The total proposed floor area is 4,824 SF (0.46 FAR), where 4,826 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum
allowed.
The proposed addition will increase the number of potential bedrooms from 5 to 7. The existing detached
garage provides two covered parking spaces (20' x 20') and there is a single uncovered parking space (9' x
20') in the driveway leading to the garage. The three existing parking spaces meet the code requirements
for on-site parking for a 7-bedroom house.
All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:
Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
Address
Lot Area: 10,395 SF Plans date stamped: February 27, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
24'-10"
N/A
24’-6”
39’-1”
15'-0" (block average- 24’6”)
20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
4'-8"
11'-2"
No change
No change
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
36’-0"
N/A
No change
52’-1”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 3,080 SF
29.6%
3,148 SF
30.2%
4,158 SF
40%
FAR: 3,421 SF
0.21 FAR
4,824 SF
0.46 FAR
4,826 SF 1
0.46 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 7 ---
Parking: 2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 20'-1" 29’-10” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075(b)(2) applied
to the right side
¹ (0.32 x 10,395 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,826 SF (0.46 FAR)
Item No. 8b
Action Item
Design Review 225 Dwight Road
-2-
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division,
Parks Division, and Stormwater Division.
Design Review Study Meeting (February 9, 2015): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study
meeting on February 9, 2015, the Commission had some comments and suggestions regarding this project
and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped February 27, 2015, to address
the Planning Commission’s questions and comments.
The designer's response letter notes that the following changes have been made to the project:
front window to the right of the entrance has been increased in width from 2’ to 2’-6”;
the rear second floor deck has been reduced in depth by 4’ and the deck area that wraps around
the recreation room, along the left side, was removed; and
three (3) screening trees were added along the rear property line and two (2) screening trees
were added along the right side property line (species to be selected in consultation with the
neighbor-noted on plans).
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by
the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the
application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should
include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by
resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record.
At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 27, 2015, sheets T.0- through AD.2;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 14, 2015 and November 26, 2014 memos, the
Parks Division’s January 15, 2015 and December 2, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s
December 4, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s December 3, 2014 memo and the Storm water
Division’s December 114, 2014 memo shall be met;
Design Review 225 Dwight Road
-3-
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer
Design Review 225 Dwight Road
-4-
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated February 27, 2015
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Letters submitted (via email) by Mr. and Mrs. Farney, dated February 6, 2015 and March 13, 2015
Letter submitted (via email) by Mary-Helen and Kevin McMahon, dated March 17, 2015
Application to the Planning Commission
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 12, 2015
Aerial Photo
Mary & Richard Griffith
……………..
Burlingame, CA 94010
……………….
March 18, 2015
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attn: City Planner: Catherine Barber
RE: Application for Design Review
225 Dwight Road; APN 029-254-300
Dear Ms. Barber:
Thank you for the March 13th notification of the upcoming design review for the above
captioned parcel. My husband and I are neighbors to the residents at 225 Dwight. We
may not be able to attend the upcoming planning commission meeting so I’m writing to
express my concerns about the remodeling request being made by 225 Dwight Road.
It is our understanding the proposed house will be very large containing seven bathrooms
and seven bedrooms. Its size will be about 5,000 square feet. Since the lot is an identical
lot to our own, we cannot imagine how a house this large will fit on the modestly sized
lots that we as neighbors enjoy. A house this monstrous will surely diminish neighboring
property values due to its sheer volume and height. It will also block the sunlight for the
surrounding parcels.
Furthermore, seven bedrooms and baths will likely beget at least seven occupants;
perhaps more. This will increase the parking needs for the occupants, potentially creating
issues with the availability of street parking for other neighbors. It will also increase
water/sewage usage, and the noise factor.
We will also mention there is currently a large recreational vehicle parked in the
driveway at 225 Dwight Road which appears to be occupied. We believe this is not in
compliance with our city ordinance (Ord. 1259 § 1, (1983); Ord. 1793 § 5, (2006)).
Although not a part of this remodeling request, its presence reflects poorly on our
neighbors aesthetic sensibilities towards his neighbors. One could wager the neighbors
do not bring this vehicle to the city’s attention so as to not disturb the relationships within
the neighborhood. Perhaps that is why not many speak out about the remodel’s
deficiencies. Conjecture yes, but nonetheless troubling.
Furthermore a request is being made to add a second story with a very large balcony on
the second floor. In our opinion a large second story deck will be at least noisy and very
intrusive to the surrounding neighbors. It will also diminish the privacy of the adjacent
neighbors. There is no reason to have a deck this large on the second story; there is no
view, unless one has an odd penchant for peering into the adjoining properties.
03.23.15 PC Meeting
Item 8b
225 Dwight Road
Page 1 of 2
COMMUNICATION
RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
MAR 19 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD – PLANNING DIV.
In our opinion a house of this size is not in keeping with the character of our
neighborhood. If square footage of this magnitude is not prohibited by current code, it
may be time to consider setting a total allowable cap, as homes are being built that are
clearly out of proportion to the typical Burlingame residential neighborhoods that feature
narrow lots. We are certainly not opposed to our neighbors improving their properties; in
fact, at some point we hope to be able to make some changes to our own. And we will
applaud an improved design in keeping with the heritage afforded our Lyon & Hoag
neighborhood. Unfortunately we do not see the proposed changes to be in keeping with
the tranquility and charm of what we currently enjoy.
We certainly hope you’ll give due consideration to our opinion and ask our neighbor to
scale back his plans.
Sincerely,
Mary & Richard Griffith
03.23.15 PC Meeting
Item 8b
225 Dwight Road
Page 2 of 2
PROJECT LOCATION
1516 Howard Avenue
Item No. 8a
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1516 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: July 13, 2015
Request: Application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design APN: 028-291-040
Property Owner: 1516 Howard LLC Lot Area: 7,057 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review : The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based
upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 5, 2014.
The results of the evaluation concluded that 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for
listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria.
Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. Based
on the analysis by Page and Turnbull, it was determined that there would be no adverse environmental impacts,
and a Negative Declaration has been prepared (see attached ND-579-P).
The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the
initial study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and
Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental
impact.
Project History: This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 24, 2014 as a design
review study item and on February 9 and March 23, 2015 as action items (see attached meeting minutes). At its
meeting of March 23, 2015, the Planning Commission denied with prejudice the applicant’s request for a
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage. The Planning Commission’s concerns focused on the design of the
front porch, noting that the front porch is not harmonious with the rest of the house and that additional work was
needed to resolve the issue.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s action, the applicant and project designer, Mark Robertson, appealed
the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. At its meeting of May 4, 2015, the City Council overturned
the Planning Commission’s decision of denying the application with prejudice, and instead voted to deny the
application without prejudice, and directed that the application return to the Planning Commission with a strong
sense that the applicant and the Planning Commission can work out the issues with a renewed effort (see
attached May 4, 2015 City Council Minutes). They also directed that the revised plans be reviewed by a design
review consultant prior to Planning Commission review.
In their discussion, the Council noted that they were not necessary requiring that a porch be added to the front of
the house, but rather that the front of the house be articulated better so it does not look like the back entrance to
a home.
Item No. 8a
Action Item
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
2
Summary of Changes to Project: The applicant submitted a response letter, dated June 24, 2015 and revised
plans date stamped June 26, 2015 to address the comments and concerns expressed by the City Council and
Planning Commission. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design
review consultant is provided in the next section.
In working with the design review consultant, the applicant replaced the previously proposed flat roof porch at the
entry (5’-10” wide) with a new, larger front porch which extends across the entry and living room (19’-2” wide).
The porch depth was also increased from 4’-2” to 7’-4” by extending the porch out further and eliminating the box
bay in the living room. The porch roof was revised from a flat roof to a combination hip and gable roof. In
addition, the front entry door was brought forward by 3’-9”. Lastly, a stone veneer wainscot was added at the
front of the house. Please refer to sheets 5 and 6 on the revised plans, date stamped June 26, 2015.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer
and property owner to discuss the Planning Commission's and City Council’s concerns with the project and
reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated
June 16, 2015, for a detailed review of the project.
In conclusion, the reviewer notes that “the applicant has responded very well to the comments and concerns and
has agreed to add a front porch to the project. It was made clear that a porch was not “required” but the
applicant and designer have taken the comments seriously, and agreed to make this change.” The reviewer
comments that the proposed porch design is somewhat different than the other houses on the block and that it
provides interest and a distinguished look from the other homes. The reviewer notes that the design is a
neighbor-friendly and compatible design is recommending approval of the project with no suggestions for
additional changes.
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and
attached single-car garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The
proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,628 SF (0.51 FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53
FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 130
SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 3% of the maximum allowed FAR.
A total of three off-street parking spaces are required for the proposed five-bedroom house, two of which must
be covered. The new detached garage will provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces; one uncovered
parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The
applicant is requesting the following applications:
Negative Declaration, a determination that there are no significant environmental effects as a result of
this project;
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1));
and
Special Permit for declining height envelope (79 SF along the right side of the house extends beyond the
declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075).
As noted above, the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the
right side of the house. The point of departure for the declining height envelope is based on the average of the
front and rear property corner spot elevations at each side (cannot be based on the 15-foot front and rear
setback lines because the difference between these two points is not more than 2’-0”) (Code Section 25.26.075
(b) (4)). Due to the abrupt downward slope caused by an existing creek running along the rear of the lot, the
point of departure for the declining height envelope at each side of the house is approximately four feet below
the finished floor of the house. As a result, the right side of the house extends 79 SF beyond the declining
height envelope.
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
3
1516 Howard Avenue
Lot Area: 7,057 SF Plans date stamped: June 26, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
19'-3”
27'-8”
19'-3” (block average)
20'-0”
Side (left):
(right):
12'-0"
4’-0”
4'-0"
4’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
54’-9” to porch
54’-9” to balcony
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2545 SF
36%
2823 SF
40%
FAR: 3628 SF
0.51 FAR
3758 SF 1
0.53 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 26’-6” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Request for Special Permit ²
(79 SF extends beyond the declining
height envelope)
CS 25.26.075
1 (0.32 x 7,075 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR)
² Request for Special Permit for declining height envelope (79 SF along the right side of the house extends
beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that Burlingame Creek runs along the rear of the property. There
are no improvements proposed beyond the top of bank. As part of the building permit application, the applicant
will be required to provide engineering calculations to demonstrate that the will be no impacts to the bank or
creek. See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Negative Declaration: Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, the proposed project is
subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an
environmental scoping session for this project on November 24, 2014. An Initial Study was prepared by the
Planning Division staff. It has been determined that the proposed project can be covered by a Negative
Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts from the proposed construction of the new
single family dwelling and detached garage (please refer to the attached Negative Declaration No. 579-P). The
Negative Declaration was circulated for 20 days for public review on January 20, 2015. The 20-day review period
ended on February 9, 2015 and no comments were received on the Negative Declaration.
Required Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review
and approve the Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in
writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
(negative) effect on the environment.
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
4
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): That because of the abrupt downward
slope caused by an existing creek running along the rear of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height
envelope at each side of the house is approximately four feet below the finished floor of the house which causes
the declining height envelope to extend into the house at a lower elevation, that the encroachment is consistent
with the design, and that the second floor wall which extends into the declining height envelope is broken up by
articulated walls at various setbacks and windows distributed along the wall, the project may be found to be
compatible with the special permit criteria.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report and within the Negative
Declaration. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution including
conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be
clearly stated.
1. Negative Declaration.
2. Design Review.
3. Special Permit.
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
June 26, 2015, sheets 1 through 7, L0 and L1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
5
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s November 6, 2014, October 24, 2014 and September 15,
2014 memos, the Parks Division’s October 29, 2014 and September 18, 2014 memos, the Engineering
Division’s November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014 memos, the Fire Division’s September 15, 2014
memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 27, 2014 and September 4, 2014 memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation
at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
6
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Design Review Analysis, dated June 16, 2015
Applicant’s Response letter, dated June 24, 2015
May 4, 2015 City Council Minutes
March 23, 2105 Planning Commission Minutes
Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, dated February 25, 2015
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, dated December 16, 2014
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed July 2, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-579-P), dated January 20, 2015
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 5, 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame
County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-579-P)
Project Title: 1516 Howard Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
Project Location: 1516 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Description: The proposal is to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and attached garage on
site and to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. The
proposed new structures would cover 34.1% (2,411 SF) of the 7,057 SF lot, where 40% (2,823 SF) is the maximum lot
coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,613 SF (0.51 FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed detached garage located at the rear of the site (20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior
dimensions) would provide two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house; one uncovered parking
space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review and Special Permit for declining
height envelope for a new house.
This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a
Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3,
Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that
properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical
Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that
it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places.
In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby
given of the City’s intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is
prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and
there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on
the basis of an Initial Study, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has
prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California, 94010.
As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on January
20, 2015. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on
February 9, 2015. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination
set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and
factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning
Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial
Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period
described above.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Design Review for a new, two-story single
family dwelling at 1516 Howard Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been
tentatively scheduled for February 9, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California. Posted: January 20, 2015
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
1516 HOWARD AVENUE
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
1. Project Title: 1516 Howard Avenue, New Two-Story Single Family
Dwelling with a Detached Garage
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William Meeker, Community Development Director
(650) 558-7250
4. Project Location: 1516 Howard Avenue
Burlingame, California 94010
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 1516 Howard LLC
1499 Bayshore Highway #229
Burlingame, CA 94010
6. General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 028-291040
8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and
attached garage on site and to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at
1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed new structures would cover 34.1% (2,411 SF) of the
7,057 SF lot, where 40% (2,823 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a
total floor area of 3,613 SF (0.51 FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The
proposed detached garage located at the rear of the site (20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions)
would provide two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house; one uncovered
parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review and
Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new house.
This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the
Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame
Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have
historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has
been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision,
in the southern portion of Burlingame west of El Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built
in 1933) and the garage remain on the property today. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well
as neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908.
The majority of this area is made up of single family residential properties; there is multifamily
development along El Camino Real. The Town of Hillsborough lies three blocks to the south of the
subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies one block to the north of the
subject property.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public
agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the
Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
The site currently contains a two-story single family dwelling and attached garage. The proposed project
consists of demolishing the existing house and garage and building a new, two-story single family dwelling with
a detached garage. The proposed new structures would cover 34.1% (2,411 SF) of the 7,057 SF lot, where 40%
(2,823 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,613 SF (0.51
FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is subject to residential Design Review
and a Special Permit for declining height envelope to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
The height as measured from average top of curb will be 26’-6” where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed. The
house will be set back 19’-3" from the front property line where 19’-3” is the minimum required (based on the
average front setback of the block). Exterior materials on the proposed house include a composition shingle
roof, redwood or cedar shingle siding and wood eave brackets. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will be
required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed
onto the site.
With the proposed new house and three new landscape trees, views from surrounding properties will be
minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are one and two-story
dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area.
While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site
compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing
houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 – Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2013
edition.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
Site Visit, January 12, 2015.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion
The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include
active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not
convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a
Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion
The proposed application is for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage.
While this project will accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is
insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper
adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any
deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures
and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected
wetlands, through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
The site contains an existing single family residence and attached garage. Currently, there are six landscape
trees, ranging in size from 3 inches to 15 inches in diameter, and four fruit trees, for a total of 10 trees on-site.
The applicant is proposing to remove five landscape trees and three fruit trees (eight trees total being
removed), none of which are of a protected size, to accommodate the proposed project. An existing 15-inch
diameter Palm tree at the front of the property and a 7-inch diameter apple tree at the rear of the property,
both located along the right side property line will be retained.
The proposed project includes removing an existing street tree (Flaxleaf Paperbark) located within the City’s
planter strip to accommodate a new driveway apron off Howard Avenue (the existing driveway apron located
on the north end of the lot will be replaced with a new driveway apron on the south end of the lot). In the
Parks Division Memorandums dated September 18, 2014 and October 29, 2014, the Parks Supervisor notes
that the owner must apply for and receive approval of a Tree Work Plan Permit to remove the existing street
tree. In addition, the applicant will be required to remove the existing concrete within the City’s planter strip
and install two, 15-gallon trees of a species approved by the Parks Division.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
9
In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is
required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of
habitable space. Based on the proposed floor area, a minimum of three landscape trees are required on-site.
The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape
plan indicates that the four new landscape trees will be planted throughout the site, including one 24-inch box
size Lagerstroemia indica ‘Tuscarora’ (Crape Myrtle) tree, one 24-inch box size Magnolia grandiflora ‘Samuel
Sommer’ (Magnolia) tree, one 24-inch box size Sapium sebiferum (Chinese tallow) tree and one, 24-inch box
size Pyrus calleryana ‘Chanticleer’ (Callery pear) tree.
Burlingame Creek is located along the rear property line of the subject property. There is no work proposed to
Burlingame Creek and the nearest construction is a new detached garage which does not extend beyond the
top of bank. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Burlingame’s Engineering Division will require
that a licensed engineer provide engineering calculations to demonstrate that there will be no impacts to the
creek or banked slope.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated October 29, 2014 and September 18, 2014.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 – Zoning, Burlingame, California
Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State
Department of Fish and Game.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
10
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that
were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the
entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions
may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property
located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant
development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible
for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., and dated August 5,
2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Those four criteria include Events, Persons, Architecture
and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was
conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.:
“The residence at 1516 Howard Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not
appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record
of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of
Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed
locally.
Constructed in 1933, 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National
or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California
or the United States. The house is associated with the 1920s to 1930s construction boom in Burlingame Park,
but it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. The property therefore does
not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion
A/1.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
11
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register
under Criterion B/2 (Persons). None of the residents and none of the owners appear to have contributed to
local or state history and thus do not meet the threshold for significance for historic register inclusion.
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or
California Register under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction. 1516 Howard Avenue is a good example of a single-family Spanish
Colonial Revival-style house. In addition, it was built by Charlie Hammer, who built in the Spanish Colonial
Revival style. The building, however, it is not a distinctive or prominent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival
style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. It therefore appears ineligible for listing in the
California Register under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per
National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically
reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 1516 Howard Avenue for eligibility under
California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report.
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue retains integrity of location and setting. It is situated on its original lot, and
the surrounding neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family houses. The wall that
surrounds the building was constructed in 1987, but it does not significantly impact the setting. Records show
only one exterior alteration to the finish of the flat roof, but the aluminum and other metal sashes of many of
the windows indicate replacements. The exterior wood casings of the windows are still present, however, and
thus mollify the visual impact of the metal sashes. Because the majority of the building’s form, cladding, and
materials appear to be original and building permits do not indicate otherwise, integrity of design, materials,
and workmanship are largely intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early to mid-
twentieth-century residential development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains
integrity of feeling and association. Overall the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic
context.
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any
Criteria. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property,
meaning that it was “found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through
survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic
district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century
residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would
need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district.”
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
1516 Howard Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated
August 5, 2014
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
12
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as
it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
The site is flat and located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential
dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less
seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the new single family residence will comply
with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San
Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the
California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
13
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps,
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/, accessed March, 2014.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map
MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated November 6, 2014; October 24, 2014; September 15,
2014.
Project Plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
14
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality
standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its
very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result
in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to
existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative
impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance
for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be
expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG
emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above
the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be
considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG
reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e;
or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include
residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and
equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If
annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project
would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively
significant impact to global climate change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project
meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria,
then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
15
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and
Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family
residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit.
On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed
to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines
(BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality
thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining
information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures.
However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that
these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may
continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the
significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that
project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in
the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are
the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project.
First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA
and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are
lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is
more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this
analysis.
In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the
56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential
development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions.
Climate Action Plan. Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term
solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful
consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major
sources of emissions from Burlingame’s Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include:
energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs.
Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce
emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame’s Green Building
Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1 (15% above Title 24) of the Green Building
Ordinance or LEED Silver shall be accepted as the methods of meeting compliance with this ordinance. By
complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would it conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
16
Sources
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related
Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated November 6, 2014; October 24, 2014; September 15,
2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this
project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any
emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known
health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by
the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or
potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site
does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
18
Sources:
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February,
2012.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
19
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion
This project includes a new two-story single family dwelling and a new detached garage on the lot. Burlingame
Creek is located along the rear property line of the subject property. The project site is shown on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No.
06081C0153E. The majority of the site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year flood zone.
Zone X is described as an area of moderate risk to flooding (outside of the 100-year flood but inside the 500-
year flood limits) (determined to be within the limits of one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain).
The rear portion of the site containing Burlingame Creek is located in Flood Zone A, which is a Special Flood
Zone Area subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood. The 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood),
also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
There is no work proposed to Burlingame Creek and the nearest construction is a new detached garage which
does not extend beyond the top of creek bank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
20
The ground floor of the project is proposed to be constructed approximately 0'-8” above average top of curb
(elevation 95.33’). The subject property is relatively flat, and all of the surface water will be required to drain
to the street frontage. As required by the Public Works Department – Engineering Division, roof and surface
water will not be allowed to drain onto adjacent properties. Water will either be absorbed by soft landscaping
or be collected and directed out to the street.
The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate
capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street.
Compared to the existing site conditions, the proposed project includes additional landscaping and pervious
paving for the walkways, driveway and patio. As a result, the proposed project would significantly decrease
the amount of impervious surface on the site from 4,175 square feet to 2,411 square feet. Since the site is less
than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water
conservation measures as required by the City will be met.
The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by
groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of
the site is anticipated.
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP’s during
construction.
This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be
determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation
design plans at time of the building permit application.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter 26.16 – Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame,
California.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood
Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012.
City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memoranda dated November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated October 27, 2014 and September 4, 2014.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
21
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
The subject property is currently occupied by a two-story single family dwelling and attached garage and the
proposed project is a two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The Zoning Code requires a
minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing
lot is 7,057 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code
allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre
and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.16 acres, a density of 1.3 units per acre. Therefore, this
proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements.
The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to
the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding
properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city
limits.
The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result
in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would
be no impact from the project on land use and planning.
The proposed residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code. The project is further
subject to single family residential Design Review. The Planning Commission will review the project and
determine compliance with Design Review and Special Permit criteria.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
22
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Discussion
According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain
any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
23
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
12. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. With the proposed single
family dwelling, there will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area. The noise in the
area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the
residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new structure will be
compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise
attenuation.
Construction of the proposed dwelling will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing
construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code,
which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International
Airport.
The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible
vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than
significant.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
24
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated November 6, 2014; October 24, 2014; September 15,
2014.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012.
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
25
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed single family
dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent
any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element.
The proposed project will not create any more housing because it replaces an existing single family dwelling on
the same parcel. Since the subject property contains a single family dwelling, the project would not displace
existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not required for the
single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population growth. Thus, there
would be no impact from the project on population and housing.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
26
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes
replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling on the site, which represents an
insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services
in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed residential unit.
Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which
also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California
Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process,
the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure
compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety
measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety
regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection
services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project’s potential impact on fire
protection services would be less than significant.
Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located
at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of replacing single family dwelling with a new single
family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require
the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project’s potential impact on police services would be
less than significant.
Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for
grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would
not add any additional residential units; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children
would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be
accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
27
The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds,
an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential
units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated September 15, 2014.
City of Burlingame Website, www.burlingame.org
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
28
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
15. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any
proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project
are not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of a replacing a
single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling, the project would not generate additional demand for
parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
29
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
The site is on Howard Avenue, a collector street that provides access to El Camino Real, a regional arterial.
This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local
roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic
or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities.
The new dwelling has five potential bedrooms (the office on the first floor qualifies as a bedroom since it
exceeds the minimum standard of being at least 70 SF in area and with a minimum dimension of at least 7’-0”).
Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The proposed detached garage
(20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom
house. One uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-street
parking requirement established in the zoning code.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
30
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February,
2012
Project plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
31
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject
property by an existing 12-inch cast iron pipe along Howard Avenue. The proposed residence will be
connected to an existing 8-inch sewer main along Howard Avenue. To prevent flooding a backflow
prevention device is required to be installed. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street
frontage, where it will flow along Howard Avenue to a catch basin at the intersection of Howard Avenue and El
Camino Real. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and
storm drainage systems to accommodate the new house. Therefore, the project’s impact to wastewater
treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant.
The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to
these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be
installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure
will be checked and replaced if necessary.
The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San
Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain
Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by
existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable
regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
32
Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be
required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste
separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the
project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated October 27, 2014 and September 4, 2014.
Recology San Mateo County, www.recologysanmateocounty.com , site accessed January, 2015.
Project Plans date stamped December 16, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 1516 Howard Avenue
33
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term
increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant
level, as described throughout the Initial Study.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was
conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No
project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed
project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code_____________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page _1_ of _13 Resource name(s) or number 1516 Howard Avenue
P1. Other Identifier: 1516 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date: 1999
*c. Address 1516 Howard Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 028-291-040
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1516 Howard Avenue is a split level two-story 1,362 sq. ft. residential building located on an approximately 7 ,340 sq. ft. lot on the
west side of Howard Avenue, between El Camino Real and Crescent Avenue. The building has a rectangular plan and was built in
1933 in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The house is a wood frame building over a concrete foundation and clad in painted
stucco. All windows in the building have metal sashes and are surrounded by exter ior wood casings. The majority of the building is
capped by a flat roof which is visible only on the north and rear (west) façades (Figure 1 & Figure 8). The top edge of the flat-
roofed portion features a trim of red terracotta tile. At the front, the main entrance, and at the rear, the building features gabled and
shed roofs, all of which are covered in rounded terracotta tiles.
The primary (east) façade faces toward Howard Avenue and is comprised of three volumes with varied setbacks and heights. The
south volume is the narrowest and most recessed of the three and is obscured behind the wing wall of the central volume (Figure
2). The narrow south volume is one story, slightly elevated above grade, and contains the main entrance. The main entrance is
comprised of a wood slab v-joint door with brass hardware (Figure 3).The entrance is set within a south-facing wall and is
accessed via a small porch. Roughly hewn multi-colored stone steps lead to the porch, and the porch floor is covered in the same
material. The steps have a wrought iron banister. The south wall of the porch contains a wrought iron railing and a corner column
that supports the roof (Figure 2 & Figure 4). The west wall of the porch contains a single-hung window. The porch is capped with
a shed roof. (see continuation sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) R-1: Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View of east façade, facing west,
August 5, 2014
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:
1933 (Appraisal Report, Assessor’s
Office, San Mateo County, dated
January 5, 1934)
*P7. Owner and Address:
1516 Howard Llc
1499 Bayshore Hwy #229
Burlingame, CA, 94010
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
*P9. Date Recorded:
August 5, 2014
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:
none
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description (continued):
The central volume is the widest of the three volumes and closest to the sidewalk. It is one story and comprised of a wing wall with
an archway that opens to the south volume. The central volume also features a glazed arched picture window, inset slightly. Below
the window, are two decorative vents ornamented with miniature spiraled columns. The central volume is capped with an
asymmetrical gable roof. Rising above the single-story central volume, and set far back from the sidewalk, a second story is visible.
One second story window is visible and the second story volume is capped with a shed roof. Brackets support the overhanging
eave of the shed roof.
The north volume is further set back than the central volume and is two stories tall. On the first story, it features a roll-up wood-
panel garage door with glazing. The second story features a balcony that is accessed by a set of double doors , each containing
four windows. The balcony features turned wooden balusters and square corner columns featuring carved diagonal braces that
support the roof. The balcony is capped with a shed roof with exposed rafter tails visible underneath the eave. The soffit of the
balcony is beamed and the ends of the beams are molded (Figure 6).
The south façade has two setbacks. The east end of the façade, which is further set back, contains a tapered chimney that projects
from the façade and is clad in stucco (Figure 5). The east ends of the façade also features two single-hung windows. The west half
of the façade projects to the south and contains three sliding windows. Two of the windows are paired with a shared wood sill.
Above, brackets support the overhanging eave.
The rear (west) façade is divided into three volumes with varied setbacks, shapes, and heights (Figure 7). The south volume is a
single story, rectangular in shape, and contains a slider window. Below the window is a decorative vent with miniature spiraled
columns, identical to the decorative vents on the façade. The central volume has two stories, with the first story elevated
approximately four feet above grade. A porch projects from the central volume and is accessed by non-original steps of a
composite material. The stairway features wrought iron hand rails. The porch features wood board flooring, thick wood corner
columns, and a wood balustrade. The balcony is capped with a shed roof, with exposed wood rafters underneath. The back porch
is accessed from the interior by a set of three doors, each comprised of a large rectangular window framed in wood; and an
additional wood panel door leads into the south volume. The second story of the central bay contains two single-hung windows.
The roofline is capped with a strip of terracotta tile. The north volume contains a wood panel door with a window, as well as a
single-hung window. An angled bay protrudes on the second floor. Each face of the bay contains a single-hung window.
The north façade is two stories tall (Figure 1 & Figure 8). The first story features two single-hung windows. The second story
projects slightly over the first, forming a jetty that features a string of small brackets with an angled profile. The second story
contains five windows. Three of the windows are the same size and are double hung and the remaining two windows are smaller
and appear to be single hung.
The house sits in the front half of the lot and is preceded by an ample front yard (Figure 1). The front yard is surrounded by a 2’
high, non-original stucco wall capped with square tiles. The wall contains an opening to accommodate a concrete path, stamped to
give the impression of laid stone. The path leads to the residence’s main entrance and runs along the south façade to the back
yard (Figure 4). The wall also contains an opening for the driveway which is also capped in stamped concrete. The front yard
contains a Giant Dracaena tree, and the open space between the front porch and the wing wall contains a small foliated tree.
At the back of the building, a paved patio abuts the buildings (Figure 7). The backyard also contains a partially enclosed wood
shed, capped in corrugated metal (Figure 9). A barbecue with a brick chimney is built into the shed. In addition, the back yard also
contains numerous trees, including two citrus trees, a pear tree, an apple tree, and a persimmon tree.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 1. Primary (east) and north facades, viewed facing
southwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 2. Main entrance projecting from the south facade,
viewed facing northwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 3. Main entrance door.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 4. Partial view of the south facade, viewed facing
west. Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 5. South façade, viewed facing northeast.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 6. Balcony on the primary (east) façade.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 7. Rear (west) façade, viewed facing east.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 8. North façade, viewed facing southeast.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 9. Outbuilding in the backyard, viewed facing north.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 5 of 13 *NRHP Status Code__6Z________________________
*Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
B1. Historic name: none
B2. Common name: none
B3. Original Use: Single Family Residence B4. Present use: Single Family Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Style
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
The building was constructed in 1933 by Charlie Hammer of Hammer & Tosch Co., a builder and contractor firm (permit #278;
Appraisal Report, Assessor’s Office, San Mateo County January 5, 1934). There are no early photos of the house, but there are
photos of the neighboring house at 1520 Howard Avenue. 1520 Howard Avenue is a mirror image of 1516 Howard Avenue and is
recorded in the 1954 Real Estate File at the Burlingame Historical Society to have been built by Charlie Hammer (Figure 10-12).
In 1985, the roof of 1516 Howard Street was insulated with polyurethane spray foam (permit #11145), and a letter dating to June
16, 1986 indicates that the insulation may have been redone. In 1987 the 2’ high wall surrounding the front lawn was constructed
(permit #3621). Although no permit has been found regarding the windows, a visual inspection suggests that many, if not all, of the
window sashes have been replaced since the original construction with metal replacement sashes. The stairs at the back porch do
not appear original either, but cannot be dated because associated permits have not been found .
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________
*B8. Related Features: none
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Charlie Hammer
*B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture____________ Area Burlingame Park___________________
Period of Significance ___n/a____ Property Type Single family residence____ Applicable Criteria___N/A______
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context:
City of Burlingame
The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given by
Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several
prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over
1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the U.S. Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to
Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period,
with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations.
In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an
exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small -
scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between
large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve
the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (see continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
(see continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: August 5, 2014
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2014.
N
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 7 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B10. Significance (continued):
Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and S an Francisco in 1903.
However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their
homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses.
Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910
annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was als o annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Park Neighborhood
The house at 1516 Howard was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame
Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by
Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop pla ns
for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive
residential development to be called Burlingame Park.
Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in th e 1890s under Francis Newlands.
Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan
“centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree -lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin
1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The
neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club, and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City
of Burlingame in 1911.
Burlingame Park is bounded by El Camino Real to the northeast; Howard, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the southeast;
Pepper Avenue to the southwest; and Bellevue Avenue to the northwest. Burlingame Par k, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingam e
Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that B urlingame Park developed over
a period of about fifty years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s , and the majority
of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these we re designed in high architectural
styles and were much grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burli ngame
Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was
first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day.
1516 Howard Avenue
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue was constructed in 1933, 28 years after the Burlingame Park neighborhood was first platted in
1905. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicate that the house was built in the later period of the area’s development. In 1921,
about half of the lots within the subdivision had been developed, but by 1949, almost all lots were built out (Figure 13-14).
1516 Howard Avenue was built by Charlie Hammer. A number of residences throughout Burlingame and Hillsborough have been
attributed to Hammer. Most appear to be split-level Spanish Colonial Revival style homes from the 1930s. Hammer also built at
least one Ranch-style home in Hillsborough.
Hammer is listed in the 1925 city directory as a building contractor by profession. He and his wife Frida, lived at 1524 Floribunda
Avenue in Burlingame. By the mid-1930s, he had a development business together with real estate broker, Maurice Tosch of San
Mateo. The business was located across from the train station on Burlingame Square (1090 Burlingame Square) where
Burlingame Realty was located for many years.
Original permit records from 1933 show that the owner of 1516 Howard Avenue was Mrs. A. Sanguinette. An alternative spelling is
listed on the property card, listing the owner as Annunziata Sanguinetti, married to Attilio Sanguinetti, noting that they resided in
San Francisco. Ms. Sanguinette/Sanguinetti owned the property until 1935, and during her ownership, the building was vacant. In
1935, Jerome and Sarah Gordon occupied the building.
City directories show them to have lived in the residence
until 1949, and the Property Index Card indicates that
Jerome Gordon owned the home until that year. Jerome
Gordon was a salesman in the wholesale butcher
industry, and, according to the U.S. Census, he was born
in the United States in 1930 or 1931 to Swedish parents.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 8 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
The city directory indicates that beginning in 1950 or 1951, R.D. Blake Jr. occupied the house until 1953. No information is
available about this person. From 1953 until 1990 or later, the home was occupied by Joe and Kathleen Cammarata. The city
directory indicates that Joe Cammarata was a clerk in a change station. Building permits and property deeds show that the
Cammarata family owned the building from at least 1961, through 2004. In 2004, the home was sold to KCC Management; in 2013,
the home passed to the Shans Lucille L. Trust, Jettas Lorrie Trust, and Rasmussen Terrie Trust; and in 2014 the home passed to
1516 Howard LLC.
Evaluation:
Significance
The residence at 1516 Howard Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic prope rties,
and therefore the property is not listed locally.
Constructed in 1933, 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California
Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the b road
patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house is associated with the.
1920s to 1930s construction boom in Burlingame Park, but it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such
development. The property therefore does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register
inclusion under Criterion A/1.
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion B/2
(Persons). None of the residents and none of the owners appear to have contributed to local or state history and thus do not meet
the threshold for significance for historic register inclusion.
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under
Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, per iod, or method of construction.
1516 Howard Avenue is a good example of a single-family Spanish Colonial Revival-style house. In addition, it was built by Charlie
Hammer, who built in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The building, however, it is not a distinctive or prominent example of the
Spanish Colonial Revival style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. It therefore appears ineligible for listing in the
California Register under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and
California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The
analysis of the house at 1516 Howard Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Pot ential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Integrity
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue retains integrity of location and setting. It is situated on its original lot, and the surrounding
neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family houses. The wall that surrounds the building was
constructed in 1987, but it does not significantly impact the setting. Records show only one exterior alteration to the finish of the flat
roof, but the aluminum and other metal sashes of many of the windows indicate replacements. The exterior wood casings of the
windows are still present, however, and thus mollify the visual impact of the metal sashes. B ecause the majority of the building’s
form, cladding, and materials appear to be original and building permits do not indicate otherwise, integrity of design, materials,
and workmanship are largely intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early to mid- twentieth-century
residential development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, an d therefore retains integrity of feeling and association. Overall the
property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic context.
Conclusion
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any Criteria. The
California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found
ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district, although a
cursory visual inspection of surrounding areas suggests that 1516 Howard Avenue could possibly be a contributor to two potential
districts. The first would consist of single-family residences associated with the early development of the Burlingame Park
subdivision; the second would consist of Spanish Colonial Revival -style homes, of which there is a concentration in the 200 blocks
of Bloomfield and Clarenden roads, and which are also associated with Charlie Hammer. It is beyond the scope of this report to
assess potential districts. Additional research of these areas is necessary to verify their eligibility as historic districts, and it is
recommended that 1516 Howard Avenue be reassessed should any districts be proposed.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B12. References:
- Building Permit Records, 1516 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingame Historical Society
- City of Oakland Planning Department. “Rehab Right How to Rehabilitate Your Oakland House Without Sacrificing Architectural
Assets.” Oakland, CA: city of Oakland. 1980.
- Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
ca. 2004.
- McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
- United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940.
- San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 10 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Images of 1520 Howard Street
Figure 10. 1520 Howard Street (on left), directly south of 1516 Howard Avenue.
Source: Google Maps, August 2014. Edited by author.
Figure 11. 1520 Howard Street (on left), directly south of 1516 Howard Avenue. Viewed facing northwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 12. Real Estate Files of 1520 Howard Street in 1954 (bottom) and 1962 (top).
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 12 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Historic Maps
Figure 13. 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1516 Howard Avenue lot
highlighted in red.
Edited by author.
Figure 14. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1516 Howard Avenue highlighted in red.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 13 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Edited by author.
Historic Drawings
Figure 15. 1934 drawing of 1516 Howard Street,
Source: Appraisal Report – Assessor’s Office – San Mateo County, California.
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1364 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and
a new detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Odile Estrella-Dilworth, Behravesh & Associates APN: 026-058-090
Property Owner: Nenad and Vesna Vukic Tr Lot Area: 6,000
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 6,000 SF and gently slopes downward approximately seven
feet from the front to the rear of the property. Due to this topography the existing house is one-story at the
front, with a one-car garage and lower floor space below the main living level. The applicant is proposing a
553 SF second story addition that would add a master bedroom suite. The total proposed floor area is 3,383
SF (0.56 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The attached one-car garage on the lower floor would be converted to a port-cochere by removing the
garage door, rear and side walls. This would allow vehicles to drive under the main living level to a new
detached, one-car 365 SF garage at the rear of the lot. The new detached garage will provide one covered
parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) and there will be a single uncovered parking space (9' x
20') in the driveway leading to the garage, wh ich meet the code requirements for on-site parking
requirement for a 3-bedroom house. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is
requesting the following application:
Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached
garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: March 9, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
18’-2"
N/A
No change
34’-6”
15'-0" (block average)
20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
3'-3"*
2'-8"*
No change
No change
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
44’-11"
N/A
No change
42’-7”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1,992 SF
33.2%
2,337 SF
38.9%
2,400 SF
40%
FAR: 2,604 SF
0.43 FAR
3,383 SF
0.56 FAR
3,420 SF 1
0.57 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 3 ---
Parking: 1 covered
(10' x 18’6”*)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Item No. 8d
Action Item
Design Review 1364 Vancouver Avenue
-2-
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
Height: 17’-3" 23’-11” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075(b)(2) applied
to the right side
* Existing non-conforming
¹ (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Fire, Engineering, Parks, and Stormwater
Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting (February 9, 2015): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study
meeting on February 9, 2015, the Commission had some comments and suggestions regarding this project
and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped March 9, 2015 and a response letter dated March 18,
2015 to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. The plans include the following
changes:
All new fascias and gutters are shown on the plan to match existing;
Elevation drawings on the right side have been modified to correct the two gables over the family
room/porte-cochere;
Replacement windows are shown with divided lites;
Northern elevation has been modified with added detailing to be in keeping with the other
facades;
Gable end of roof over master bathroom has been changed to hip roof to reduce roof massing;
Proposed tree in rear yard removed in response to neighbor concern;
Dormer window in master bath has been reduced in size and changed to obscure glass; and
Wrought iron railing has been added to the front porch.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by
the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the
application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should
include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by
resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record.
At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
March 9, 2015, sheets DD-TT through DD-2.3 and the landscape sheet;
Design Review 1364 Vancouver Avenue
-3-
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 8, 2015 and November 7, 2014 memos, the
Parks Division’s January 15, 2015 and November 4, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s
November 7, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s November 3, 2014 memo and the Storm water
Division’s December 114, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
Design Review 1364 Vancouver Avenue
-4-
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. Nenad Vukic, property owner
Odile Estrella-Dilworth, Ben Behravesh & Associates, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated March 18, 2015
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter submitted (via email) by Mr. Brock Riddle, dated February 9, 2015
Application to the Planning Commission
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1428 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two-story
single family dwelling with a detached garage.
Applicant and /Designer: Chu Design and Engineering APN: 026-054-170
Property Owner: Crocket Ln. LLC 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 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential
zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
History and Proposed Amendment to Design Review: 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.
The applicant is now requesting an Amendment to Design Review for the as-built changes listed below. The
Planning Commission reviewed these changes as an FYI item on the March 9, 2015 Planning Commission meeting,
but did not accept the them, expressing concerns with the front porch design and removal of the kitchen window.
Change to the design of the front porch (no change to lot coverage or FAR since there is no change to the
size of the porch) (see revised Main Floor Plan and building elevations, date stamped February 26, 2015);
Change to the design of the small second floor window on the Front and Right Elevations (see revised Front
and Right Elevations, date stamped February 26, 2015); and
Eliminate a kitchen window along the right side of the house (see revised Right Elevation, date stamped
February 26, 2015).
Please refer to the attached letter dated February 25, 2015, for a detailed explanation of the changes to the project.
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.
Project Description: The project included demolishing the existing single-story house and detached garage and
building a new, two-story house and detached garage. The house and detached garage has a total floor area of
3,408 SF (0.568 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch exemptions).
For the five bedroom house, the code requires parking spaces for three (3) vehicles and two (2) of these spaces
must be covered by a garage or a carport. The new detached two-car garage provides two required covered
parking spaces and one uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements
have been met. The following application was approved by the Planning Commission on January 27, 2014:
▪ Design review for a new single-family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)).
Item No. 8e
Action Item
Design Review Amendment 1428 Vancouver Avenue
2
1428 Vancouver Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
20'-0"
20'-0"
18'-9" (is the block average)
20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
6'-0"
10'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
28'-4"
44'-10"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2400 SF
40%
2400 SF
40%
FAR: 3408 SF
0.57 FAR
3420 SF 1
0.57 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Parking: 2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 25'-11" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies CS 25.28.075 (b) (2) applies
¹ (0.32 x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3420 SF (0.57 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, Parks
Supervisor, and Stormwater Coordinator.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Design Review Amendment 1428 Vancouver Avenue
3
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and
consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings
supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission.
The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions
should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 26, 2015, sheets A.3 through A.5;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch,
and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission
review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 16, 2013 and November 6, 2013 memos, the Parks
Division’s December 19, 2013 memo, the Engineering Division’s December 4, 2013 memo, the Fire
Division’s November 5, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s November 5, 2013 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon
the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall
be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission,
or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the
construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval
shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on
appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require
a demolition permit;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the
applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water
Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
Design Review Amendment 1428 Vancouver Avenue
4
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO
THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates
that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set
the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the
top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural
details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and
bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance
with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be
scheduled;
15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge
and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
16. 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. Dan Nejasmich, applicant
Chu Design Associates, Inc., designer
Attachments:
Applicant’s Explanation Letter dated February 25, 2015
Architectural Certification Letter, dated December 19, 2014
January 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission from Previously Approved Application
Staff Comments from Previously Approved Application
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design
Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new two-story single family dwelling and
detached garage at 1428 Vancouver Avenue, Zoned R-1, Crockett Lane LLC, 1720 Crockett Lane,
Hillsborough, CA, 94010, property owner, APN: 026-054-170;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March
23, 2015, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new,
small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a
residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-
family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the staff report,
minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 2015, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1428 Vancouver Avenue
Effective April 2, 2015
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped February 26, 2015, sheets A.3 through A.5;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 6, 2013, January 14 and January
23, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s January 6, January 15 and January 21, 2014
memos, Engineering Division’s December 17, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December
16, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 9, 2013 and January 16, 2014
memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any g rading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1428 Vancouver Avenue
Effective April 2, 2015
Page 2
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential
designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
PROJECT LOCATION
1520 Cypress Avenue
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Side Setback Variance, Special
Permit and Conditional Use Permits
Address: 1520 Cypress Avenue Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Request: Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, Side Setback Variances and Special
Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits to add a cabana and toilet to an existing detached
garage.
Applicant and Architect: Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. APN: 028-294-090
Property Owners: Jeffrey Hessekiel Lot Area: 7,506 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon
documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could
be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated January 16,
2015 (see attached). The results of the evaluation concluded that 1520 Cypress Avenue does not appear to
be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers of Historical Resources under any
criteria. Planning Staff will prepare an Initial Study and Negative Declaration to support the findings of the
Historic Resource Evaluation prior to the Planning Commission Action Hearing for this project.
Project Description: The existing two-story house with a detached garage contains 2,275 SF (0.30 FAR) of
floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a 742 SF first floor addition and a 654 SF
second floor addition at the rear of the house. The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for
declining height envelope and Side Setback Variances for the first and second floor additions along the right
side property line. The required applications are listed on page 2 of the staff report. With the proposed
additions to the house and accessory structure, the floor area on site will increase to 3,789 SF (0.50 FAR)
where 3,902 SF (0.52) FAR is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 113 SF below the maximum
allowed FAR and is therefore within 2% of the maximum allowed FAR.
This application also includes converting a portion of the existing garage to a cabana with a small bathroom,
which also includes expanding its size by 118 SF. The applicant is requesting approval of two Conditional
Use Permits for use of an accessory structure as a cabana and for a toilet in an accessory structure. The
required applications are listed on page 2 of the staff report.
With the proposed addition, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to four. Planning staff would
note that the office on the main floor does not qualify as a bedroom since the opening in the wall between the
office and family room is 50% open. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on
site. The existing detached oversized one-garage provides one covered parking space (17’-7” wide x 18’-0
clear interior dimensions where 18’ x 18’ is the minimum acceptable for an existing two-car garage). With this
application, a portion of the garage will be converted to a cabana, however 10’-0” x 18’-0” clear interior
dimensions will be provided as required for the covered parking space. One uncovered space (9' x 20') is
provided in the driveway. Planning staff would note that the existing 7’-8” wide driveway is existing
nonconforming (9’-6” minimum width required under current code). However, a Variance for driveway width is
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Side Setback Variances, Special Permit 1520 Cypress Avenue
and Conditional Use Permits
2
not required since the driveway width is not being altered with the proposed additions. All other Zoning Code
requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Environmental Scoping for a Negative Declaration, a determination that there are no significant
environmental effects as a result of this project;
Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010
(a) (2));
Side Setback Variance for a first floor addition along the right side property line (3’-3” proposed where
4’-0” is the minimum required) (CS 25.26.072 (c) (1);
Side Setback Variance for a second floor addition along the right side property line (3’-3” proposed
where 7’-0” is the minimum required base on the declining height envelope) (CS 25.26.072 (c) (2);
Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right side property line (90 SF, 3’-9” x 24’-0” of
the building extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.26.075 (a);
Conditional Use Permit for a cabana exceeding 120 SF in area (260 SF proposed) (CS 25.60.010
(n)); and
Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in an accessory structure (CS 25.60.010 (j)).
1520 Cypress Avenue
Lot Area: 7,506 SF Plans Date Stamped: March 12, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
24’-4”
24’-4”
no change
no change
15'-0" or block average
20'-0" or block average
Side (right):
(left):
3'-3" to 1st & 2nd floor ¹
7’-8” to 1st & 2nd floor
3'-3" to 1st & 2nd floor ²
15’-2” to 1st floor
18’-0” to 2nd floor
4'-0" to 1st flr/7’-0” to 2nd flr
4’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
100’-2”
100’-2”
76’-2”
76’-2”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1323 SF
17.6%
2183 SF
29%
3002 SF ³
40%
FAR: 2275 SF
0.30 FAR
3789 SF
0.50 FAR
3902 SF
0.52 FAR
1 Existing nonconforming right side setback to first and second floors (3’-0” existing where 4’-0” is the
minimum required).
2 Side Setback Variance to the first floor addition along the right side property line (3’-3” proposed where 4’-
0” is the minimum required).
² Side Setback Variance to the second floor addition along the right side property line (3’-3” proposed
where 7’-0” is the minimum required base on the declining height envelope).
³ (0.32 x 7506 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3902 SF (0.52 FAR)
Table continued on next page.
Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Side Setback Variances, Special Permit 1520 Cypress Avenue
and Conditional Use Permits
3
1520 Cypress Avenue
Lot Area: 7,506 SF Plans Date Stamped: March 12, 2015
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(17'-7” x 18’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9'-0” x 20’-0”)
1 covered
(10'-0” x 18’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9'-0” x 20’-0”)
1 covered
(9'-0” x 18’-0” for existing)
1 uncovered
(9'-0” x 20’-0”)
Building Height: 27’-6” 27’-6” to addition 30'-0"
DH Envelope: non-conforming 4 special permit required 5
(90 SF extends beyond
DHE along right side)
CS 25.26.075
Accessory
Structure Use:
detached garage portion of garage
converted to a 260 SF
cabana with a toilet 6, 7
CUP required for cabana
exceeding 120 SF and
toilet in an accessory
structure
4 The existing two-story house is nonconforming with regards to declining height envelope along the right
side property line.
5 Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right side property line (90 SF, 3’-9” x 24’-0” of the
building extends beyond the declining height envelope).
6 Conditional Use Permit for a cabana exceeding 120 SF in area (260 SF proposed).
7 Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in an accessory structure.
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater
Divisions.
Required Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must
review and approve the Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant (negative) effect on the environment.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Side Setback Variances, Special Permit 1520 Cypress Avenue
and Conditional Use Permits
4
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition
are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure
or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is
proposed is appropriate.
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.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect
Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Side Setback Variances, Special Permit 1520 Cypress Avenue
and Conditional Use Permits
5
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance Application
Special Permit Application
Conditional Use Permit Applications
Western Window Systems Manufacture Brochure
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated January 16, 2015
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code_____________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page _1_ of _14_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 1520 Cypress Avenue
P1. Other Identifier: none
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date: 1999
c. Address 1520 Cypress Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 028-294-090
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1520 Cypress Avenue is a two story, 1880 sq. ft. residential building located on a 7500 sq. ft. rectangular lot on the west side of
Cypress Avenue between Central Avenue and El Camino Real. A detached garage is located towards the rear of the southern
boundary of the lot, accessed via a brick and gravel driveway that is lined with mature Japanese Maple trees. A large back yard
enclosed by a fence includes a sunken swimming pool.
Built in 1924 in the Colonial Revival style, the residence has a rectangular footprint, stucco cladding, and is capped with an end-
gabled roof with a cross gable at the rear. The roof is clad in red asphalt shingles. The residence is set back from the street
approximately 25 ft. and the front yard is landscaped. A brick pathway curves through the yard, leading from the driveway to the
primary entrance (Figure 2). The primary façade is organized into three bays. The primary entry, a paneled wood door, is located
at center and accentuated by a pediment which is supported on either side by pilasters with top brackets. The door is surmounted
by a fanlight transom (Figure 3). The entry is accessed via two rounded red-brick steps. A rectangular window is located at the
second story above the entry. The window is a four-over-four, double-hung, wood-sash window with ogee lugs. The window is set
within a wood frame with oversized decorative wood shutters. A metal flag stand is affixed to the slanted wood sill. The outside
bays of the primary façade (north and south ends) each contain one large window at the first story, and a smaller window at the
second story. The windows at the first story are double-hung, multi-lite (12 over 12), wood-sash windows with ogee lugs and
angular keystone markers. The sills sit low to the ground and are visibly slanted (Figure 4). The windows at the second story are
also double hung, multi-lite (8 over 8), wood-sash windows with ogee lugs, but are differentiated with double wood sills and wood
shutters. They are situated just below the shallow roof eave. (See continuation sheet for further description)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other(Garage)
P5b. Photo: (view and date)
Primary (east) façade, Page &
Turnbull, Inc., image date
December 2014.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1924, Municipal Water Records
*P7. Owner and Address:
Jeffrey Hessekiel
1520 Cypress Avenue
Burlingame, CA
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
*P9. Date Recorded:
January 16, 2015
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description (continued):
Moving clockwise around the residence, the south façade faces the driveway and features four windows which largely fol low the
fenestration pattern established on the primary façade. The first story contains two double-hung, multi-lite (12 over 12), wood-sash
windows, with slanted sills and angular keystones. The second story contains two double hung, multi-lite (6 over 6), wood-sash
windows with double sills, but no shutters. A small rectangular vent is located in the gable end above the fenestration (Figure 5).
The façade terminates with a flush roofline.
The rear façade faces west and contains a cross gable at the left (north) end. Two separate entrances are located at the rear
façade: a single wood door with multi-lite glazing is located at the far right (south) end of the façade, and is accessed directly off
the drive-way via two shallow brick steps; paired vinyl doors with multi-lite glazing are located to the left-of-center of the façade
(under the cross-gable), connecting the residence to the enclosed rear yard, via a redwood deck that spans the width of the cross-
gable (Figure 6). A concrete chimney, clad in stucco, projects from the right (south) half of the rear façade. The chimney is
approximately four feet wide, and its height extends beyond the height of the residence (Figures 7 & 8). The windows at the rear
façade are irregularly distributed, but contained within the cross-gable portion. All the windows are double-hung, multi-lite, wood-
sash windows with slanted double sills and ogee lugs. The first story contains three windows: one 6 -over-9 window and one 6-
over-6 window to the left (north) of the paired doors, and a small 4 –over-4 window containing textured glass to the right of the
paired doors. The second story contains a single 8-over-8 window, and a final 8-over-8 window is located between the two stories,
likely at an interior stair landing.
The north façade faces the neighboring driveway and features four windows (Figure 9). All of the windows are double-hung, multi-
lite, wood sash windows, with slanted sills and ogee lugs. The first story contains two windows: th e window at the left (east)
features sashes comprised of single rows of four lites, and a keystone matching those at the front and south façades; the right
(west) window features 6-over-9 lites. The second story contains two windows which are both configured with 6-over-6 lites. A
small rectangular vent is located in the gable end.
The single story garage has a rectangular footprint, gabled roof, and is clad in stucco at its primary (east) façade and wood siding
elsewhere. The garage is located at the southern portion of the lot and faces east towards Cypress Avenue. The primary (east)
facade includes a wood-paneled, operable garage door (Figure 10). There is no fenestration at the north or south facades of the
garage. A small, double hung, wood-sash window is located at the center of the rear (west) façade of the garage. A storage lean-to
has been constructed at the rear of the garage, with siding c omprised of trellises (Figure 11).
The front and rear yards are heavily landscaped, containing no lawns, but mulched mounds with low lying shrubs such azalea and
rosemary, and several mature trees from mid-size manzanitas to large-size firs. The rear yard is enclosed by fencing on the north
and south sides, and oversized evergreen shrubs at the rear. It is bisected by a gravel path, leading from the rear deck to the
swimming pool area at the rear of the lot (Figures 12 and 13). Both the residence and the garage appear to be in good condition.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 1. Primary (east) façade, looking southwest on Cypress Ave. Page & Turnbull, December 2014.
Figure 2. View of front yard and brick walkway, looking northwest from Cypress Avenue. Page & Turnbull, December 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 4 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 3. Detail of primary entrance on east facade. Page &
Turnbull, December 2014.
Figure 4. Detail of window on east façade. Page & Turnbull,
December 2014.
Figure 5. South façade with detached garage in background, looking west from Cypress Avenue. Page & Turnbull, December
2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 5 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 6. West (rear) façade, showing one of the two rear entries and the chimney at right (partially obscured by trees). Page &
Turnbull, December 2014.
Figure 7. Detail of chimney at rear façade, looking southeast
towards driveway. Page & Turnbull, December 2014.
Figure 8. Alternate view of chimney from garage/driveway,
showing third entry to the house. Page & Turnbull, December
2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 6 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 9. North façade and roof line, with primary façade partially visible at left , looking southwest from Cypress Avenue. Page &
Turnbull, December 2014.
Figure 10. Garage, east (primary) façade, with fenced rear yard at right. Page & Turnbull, December 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 7 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 11. Garage, north façade showing lean-to at rear, looking south from rear yard. Page & Turnbull, December 2014.
Figure 12. View of rear yard from rear deck looking west, garage at left. Page & Turnbull, December 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 8 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 13. Detail of pool at west end of the lot, looking west from rear yard. Page & Turnbull, December 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 9 of 14 *NRHP Status Code_____6Z______________________
*Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
B1. Historic name: none
B2. Common name: 1520 Cypress Avenue
B3. Original Use: Single Family Residence B4. Present use: Single Family Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Colonial Revival
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Constructed 1924 (Municipal Water Tap Records and Permit #720). Permitted alterations include: “Termite Repair”, 06/27/1973
(permit # illegible); construction of rear fence, 07/23/1974 (permit #U -2068); Fences-Gates- Latches permit for unspecified work,
and Pool Ordinance permit, 05/16/1978 (permit #Y-501); Swimming pool installation, 05/19/1978 (permit #Y-573); Interior
improvements, 09/11/1978 (permit #983); reroofing, 08/09/1984 (permit #8502); Repairs to chimney, 08/18/1988 (permit #5292);
Reinforce and anchor foundation, 03/30/1995 (permit #9501425); Replace patio doors with white vinyl doors, 06/19/2006 (permit
#B06-0239).
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________
*B8. Related Features: Garage at southwest portion of the lot.
B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: Allen & Co, 168 Sutter Street, San Francisco
*B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture___________ Area _____ Burlingame Heights
Period of Significance ___N/A____ Property Type__Residential_______________Applicable Criteria____N/A_____
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geogra phic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context:
City of Burlingame
The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given by Governor
Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, t he lands passed through the hands of several prominent San
Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to
Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and
eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with mo st of
the land used for dairy and stock farm operations.
In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an
exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small -
scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between
large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve
the needs of the wealthy estate owners.
(See Continuation Sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
(See continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: December 19, 2014
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Location Map: (north is up)
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2014;
edited by Page & Turnbull.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 10 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
B10. Significance (cont’d):
Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903.
However, the 1906 Earthquake had a dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had l ost their homes began
relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next
two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city , and in 1910 annexed the
adjacent town of Easton to the north. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Heights Neighborhood
The house at 1520 Cypress Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Heights neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including
Burlingame Park and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. These were the
earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove,
Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Heights is a small, three block subdivision bounded by El Camino Real to the north,
Cypress Avenue to the east, and Barroihet and Crescent Avenue to the south. The western boundary is formed by the easte rn half
of the block bounded by El Camino Real, Newlands, Crescent, and Howard avenues.
On May 18, 1905, the land that would become Burlingame Heights was purchased from the Occidental Land & Improvement
Company by developer Antoine Borel. Within a month, Borel had hired surveyor D. Brofield to subdivide the land and lay out a
street grid, and the resulting subdivision map was filed with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office on June 3, 1905. Sanborn
Map Company fire insurance maps indicate that within the first five years of its creation, Burlingame Heights had begun to develop
as a residential area primarily composed of small cottages. Circa 1913, approximately 25 percent of the lots had been developed,
many with houses featuring Craftsman style designs. By 1921, the neighborhood was approximately 50 percent developed,
although the western side of Cypress Avenue included only one residence addressed as 1528 Cypress Avenue (extant).
The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom beginning in the early 1920s, and the majority of the residences in
Burlingame Heights were completed over the following decade. During this period, buildings designed with Mission and Spanish
Colonial Revival influences—most frequently evidenced by the use of shaped rooflines, stucco facades, and red clay tile accents—
became immensely popular in California. The neighborhood also grew denser with the construction of several apartment building s
and flats, mostly concentrated on the north side of the block near El Camino Real. Generally speaking, most of the neighborhood
appears to have been built out prior to World War II, as only two empty lots remain visible on the 1949 Sanborn map.
1520 Cypress Avenue
The house at 1520 Cypress Avenue was constructed in 1924, during a time of rapid development within the neighborhood 19 years
after it was first platted. Municipal records indicate that water was connected to the property and turned on August 18, 1924. The
first owners were William and Lottie Feary and the builder was Allen & Co, a firm based out of in San Francisco (Original Building
Permit on file with Burlingame Building Dept). William and Lottie Feary lived at the site with their daughters , Katherine and Helen.
Mr. Feary sold building materials, while his wife worked in the home. He spent some time as a defense contractor duri ng World
War II, but returned to sales after the war. Mr. Feary passed away in 1958. His widow continued to live at the house until 19 74,
resulting in just over 50 years of residency at 1520 Cypress Avenue. She passed away just three years later, in 1977.
It appears as though no major alterations were made to the residence during Mrs. Feary’s residency. No permits were filed with the
city during her tenure at the address, except for the original building permit in 1924. However, there is some indication that the
second story of the home may have been added during the 1930s or 1940s. The 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map on
file with the Burlingame Historical Society predates the construction of the property by three years, but a piece of tissue overlayed
(pasted) into the book at a later date labels the residence at 1520 Cypress Avenue as a 1 ½ story building. That tissue overlay was
later updated to show the residence as 2 stories. It is possible the first notation was a mistake. No evidence was seen during the
December 19th site visit to indicate that the building was built up from its original construction, as all of the windows appear to be
original to the 1924 construction, nor are there any building permits on file that suggest the construction of a second story.
However, the early 1 ½ story notation is worth calling out as a possibility in describing the history of the property. The house is
shown as 2 stories in the 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map.
No original plans for 1520 Cypress Avenue are on file with the Burlingame Planning Department. Allen & Co. was a residential
development firm that purchased and developed several tracts of land in the Sea Cliff neighborhood of San Francisco in the 1910s
and 1920s. The firm eventually came to be known for purchasing the Belvedere Land Co. in Marin County and facilitating the early
development of the town of Belvedere in the 1930s. Overtime, Allen & Co cultivated a reputation for the development of “restricted”
or elite subdivisions throughout the bay area, but little is known about their involvement in the development of Burlingame Heights
beyond the construction of 1520 Cypress Avenue.
A history of known permits for alterations begins in 1973, the year in which ownership of 1520 Cypress Avenue changed hands for
the first time. A City Property Owner Card indicates that the property was purchased on July 3rd, 1973 by Richard R. Zambon. It
appears as though Mr. Zambon bought the property as an investment. He worked as a bank manager for Eureka Federal Savings
in San Carlos for many years, and eventually sold the subject property in 1995 having never lived there. Only one tenant is listed at
the property in city directories during that time: a woman by the name of Tara West, about whom very little information was
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 11 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
uncovered. Alterations to the property undertaken during Mr. Zambon’s ownership included the installation of a rear fence and the
swimming pool in the rear yard during the 1970s, and a new roof and chimney stabilization during the 1980s.
In 1995, Barbara Feduska purchased the property from Mr. Zambon. A permit was filed that same year to reinforce the foundation
of the residence. Mrs. Feduska is still listed as the owner on a building permit to replace the rear paired doors filed in 2006. The
current owner, Jeffrey Hessekiel, purchased the property on June 30, of 2014. Both Mrs. Feduska and Mr. Hessekiel resided
onsite.
Evaluation (Significance):
The house at 1520 Cypress Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore
the property is not listed locally.
Constructed in 1924, the house at 1520 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or
California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does convey
contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Heights, but it is not among the
oldest homes in the neighborhood. Rather, it appears to be one of many residences constructed during the 1920s-1930s building
boom in this area, and is not individually significant within this historic context. Therefore, the property does not appear to be
individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1.
The house at 1520 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers
under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with persons significant in local, state or national history.
The house’s original owners were William and Lottie Feary. While their long term residency at the property is noteworthy, neither
person appears to have made any significant or lasting contribution to local, state, or national history. Likewise, the subsequent
owners and tenants, Richard Zambon, Tara West, and Barbara Feduska, do not appear to have made significant or lasting
contributions to local, state, or national history.
The house at 1520 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers
under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that exemplifies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction. The building was constructed in the Colonial Revival architectural style, including a symmetrical façade with a central
accentuated entry, a side-gabled roof, and double-hung, multi-lite windows, and retains a high level of integrity. However, design of
the home is not distinctive among the other residences in the neighborhood, nor is it a prominent example of the Colonial Rev ival
oeuvre. No architect is known, and the builder, Allen &Co., is not considered a master builder. In sum, the property is not
individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing in under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important i n prehistory or history, per National Register and
California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The
analysis of the house at 1520 Cypress Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Evaluation (Integrity):
The house at 1520 Cypress Avenue retains a high degree of integrity. 1520 Cypress Avenue retains integrity of location, as it is
situated on its original lot; it also retains integrity of setting, as the Burlingame Heights neighborhood is still comprised of early 20th
century, single family homes with landscaped yards and detached garages; the residence also retains integrity of materials and
workmanship, as the house has sustained very few alterations since its original construction, excepting a new roof and the
replacement of doors at the rear; it also retains integrity of association as an owner -occupied single family home.
1520 Cypress Avenue’s integrity of feeling has been slightly compromised by contemporary landscaping and the installation of a
swimming pool at the rear, which gives the house a modern feel. The house appears to retain integrity of design, as it maintains
the Colonial Revival style in which it was originally built, though if the second story was added at a later date, as indicated might be
the case by the pasted overlay in the 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map on file with the local historical society, then the o riginal
design would have been modified and the integrity of Design would be compromised.
Overall, the house at 1520 Cypress Avenue is able to convey its essential historic character as an early twentieth-century
residence and therefore retains historic integrity.
Conclusion
1520 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria.
The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to 1520 Cypress Avenue, meaning that it was
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 12 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
“found ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation.” This designatio n is
based on the property’s lack of individual significance under the California Register eligibility criteria.
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A curs ory
inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth century residences that warran t further study.
Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Heights as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligib ility
as a historic district.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 13 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Historic Images:
1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the footprints of 1520 Cypress Ave and garage. Subject lot outline in red.
Source: San Francisco Public Library.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 14 of 14 Resource Name or # 1520 Cypress Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 16, 2015 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B12. References:
- Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingame Historical Society File for 1520 Cypress Avenue.
- Building Permit Records, 1520 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- California Death Index Records.
- California Voter Registration Records.
- Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
circa 2004.
- Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007.
- San Francisco Planning Department, Discretionary Review Report for 865 El Camino del Mar, 2013.
- McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
- United States Federal Census records: 1930, 1940
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921 (in possession by the Burlingame Historical Society), 1949.
City of Burlingame
General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Condominium Permit and Lot Combination
for a Proposed 10-Unit Residential Condominium
Address: 1509 El Camino Real Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Request: Application for General Plan Amendment, Rezoning of a portion of the site from R-2 to R-3,
Condominium Permit and Lot Combination for construction of a new three-story, 10-unit residential
condominium with at-grade parking.
Applicant and Property Owner: 1509 El Camino LLC APN: 026-011-010 & 025-228-130
Designer/Engineer: PPA Development Inc./Rodrigo Santos Lot Area: 19,432 SF
General Plan: Medium Density and Medium High Density Residential Zoning: R-2 and R-3
Adjacent Development: Retail commercial, multi-family, duplex and single-family dwellings
Current Use: 11-unit apartment complex in three separate buildings.
Proposed Use: 10-unit residential condominium building.
Allowable Use: Multiple-family, duplex, and single-family dwellings.
History/Chronology: In July, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a new three-story,
10-unit residential condominium at this site (see attached July 23, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes). After
an initial scoping meeting, the applicant withdrew the application.
In June 2011, the applicant submitted a new application for construction of a four-story, 15-unit residential
condominium. On July 9, 2012, the Planning Commission held an environmental scoping meeting for this
project and provided comments and direction to the applicant. Please refer to the attached July 9, 2012
Planning Commission Minutes for a complete list of comments and concerns expressed by the Planning
Commission and the public.
On January 28, 2013, a study meeting was held to inform the Planning Commission and public that the Initial
Study for the project is available for review. It allowed the Planning Commission, project applicant and public
to further discuss the proposed project and provide clarification if needed. Please refer to the attached
January 28, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes for a complete list of comments and concerns expressed by
the Planning Commission and the public.
Since there were a significant amount of concerns expressed by the public and Planning Commission at the
January 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants requested that the application be placed on
hold so that they could meet with neighbors and revise the project to address the concerns expressed by the
neighbors and Planning Commission. This application is being brought back as a study item to allow the
Planning Commission and public to review the revisions made to the project and provide comments. If there
are no major changes suggested for the project, the environmental consultant will then work on updating and
revising the environmental document to reflect the changes proposed to the project.
Environmental review is required for this project because the project exceeds four residential units (10 units
proposed), and therefore does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).
The Planning Commission held an environmental scoping meeting for this project on July 9, 2012. The Initial
Study for the proposed project was prepared with the assistance of Michael Brandman Associates. Based on
the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for review by the Planning Commission. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration identified issues that were "less than significant with mitigation incorporation" in
the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resource, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and recreation.
Item No. 9b
Study Item
General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Condominium Permit and Lot Combination 1509 El Camino Real
2
Changes Made Project Since January 28, 2013 Meeting: After meeting with the neighbors to discuss their
concerns, the applicant made several significant changes to the project. Please refer to the applicant’s letter,
dated March 10, 2015, for a detailed list of revisions made to the project since the January 28, 2013 study
meeting. The following is a summary of the significant changes made to the project:
1. The building height was reduced from four floors to three floors. As measured from average top of curb
level, the overall building height was reduced from 55’-0” to 44’-6” (see revised Building Elevations,
date stamped January 28, 2015). The applicant is using the Inclusionary Zoning incentive to increase
the building height without a Conditional Use Permit (44’-6” building height proposed where up to 46’-0”
is allowed). Therefore, the previous request for a Conditional Use Permit for building height is no
longer required.
2. The number of residential condominium units in the project was reduced in size from 15 units to 10
units (see “Project Summary” section in staff report for the bedrooms/unit breakdown).
3. Although the total number of parking spaces provided on-site reduced from 32 to 28, the number of
parking spaces provided exceeds the minimum number required based on the reduced 10-unit project
(28 parking spaces provided where a minimum of 25 parking spaces are required). An additional three
guest parking spaces are provided (five guest spaces provided where two guest parking spaces are
required). Please refer to the revised Site Plan, Garage Plan and “Off-Street” section in staff report for
more information.
4. The two parking spaces previously proposed behind the building within the rear yard have been
eliminated. This area is now soft landscaping (see revised Site Plan and Landscape Plans, date
stamped January 28, 2015). The previously proposed opening in the garage wall to allow vehicles to
access the rear of the house has been eliminated and replaced with windows and a pedestrian door.
5. The footprint of the building was redesigned in order to retain the existing protected sized trees in the
southeast corner of the site (see revised Site Plan, Floor Plans and Landscape Plans, dated stamped
January 28, 2015). The existing four Deodar Cedar trees (17.3, 17.5, 17.6, 18.5 inches in diameter)
and Bunya-Bunya tree (42 inches in diameter) at the southeast corner of the site are now proposed to
remain. One of the protected sized Deodar Cedar trees (17.3 inches in diameter), would be removed
for construction of the building.
6. The rooftop air conditioning units previously located at the rear of the building have been moved to the
front of the building (see revised Roof Plan, date stamped January 28, 2015).
Project Summary (based on revised project): The applicant is proposing a new, three-story, 10-unit
residential condominium building with at-grade parking at 1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-2 and R-3. Each of
the ten condominium units will contain an entry, living and dining rooms, kitchen and laundry facilities. The
project site consists of two separate lots, which would be combined into one lot for the proposed project. One
lot contains an 11-unit apartment complex, comprised of two, two-story buildings and one, three-story building
and is zoned R-3 (multi-family residential). The other lot contains a portions of Mills Creek and is zoned R-2
(duplex). The proposed lot combination requires applications for Rezoning for a portion of the lot from R-2 to
R-3 and General Plan Amendment for a portion of the site from Medium Density to Medium High Density. The
site is surrounded by Mills Creek to the north, a one-story commercial building to the south, single family
dwellings to the west and El Camino Real to the east. The existing apartment complex would be demolished
to build the proposed 15-unit residential condominium building. The following applications are required:
Environmental Review for the proposed 10-unit residential condominium building;
General Plan Amendment of a portion of the site from Medium Density to Medium High Density
Residential;
General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Condominium Permit and Lot Combination 1509 El Camino Real
3
Rezoning of a portion of the site from R-2 to R-3;
Condominium Permit for construction of a new three-story, 10-unit residential condominium building
(Code Section 26.30.020); and
Lot Combination to combine Lot 4 Block 51 Easton Addition Burlingame No. 5 and portion of Lot 3
Block 1 lying southeasterly of center line of Mills Creek Ray Park.
Materials proposed for the exterior of the building include cement plaster siding, Spanish clay tile roofing, wood
windows with simulated true divided lites, metal railings, decorative wrought iron scroll pieces, awnings over
selected windows and doors and knee braces at roof extensions. The overall height of the building, as
measured to the tower element at the front, right corner of the building, is proposed at 44'-6" above average
top of curb level where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed (a Conditional Use Permit is required for any building or
structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height; up to 46'-0" is allowed without a Conditional Use
Permit using the Inclusionary Zoning incentive). The majority of the building measures 35’-6” above average
top of curb.
Off-Street Parking: Two one-bedroom units, two two-bedroom units and six three-bedroom units are
proposed. The code requires 22 parking spaces for the residents of the units, two guest parking spaces and
one service vehicle parking space, for a total of 25 on-site parking spaces. The proposed project provides 22
parking spaces for the residents, five guest parking spaces and one service vehicle space, for a total of 28
parking spaces (three more parking spaces than the required minimum for this project). The service vehicle
parking space is provided in the circular driveway at the front of the site. Access to the at-grade garage would
be from El Camino Real by way of a circular driveway.
Common and Private Open Space: The total common open space proposed for the condominium project is
2,936 SF (293 SF/unit), which far exceeds the minimum requirement of 1000 SF (100 SF/unit). Of the
minimum required common open space, a 50% must be in soft landscaping (minimum of 500 SF of soft
landscaping required); 1,165 SF within the common open space is proposed to be landscaped and therefore is
in compliance. There is 75 SF to 172 SF in private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required)
provided in balconies. The applicant is proposing 50.1% (852 SF) landscaping in the front yard where 50%
(850 SF) is the minimum required. The project meets all other zoning code and condominium permit
requirements.
Landscaping: The existing site contains a total of seven protected sized trees. They include five Deodar
Cedar trees (17.3, 17.5, 17.6, 18.5 inches in diameter) and a Bunya-Bunya tree (42 inches in diameter) at the
southeast corner of the site and an Elm tree (22 inches in diameter) at the northeast corner of the site. With
this project, one of the protected sized trees on the subject property, a 17.3-inch diameter Deodar Cedar tree,
located at the southeast corner of the lot would be removed for construction of the building. An application for
a Protected Tree Removal permit to remove this tree will be required from the Parks Division. A Tree
Assessment Report prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, dated February 22, 2011 is also attached for
reference (updated on October 30, 2014).
There are also several existing trees located within the top of bank along Mills Creek; the applicant notes that
no trees along Mills Creek will be removed. The existing three Black Acacia trees located within the 10 foot
wide alley behind this property will also remain. Any required protection measures trees to remain will need to
be installed prior to construction.
Proposed landscaping includes various species of trees (24-inch box), shrubs and small plantings throughout
the site (see Landscape Plans, sheets L-1 through L-4). The Planting Plan on sheet L-2 notes that 14 new 24-
inch box size trees will be planted throughout the site.
General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Condominium Permit and Lot Combination 1509 El Camino Real
4
Inclusionary Zoning: At the time this project was submitted, it was subject to Inclusionary Zoning regulations
which require that an affordable unit be included with any residential projects with four or more units. The 10-
unit proposal requires one affordable unit. The applicant is proposing that Unit 201, a one-bedroom unit on the
second floor will be affordable units.
The inclusionary zoning ordinance allows the applicant to apply up to two of three incentives offered including
increasing the building height (up to 46'-0" without a conditional use permit), reducing the common open space
by up to 50% or 200 SF (whichever is greater), or increasing the number of compact parking stalls. The
applicant is using the incentive to increase the number of compact parking spaces. The applicant is proposing
14 of the 28 parking spaces (50%) to be compact size (8' x 17'). The applicant is also using the incentive to
increase the building height without a conditional use permit (44’-6” building height proposed). Based on this
proposal, the affordable units must be maintained at that market rate for 10 years.
Table 1 – 1509 El Camino Real
Lot Area: 19,432 SF Plans date stamped: January 28, 2015
CURRENT PROPOSAL (PREVIOUS) ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front Setback: Garage:
Second:
Third:
Fourth:
22’-0” (21'-5")
22’-0” (21'-5")
22’-0” (21'-5")
4th floor eliminated (21'-5")
20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
Side Setback (R): Garage:
Second:
Third:
Fourth:
10’-7” to 34’-7” (16'-2")
10’-7” to 34’-7” (16'-2")
10’-7” to 34’-7” (16'-2")
4th floor eliminated (16'-2")
7'-0"
8'-0"
9'-0"
10’-0”
Side Setback (L): Garage:
Second:
Third:
Fourth:
11’-6” (10'-0")
10’-0” (8'-5")
10’-0” (10'-0")
4th floor eliminated (10’-0”)
7'-0"
8'-0"
9'-0"
10’-0”
Rear Setback: Garage:
Second:
Third:
Fourth:
15’-6” (15'-6")
15’-6” (15'-6")
20’-7” (20'-6")
4th floor eliminated (20’-6”)
15'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 48.9% - 9509 SF (50% - 9712 SF) 50% - 9,716 SF
Building Height: 44’-6” (55'-0") 55'-0" maximum; 46’-0” allowed
using Inclusionary Zoning
incentive
Table continued on next page.
This space intentionally left blank.
General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Condominium Permit and Lot Combination 1509 El Camino Real
5
Table 1 – 1509 El Camino Real
Lot Area: 19,432 SF Plans date stamped: January 28, 2015
CURRENT PROPOSAL (PREVIOUS) ALLOWED/REQUIRED Off Street Parking: Current Proposal
22 spaces for residents
5 guest spaces
1 service vehicle space (in driveway)
28 total spaces
96% covered
14 compact spaces
Previous Proposal
29 spaces for residents
2 guest spaces
1 service vehicle space (in driveway)
32 total spaces
91% covered
16 compact spaces
Current Required
1, 1 bdrm unit x 1.5 = 3 spaces
2, 2 bdrm units x 2 = 4 spaces
6, 3 bdrm units x 2.5 = 15 spaces
22 spaces for residents
2 guest spaces
1 service vehicle space
25 total spaces
80% must be covered
14 compact spaces allowed by
Inclusionary Zoning incentive
Previous Required
12, 2 bdrm units x 2 = 24 spaces
3, 1 bdrm units x 1.5 = 4.5 spaces
29 spaces for residents
2 guest spaces
1 service vehicle space
32 total spaces
80% must be covered
16 compact spaces allowed by
Inclusionary Zoning incentive Front Setback Landscaping: 50.1% - 852 SF (54% - 920 SF) 50% - 850 SF Private Open Space: 75 - 176 SF/unit (75 - 185 SF/unit) 75 SF per unit
Common Open Space:
SF Landscaped:
2936 SF
1165 SF or 116% of required
(3297 SF)
(1492 SF or 99% of required)
1000 SF
500 SF or 50% of required
(1500 SF)
(750 SF or 50% of required)
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater
Divisions. Several letters of concern submitted by the public for the proposed three-story, 10-unit
condominium, are attached for review. Letters of concern submitted by the public for the previously proposed
four-story, 15-unit condominium will be available on the City’s website under ‘Planning Commission’.
Planning staff would note that zoning amendments were adopted for the R-4 Zoning District, Design Review
and Off-Street Parking on September 19, 2011 and became effective on October 19, 2011. However, since
this application was filed in June 2001 and prior to adoption of the zoning amendments, it is not subject to the
new regulations.
General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Condominium Permit and Lot Combination 1509 El Camino Real
6
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Pat Fellowes, applicant
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response Letter, dated March 10, 2015
January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Parcel Map of Subject Properties
July 23, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission (revised in July 2014)
Request for General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
Photographs of Neighborhood
Protected Tree Removal Permit Information & Tree Assessment Report
Letters of Concern Submitted by the Public for 10-Unit Condominium Proposal
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 18, 2013
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Item No. 9c
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Front Setback Variance, Parking
Variance and Lot Combination for New Apartment Building
Address: 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Front Setback Variance,
Parking Variance for driveway width and Lot Merger for construction of a new five-story, 29-unit
apartment building with at-grade and below-grade parking.
Applicant and Architect: Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc. APN: 029-132-180 and -190
Property Owner: Zers Development Inc. Lot Area: 15,492 SF (combined lots)
General Plan: High Density Residential Zoning: R-4
Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (R-4 Base District)
Adjacent Development: Multifamily and Single Family Residential
Current Use: 1128 Douglas Ave: Single family dwelling and 4-unit apartment building
1132 Douglas Ave: Single family dwelling
Proposed Use: 29-unit residential apartment building.
Allowable Use: Multifamily, duplex, and single family residential uses.
Environmental Review: Environmental review is required for this project because the project exceeds four
residential units (29 units proposed), and therefore does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act). A separate environmental scoping meeting will be held once an environmental
consultant is chosen.
The purpose of this design review study meeting is to provide initial comments on design elements as they
relate to the proposed project at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue (criteria include compatibility with the existing
character of the neighborhood, respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing
architectural styles, maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the
architectural style used and incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future).
Project Summary: The applicant is proposing construction of a new, five-story, 29-unit residential apartment
building with at-grade and below-grade parking at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R-4. The proposed
building would contain 29 apartment units in five floors with 12 at-grade parking spaces at the rear of the lot
and 22 parking spaces in an underground garage. The project includes three studio units, 18 one-bedroom
units, seven two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit. The average unit size proposed is 900 SF (1,250
SF average maximum unit size permitted). Staff would note that apartment projects are not required to provide
common open space or private open spaces, as is required for condominium developments. However,
common spaces for residents and visitors, including an enclosed entry, lobby, community room and fitness
room are provided on the ground floor. In addition, balconies are provided for some of the units located at the
front corners of the building. The following applications are requested for this project:
Design Review for construction of a new five-story, 29-unit apartment building with at-grade and below-
grade parking (C.S. 25.29.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);
Conditional Use Permit for building height (56’-10” proposed where a Conditional Use Permit is
required if the building exceeds 35’-0” in height; 75’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.29.060);
Front Setback Variance (18’-5” proposed where 19’-11” is the minimum required based on the average
front setback of the block) (C.S. 25.29.075);
Parking Variance for driveway width (9’-0” width proposed for the driveway along the north property line
where 12’-0” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.70.025 (b) (2)); and
Item No. 9c
Design Review Study
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Front Setback Variance, 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Parking Variance and Lot Combination
2
Lot Combination to combine 52 feet of portion of Lot 3 Block 5 (1128 Douglas Avenue) and 50 feet of
Lot 3 Block 5 (1132 Douglas Avenue), Burlingame Land Company Map No 2.
The property at 1128 Douglas Avenue currently contains a two-story single family dwelling at the front of the
site and a two-story four-unit apartment building at the rear of the site. The property at 1132 Douglas Avenue
currently contains a two-story single family dwelling at the front of the site and a detached one-car garage at
the rear of the site. 1128 and 1132 Douglas Avenue are two independent lots owned by the same property
owner. The site is surrounded by single family and multifamily residential buildings.
The proposed project includes demolishing the existing house and detached garage at 1132 Douglas Avenue
and demolishing the existing four-unit apartment building at 1128 Douglas Avenue. The rear portion of the
existing single family dwelling at 1128 Douglas Avenue is also proposed to be demolished, however the front
half of the house is proposed to be relocated to 524 Oak Grove Avenue. The Planning Commission is
reviewing a concurrent application for design review for the house to be relocated to Oak Grove Avenue, which
includes a first and second story addition.
In 2008, the City of Burlingame engaged Carey & Co. to complete an inventory of historic resources for the
Downtown Specific Plan Area. The purpose of this inventory was to identify properties that would qualify as
historic resources for the City of Burlingame and appeared eligible for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Carey & Co. determined that
23 structures within the Plan Area appeared to be eligible for the CRHR or the NRHP. 1128 and 1132 Douglas
Avenue are included on this list.
Historic Resource Evaluations (Evaluation) were prepared for 1128 & 1132 Douglas Avenue by Page &
Turnbull, Inc., dated May 14, 2013. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1128 Douglas Avenue is
eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 1 (Events) for its
association with early settlement patterns in the town of Burlingame. The Evaluation notes that “Because the
property was one of the first residences constructed in Burlingame and exemplifies an important pattern of
development in Burlingame, the property at 1128 Douglas Avenue appears to be individually significant for its
association with early settlement, and is therefore eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1
(Events).”
1128 Douglas Avenue is also eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources
under Criterion 2 (Persons) due to its association with James R. and Jessie N. Murphy. The Evaluation notes
that “James R. Murphy was living in the Burlingame area by 1900 and serving as the town’s station master. By
1910 he was county clerk, a position he retained through to his death in 1940. His contributions to Burlingame
government and civic life were varied and well documented. Jessie Murphy was also active in Burlingame
government and civic life, serving as park commissioner and acting as a lifelong advocate for trees, a subject
integral to Burlingame’s civic identity as the “City of Trees.” Both James and Jessie Murphy lived the majority
of their lives in their house in Burlingame and raised three children there. The Murphys’ role in the
development of Burlingame as well as their long association with the property meet the threshold for
significance for listing in the listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The Historic
Resource Study for 1128 Douglas Avenue is attached for review.
The results of the evaluation for 1132 Douglas Avenue concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on
the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. The Historic Resource Study for 1132
Douglas Avenue is attached for review.
Design Review: The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design &
Character). Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) provides design guidelines specifically for residential areas
within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Front Setback Variance, 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Parking Variance and Lot Combination
3
guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential areas. As this application is the fourth
residential project to be proposed since the Downtown Specific Plan was adopted in 2010 (first three projects
were 1225 and 1433 Floribunda Avenue, and 21 Park Road), the relevant pages of the plan have been
included as an attachment for convenience of commissioners.
Materials proposed for the exterior of the building include stucco, horizontal wood and concrete siding. The
balconies would consist of wood railings and wood base trim. Aluminum windows and doors would be used
throughout the building, with powder coated steel awnings above some of the windows throughout the building.
Concrete columns are proposed on the ground floor at the front and rear of the building. The front entry of the
building consists of an aluminum storefront window and door system. A decorative concrete shear wall is
proposed to the left of the front entry.
The overall height of the building, as measured to the top of the parapet, is proposed at 56'-10" above average
top of curb level where 75’-0” is the maximum allowed. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is being
requested since the building exceeds 35’-0” in height. The Zoning Code allows 5% of the roof area, for such
items as enclosed elevator shafts, stairways and other equipment, to project not more than 10’-0” above the
top of parapet. The elevator shaft and enclosed stairways to the roof level are exempt from the overall building
height since they project 8’-0” above the top of parapet and take up less than 5% of the roof area.
Off-Street Parking: Based on the number of bedrooms per unit proposed for this project, the Zoning Code
requires a total of 34 off-street parking spaces for the residents of the units (1 space for each studio and one-
bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit and 2 spaces for each unit containing three or more
bedrooms). The project includes 12 at-grade parking spaces at the rear of the lot and 22 below-grade parking
spaces in an underground garage, for a total of 34 off-street parking spaces. An area for on-site deliveries is
not required for apartment buildings and there is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within
the Downtown Specific Plan area.
Access to the below-grade parking spaces would be via a 14’-0” wide driveway located at the south end of the
lot. Access to the at-grade parking spaces at the rear of the lot would be via a 9’-0” wide driveway located at
the north end of the lot. There is an 8’-0” wide ingress/egress easement located along the north side property
line; an extra 1’-0” is provided for the driveway width for a total of 9’-0”. However, the applicant is requesting
approval of a Parking Variance for the proposed driveway width along the north side property line (9’-0”
proposed where 12’-0” is the minimum required).
The Zoning Code requires that parking spaces be a minimum of 9'-0” wide x 20'-0” deep. 22 of the 34 parking
spaces comply with this requirement. The remaining 12 parking spaces measure 8’-6” wide x 20’-0” deep
(code currently allows 8’-6” x 18’-0” for commercial and industrial uses). However, as a policy the Downtown
Specific Plan encourages “creative approaches” to providing on-site parking. The proposed reduced parking
space width meets the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan policy, and therefore a Parking Variance for
parking space dimension is not required.
Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape and Irrigation Plans
(sheets L1.1 and L1.2). The applicant is proposing 60.1% (1,174 SF) landscaping within the front setback area
where 60% (1,171 SF) is the minimum required.
An arborist report, dated August 8, 2014, was prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, which evaluates the
existing trees on the site greater than 12 inches in diameter and provides tree protection specifications (see
attached). Several smaller trees are also proposed to be removed, however they were not evaluated since
they do not qualify as a protected size tree.
The proposed project includes removing four protected size trees, including a 20-inch diameter Chinese Tallow
tree at the front of the site, an 18.1-inch diameter Liquid Amber tree along the right side property line, a 21.2-
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Front Setback Variance, 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Parking Variance and Lot Combination
4
inch diameter Cottonwood tree at the rear of the site and a 16.3-inch diameter Apple tree along the left side
property line. A tree removal permit to remove these trees was issued by the Parks Division in January 2015
contingent upon 1) the building and landscape plans being approved by the City (building permit issued for
construction) and 2) that the trees would fall within the footprint of the proposed project. Several other trees on
the project site are also proposed to be removed; however they are not of a protected size.
The existing Redwood tree (39-inch diameter) and Coast Live Oak tree (27.6-inch diameter), located at the
front left corner of the lot, will remain and will need to be protected during construction as outlined in Mayne
Tree Company’s arborist report. In addition, the City Arborist notes in his memo dated December 4, 2014 that
the Tree Protection Zone must be in place and confirmed by the City Arborist prior to construction and that the
excavation around these trees may only be done by hand and instructed by an independent arborist report.
There are four street trees in front of the subject property, including three small Purple Leaf Plums and an 18-
inch diameter Sycamore Maple tree. The three Purple Leaf Plum trees will need to be removed during
construction, but will be replaced with three new street trees after construction, with a species recommended
by the City Arborist. The existing Sycamore Maple tree will remain and will be protected during construction.
In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to
provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 2000 SF of lot coverage. Based
on the proposed project, a total of eight landscape trees are required on site. The proposed landscape plan for
the project complies with the on-site reforestation requirements. There will be a total of nine trees on site,
including an existing Redwood tree and Coast Live Oak trees at the front corner of the lot and seven new 24-
inch box size trees, including four Magnolia “Yellow Bird” trees at the rear of the site, two Japanese Maple
trees at the front, left corner of the site and a Western Redbud tree at the front of the site.
Affordable (Below-Market Rate) Units: The City’s previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been
replaced by a Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Law. The Density Bonus Ordinance is
discretionary, and projects are not obligated to provide affordable units unless they seek to utilize development
standard incentives offered by the ordinance. The applicant has chosen not to apply any of the development
standard incentives offered by the Density Bonus Ordinance and therefore is not providing any affordable units
as part of the project.
This space intentionally left blank.
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Front Setback Variance, 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Parking Variance and Lot Combination
5
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Lot Area: 15,492 SF Plans date stamped: January 21, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(3rd flr):
(4th flr):
(5th flr):
18'-5” ¹
18'-5” ¹
18'-5” ¹
18'-5” ¹
18’-5” ¹
19'-11” (block average)
Left Side (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(3rd flr):
(4th flr):
(5th flr):
7'-0" to concrete shear wall
11'-0"
11'-0"
11’-0”
11’-0”
7'-0"
8'-0"
9'-0"
10’-0”
11’-0”
Right Side (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(3rd flr):
(4th flr):
(5th flr):
11'-0"
11'-0"
11’-0”
11’-0”
11’-0”
7'-0"
8'-0"
9'-0"
10’-0”
11’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(3rd flr):
(4th flr):
(5th flr):
20'-5”
20'-0”
20'-0”
20'-0”
20’-0”
20’-0”
20'-0"
20'-0"
20’-0”
20’-0” Lot Coverage: 7746 SF
50%
7746 SF
50% Building Height: 56'-10” ²
75’-0" maximum/CUP required to
exceed 35’-0” Off-Street Parking: 34 spaces
80% covered
34 spaces
80% must be covered
No guest parking or delivery space
required
Driveway Width: 9'-0” for driveway along north side
property line ³
12’-0" required
Front Setback Landscaping: 60.1%
1174 SF
60%
1171 SF
¹ Front Setback Variance (18’-5” proposed where 19’-11” is the minimum required based on the average front setback
of the block).
² Conditional Use Permit for building height (56’-10” proposed where a Conditional Use Permit is required if the building
exceeds 35’-0” in height; 75’-0” is the maximum allowed).
³ Parking Variance for driveway width (9’-0” width proposed for the driveway along the north property line where 12’-0”
is the minimum required).
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Front Setback Variance, 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Parking Variance and Lot Combination
6
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater
Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: A design review application in multifamily residential (R-3 and R-4) Districts shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations (Code Section 25.57.030 f, 1-4):
(1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood;
(2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing 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.
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.
(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.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance, the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
c. Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc., applicant and architect
Zers Douglas LLC, property owner
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Front Setback Variance, 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Parking Variance and Lot Combination
7
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Explanation Letter provided by the Applicant, dated October 31, 2014
Conditional Use Permit Application
Variance Applications
Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines
Western Window Systems Manufacture Brochure
Arborist Report Prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated August 8, 2014
Letter Submitted by Jennifer Pfaff, President of The Burlingame Historical Society, dated July 2, 2013
Photographs of the Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Historical Resource Evaluation for 1128 Douglas Avenue, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated May 14,
2013
Historical Resource Evaluation for 1132 Douglas Avenue, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated May 15,
2013
5.0 Design & Character
5-
5.3 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Residential buildings in Downtown Burlingame offer higher density
development than elsewhere in the City, providing a lifestyle for those who want
to live within walking distance of the Downtown commercial areas and transit
opportunities. New buildings will mediate this density with thoughtful design
and details that create attractive, livable residential environments. Buildings
should contribute to an appealing neighborhood character and should employ
recognizable residential design details such as visible residential entries, porches,
bay windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas.
Below are recommendations for the architectural treatment and organization
of buildings and open space, and the suggested criteria for reviewing projects
during the design review process.
5.3.1 ARCHITECTURAl DIVERSITy
Residential projects should respect the diversity of building types and
styles in the residential areas Downtown and seek to support it by
applying the following principles:
• Design buildings to maintain general compatibility with the
neighborhood.
• Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when
using differing architectural styles.
• Maintains the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human
scale regardless of the architectural style used.
• Create buildings with quality materials and thoughtful design to
last into the future.
5.3.2 PEDESTRIAN USE AND CHARACTER
5.3.2.1 Entrances
Primary pedestrian access to all ground-level uses should be from
the sidewalk along the public street. Entries should be clearly defined
features of front façades. Common entrances for multiple units are
FIGURE 5-27: Buildings should contribute to an appealing
neighborhood character and should employ recognizable residential
design details such as visible residential entries, porches, bay
windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas.
35MAYFIELD PRECISE PLAN
4USFFU&MFWBUJPOB 'BDBEFTTIPVMEJODMVEFQPSDIFT
QSPKFDUJOHFBWFTBOEPWFSIBOHT
BOEPUIFSUSBEJUJPOBMBSDIJUFDUVSBMFMFNFOUTUIBUQSPWJEFSFTJEFOUJBMTDBMFBOEIFMQCSFBLVQCVJMEJOHNBTT#VJMEJOH&OUSBODFTTIPVMECFFBTZUPJEFOUJGZBOEEJTUJOHVJTIFEGSPNUIFSFTUPGUIFCVJMEJOHɨFZTIPVMECFQBSUPGBDMFBSFOUSZTFRVFODF
FYUFOEJOHGSPNUIFQVCMJDTJEFXBMLUPUIFQSJWBUFGSPOUEPPS&OUSBODFTGSPNQBTFPTNBZCFBMMPXFEPOBMJNJUFECBTJTɨFGPMMPXJOHFOUSBODFFMFNFOUTBSFSFDPNNFOEFEB 4UPPQTBOEPS0QFO1PSDIFTTIPVME
GBDFUIFTUSFFUBUSFHVMBSJOUFSWBMT
XIJDIDPSSFTQPOEUPUIFWFSUJDBM
NPEVMFTPGCVJMEJOHVOJUTɨFTUPPQT
TIPVMECFXJEFFOPVHIGPSQFPQMFUP
TJUPOBOEUPNBLFFOUSJFTJOWJUJOH
0QFOQPSDIFTTIPVMEIBWFBUUSBDUJWF
CBMVTUSBEFSBJMJOHTBOEBSPPGUIBU
DPNQMFNFOUTUIFQJUDIBOENBUFSJBMPG
UIFNBJOSPPG
C 4UBJSTTIPVMECFCPYFEBOEGSBNFE
CZBUUSBDUJWFTUFQQFECVMLIFBET
XBMMT
PSCBMVTUSBEFSBJMJOHT#VMMOPTFUSFBET
BSFSFDPNNFOEFE0QFOPSinPBUJOHw
FYUFSJPSTUBJSTTIPVMEOPUCFVTFE
D -PX)FEHFT
'FODFTBOEPS&OUSZ
(BUFTTIPVMECFVTFEUPEFmOFUIF
FEHFCFUXFFOUIFQVCMJDTUSFFUBOE
QSJWBUFQSPQFSUZ
E 0SOBNFOUBM-JHIUJOHPGQPSDIFTBOE
XBMLTUPIJHIMJHIUFOUSBODFTBOEBEE
TFDVSJUZ
F -BOETDBQF&MFNFOUTTVDIBTUSFMMJTFT
BSCPST
BOETQFDJBMMBOETDBQFNBUFSJBMT
Low Hedges, Fences and/or entr gates should be used to define the edge between public and private property.
Facades should include prches, projecting eaves and overhangs, and
other traditional architectural elements to provide a residential scale.
FIGURE 5-28: Entries should be clearly defined features of front
façades, and are encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable
gathering spaces that invite informal social interaction with neighbors.
5.0 Design & Character
5-
encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable gathering spaces at
or adjacent to entrances that invite informal social interaction with
neighbors.
5.3.2.2 Ground Level Treatment
Residential development may have a finished floor elevation up to 5
feet above sidewalk level to provide more interior privacy for residents.
Entry porches or stoops along the street are encouraged to bridge this
change in elevation and connect these units to the sidewalk to minimize
any physical separation from the street level. The street-level frontage
should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and clear
orientation to the street.
5.3.2.3 Site Access
Curb cuts should be minimized to promote traffic and pedestrian safety
and create cohesive landscaping and building façades. A maximum of
two curb cuts should be provided for projects requiring 30 parking
spaces or more; for projects with less than 30 spaces, only one curb cut
should be provided. One-way driveways should have curb cuts with a
fully depressed width no greater than 12 feet; two-way curb cuts should
be no greater than 22 feet. On-site bicycle parking for residents is
encouraged.
5.3.3 ARCHITECTURAl ComPATIBIlITy
5.3.3.1 Development Massing
The residential areas within Downtown Burlingame have a range
of building heights, and so particular attention must be paid to
the massing of new buildings to ensure an appropriate transition
with surrounding development. Massing and street façades shall
be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Burlingame
neighborhoods.
FIGURE 5-29: The street-level frontage should be visually interesting
with frequent unit entrances and strong orientation to the street.
FIGURE 5-30: Articulation, setbacks, and materials should
minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and
provide visual interest.
Orient doorways and
windows to create a
strong relationship
with the street.
Clearly defined entries
that are proportional to
size of building and use.
Stoops provide transition
to street, gathering place,
define private space.
5.0 Design & Character
5-
Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break
down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest.
5.3.3.2 on-Site Structured Parking
Given the density and premium land values Downtown, new projects
will likely provide on-site parking in enclosed garage structures,
underground, or in “semi-depressed” garages that are partially
underground and partially above ground.
Parking should not be allowed to dominate the character of the project.
Where enclosed parking is at ground level, it should be fronted or
wrapped with habitable uses when possible. If it is not possible to
fully wrap the parking, it should be incorporated into the design of
the facade. Semi-depressed parking (partly below ground and partly
exposed above ground) should be screened with architectural elements
that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, porches, or balcony
overhangs.
5.3.3.3 Roof Treatment
Interesting and varied roof forms are encouraged. Rooflines should
emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such
as entries, bays, and balconies. Rooftop equipment shall be concealed
from view and/or integrated within the architecture of the building.
5.3.4 ARCHITECTURAl DESIGN CoNSISTENCy
5.3.4.1 Facade Design
Facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and
other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break
up building mass. All exposed sides of a building should be designed
with the same level of care and integrity. Facades should have a
variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas,
inset doorways and windows).
FIGURE 5-31: Where enclosed parking is at ground level,
it should be fronted or wrapped with uses that can be
occupied such as lobbies and living space when possible.
PaloAlto:PTOD Overlay Zone - CaliforniaAvenue
Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design
d. Landscaping such as trees, shrubs,
vines or groundcover is incorpo-
rated into surface parking lots;
e. Street parking is utilized for visitor
or customer parking and is designed
in a manner to enhance trac calm-
ing on the street.
a. Parking is located behind buildings, below
grade or, where those options are not
feasible, screened by landscaping, low
walls, etc.;
b. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped
with habitable uses when possible;
c. Parking that is semi-depressed is
screened with architectural elements
that enhance the streetscape such as
stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art;
6. Parking DesignParking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of theproject or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that:
Landscaping should be incorporated into any surface parking lots.
Parking should be wrapped by habitable uses when possible.
Semi-depressed parking can be used to raise residential uses to provide privacy and op-
portunities for stoops and porches.
Occupied space
such as a lobby
screens parking
from sidewalk.
Occupied space
screens parking
from sidewalk.
FIGURE 5-32: Semi-depressed
parking should be screened
with architectural elements that
enhance the streetscape such
as stoops, porches, or balcony
overhangs.
Stoop Ventilation
with decorative
grillwork
5.0 Design & Character
5-0
Elements such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies should
be visible to people on the street. Corner parcels are encouraged to
incorporate features such as corner entrances, bay windows, and corner
roof features, but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as
towers.
5.3.4.2 Windows
Building walls should be accented by well-proportioned openings that
provide relief, detail and variation on the façade. Windows should be
inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow
detail. The use of high-quality window products that contribute to the
richness, detail, and depth of the façade is encouraged. Windows with
mullions should have individual window lights, rather than applied
"snap-in" mullions that lack depth and are not integral to the window
structure. Reflective glass is undesirable because of its tendency to
create uncomfortable glare conditions and a visual barrier. Where
residential uses are adjacent to each other, windows should be placed
with regard to any open spaces or windows on neighboring buildings
so as to protect the privacy of residents.
5.3.4.3 Materials
Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest.
The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture
present in the neighborhood is encouraged. Metal siding and large
expanses of stucco or wood siding are also to be avoided. Roofing
materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, tile accents,
etc. should also offer color variation. Residential building materials
should include quality details such as wrought iron, wood-framed
windows, wood brackets and tile roofs.
5.3.5 SITE AMENITIES
5.3.5.1 Setbacks
Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 specifies basic building standards such
as setbacks and height. Building setbacks are intended to create
FIGURE 5-34: Windows should be inset generously from the
building wall to create shade and shadow detail.
FIGURE 5-33: Residential facades should include
projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other
architectural elements that provide human scale and help
break up building mass.
5.0 Design & Character
5-
a transition between the hardscape, urban environment of the
commercial areas and the suburban setting in the surrounding
neighborhoods. Setbacks have multiple purposes, including providing
sunlight, places for landscaping, and areas for activity and recreation.
Building setbacks should be appropriately landscaped to provide
screening and introduce trees and plantings in this area. Landscaped
setback areas should be integrated with buildings by providing
openings in the building walls that connect the perimeter landscaping
with interior courtyards and landscape pathways. Landscaping should
be planned in relation to surrounding vegetative types with special
consideration being given to native species where possible. Pathways
and courtyards should be made of pervious materials to allow
groundwater absorption.
5.3.5.2 Open Space
Private on-site open space within the Downtown area is not intended
to provide recreational space or large landscaped areas, since this is
a more urban environment. However, open space is an important
element for residential buildings and should be used to effectively
articulate building forms, promote access to light and fresh air, and
maintain privacy for Downtown residents. In residential development,
most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for
residents, including interior courtyards, outdoor seating options and
perimeter landscaping. Balconies and rooftop terraces are encouraged.
Where open space is situated over a structural slab, podium or rooftop
it should have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving
materials, including elements such as planters, medium-sized trees,
and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces. Planters may be
designed to not only accommodate colorful ornamental landscaping,
but could also accommodate garden plots for "urban agriculture."
Trees should be selected from the City's tree list.
FIGURE 5-35: Where open space is situated over a structural slab,
podium or rooftop it should have a combination of landscaping and
high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters,
mature trees, and urban agriculture.
5.0 Design & Character
5-
5.4 ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL AREAS OF
DOWNTOWN
5.4.1 LAND USE TRANSITIONS
Where appropriate, when new projects are built adjacent to existing
lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect
the scale and privacy of adjacent properties.
5.4.1.1 Massing and Scale Transitions
Transitions of development intensity from higher density
development building types to lower can be done through different
building sizes or massing treatments that are compatible with the
lower intensity surrounding uses. Massing and orientation of new
buildings should respect the massing of neighboring structures by
varying the massing within a project, stepping back upper stories,
reducing mass by composition of solids and voids, and varying sizes
of elements to transition to smaller scale buildings.
5.4.1.2 Privacy
Privacy of neighboring structures should be maintained with
windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize
views into neighboring properties, minimizing sight lines into and
from neighboring properties, and limiting sun and shade impacts on
abutting properties.
5.4.1.3 Boundaries
Where appropriate, when different land uses or building scales are
adjacent, boundaries should be established by providing pedestrian
paseos and mews to create separation, rather than walls or fences.
FIGURE 5-36: Transitions of development intensity from higher density
development building types to lower can be done though building types or
treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses.
Boundaries can be established by providing pedestrian paseos and mews to
create separation, rather than walls or fences.
Transition Area
Medium Density
Low Density
High Density
buffer / paseobuffer / mewsTransition Elements
2-Story 3-Story
Low Density
1-2 Story street / mews4-Story
FIGURE 5-37: Transitions can also be made by stepping massing down within a
project, with lower building elements providing a buffer between taller elements
and adjacent lower-density development.
5.0 Design & Character
5-
FIGURE 5-39: Example of two different land use intensities joined with a
common paseo pathway.
FIGURE 5-38: Following a cooperative, rather than defensive design approach for the spaces between buildings results in a
more coherent downtown feel, as opposed to a collection of unrelated projects.
PL PL
DEFENSIVE
Fence separates projects
COOPERATIVE
Plaza/pathway visually unites buildings
5.0 Design & Character
5-
5.4.2 SHADoW ImPACTS
Every building invariably casts some shadows on adjoining parcels,
public streets, and/or open spaces. However, as the design of a
project is developed, consideration should be given to the potential
shading impacts on surroundings. Site plans, massing, and building
design should respond to potential shading issues, minimizing
shading impacts where they would be undesirable, or conversely
maximizing shading where it is desired.
As part of the design review process, development in the Specific
Plan Area that is proposed to be taller than existing surrounding
structures should be evaluated for potential to create new shadows/
shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major
pedestrian routes. At a minimum, shadow diagrams should be
prepared for 9 AM, 12 noon, and 3 PM on March 21st, June 21st,
September 21st, and December 21st (approximately corresponding
to the solstices and equinoxes) to identify extreme conditions and
trends. If warranted, diagrams could also be prepared for key dates
or times of day — for example, whether a sidewalk or public space
would be shaded at lunchtime during warmer months.
FIGURE 5-40: Sample shadow analysis shows the range of shading conditions
through the year.
Proposed
Project
Proposed
Project
Proposed
Project
9 am 12 noon 3 pm
March 21st March 21st March 21st
Proposed
Project
Proposed
Project
Proposed
Project
June 21st June 21st June 21st
Proposed
Project
Proposed
Project
Proposed
Project
September 21st September 21st September 21st
Proposed
Project
Proposed
Project
Proposed
Project
December 21st December 21st December 21st
5.0 Design & Character
5-5
5.4.3 SUSTAINABIlITy AND GREEN BUIlDING DESIGN
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building
design should be incorporated into projects. Green building design
considers the environment during design and construction and aims
for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and
benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient,
water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and
high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be
included in site and building design:
• Resilient, durable, sustainable materials and finishes.
• Flexibility over time, to allow for re-use and adaptation.
• Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting,
and natural ventilation.
• Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and
reduce heat island effects.
• Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, and provide
on-site bicycle parking.
• Maximize on-site stormwater management through landscaping
and permeable pavement.
• On flat roofs, utilize cool/white roofs to minimize heat gain.
• Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy use.
• Create healthy indoor environments.
• Pursue adaptive re-use of an existing building or portion of a
building as an alternative to demolition and rebuilding.
• Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable
environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible
fruits, vegetables or other plants as part of project open space, or
providing garden plots to residents for urban agriculture.
To reduce carbon footprint, new projects are encouraged to follow
the standards and guidelines of the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System,
developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and pursue
LEED certification if appropriate.
FIGURE 5-41: Use of shading devices to control solar loads in
summer and gain passive heat in winter.
FIGURE 5-42: Minimize stormwater runoff to
impermeable areas with landscaping, green roofs, and
rain gardens when possible.
Winter Sun
Summer
Sun
South facing windows with shading
devices to control overheating in
Summer
Direct sunlight through
south facing windows would
improve passive heating in
Winter
5.0 Design & Character
5-
5.4.4 lANDSCAPE TREES
The City of Burlingame has a long history of proactive tree planting
and proper tree care. From the late 1800’s when trees were planted
along El Camino Real and Easton Drive to the current day, Burlingame
has enjoyed the many benefits trees provide to an urban area.
Burlingame's longtime commitment to trees is evidenced by recogni-
tion as a "Tree City USA" for 30 consecutive years. This is the longest
streak in the County, 5th longest in the State and one of the longest in
the Country for receiving this award.
In Downtown Burlingame, trees include street trees lining sidewalks
and roadways (typically within the public right-of-way), as well as trees
on private property in settings such as landscaped setback areas, court-
yards, and roof gardens.
Chapter 4: Streetscapes & Open Space) provides guidance for street
trees within the public right-of-way. Landscape trees on private prop-
erty have equal importance as part of the "urban forest," in contrib-
uting environmental and aesthetic benefits to downtown. Trees are
important for their beauty, shade and coolness, economic benefits, and
role in reducing energy use, pollution, and noise.
The City of Burlingame has an Urban Forest Management Plan that
includes policies and management practices for both city and private
trees. Maintaining existing trees is a priority, and large trees on private
property are protected by City Ordinance. Any tree with a circumfer-
ence of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above the ground
is a "Protected Tree." A permit is required to remove or heavily prune
a protected tree.
Consistent with Burlingame's status as "Tree City USA," new projects
are required to incorporate trees into landscape and private open space
plans. Property owners should consult the Burlingame Urban Forest
Management Plan for design considerations, planting techniques, and
maintenance guidance.
FIGURE 5-43: Consistent with Burlingame's status as "Tree City USA,"
new projects are required to incorporate trees into landscape and private
open space plans.
5.0 Design & Character
5-
FIGURE 5-44: Downtown’s late 19th and early 20th Century buildings
contribute historic character and distinctiveness to this desirable pattern and
mix of buildings.
5.4.5 PRESERVATIoN oF HISToRIC BUIlDINGS
Downtown Burlingame is the symbolic and historic center of the City.
The vision for Downtown is to preserve the mix of buildings, the
pedestrian-scaled environment and the carefully designed public spaces
that contribute to its special community character. Downtown’s flex-
ible and timeless late 19th and early 20th Century buildings contribute
historic character and distinctiveness to this desirable pattern and mix
of buildings. New buildings should be sensitive to the historic scale
and architecture of Downtown.
Historic preservation and adaptive re-use is encouraged both to main-
tain the unique ambience of Downtown Burlingame but also for eco-
logical benefits. Preservation maximizes the use of existing materials
and infrastructure, reduces waste, and preserves historic character.
Historic buildings were often traditionally designed with many sustain-
able features that responded to climate and site, and when effectively
restored and reused, these features can bring about substantial energy
savings.
The guidelines in this chapter, together with the Commercial Design
Guidebook for commercial and mixed use developments and the
Inventory of Historic Resources are intended to ensure that both new
development and improvements to existing properties are compatible
with the historical character of Downtown and will be the basis of
design review.
Where a building is described in the Inventory of Historic Resources, the
inventory should be consulted as part of the design review. Building
characteristics described in the inventory should be a consideration in
project design and review, together with other design considerations
described in this chapter and in the Commercial Design Guidebook.
DPR 523L
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page 1 of 13 Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 1128 Douglas Avenue P1. Other Identifier: James R. Murphy Residence
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999
*c. Address 1128 Douglas Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 029-132-180
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1128 Douglas Avenue is a two-story over raised basement, single-family residence. It is designed in a vernacular style with
Shingle-style influence, and is clad in wood shingle and capped with a side gable roof. The 2,382 sq. ft. building occupies an
8,100 sq. ft. lot on the north side of Douglas Avenue between California Drive and Primrose Road. The house was constructed in
1903. It was originally located at 1208 Burlingame Avenue, but was moved to its current location in 1914. The house is sited
approximately 20 feet back from the front lot line, and slightly west of lot center to accommodate a driveway at the east perimeter
of the lot. A four-unit apartment complex is located at the rear of the lot and abuts the rear of the main house.
The primary façade faces south on Douglas Avenue and is arranged in a largely symmetrical three-bay pattern. The exposed
basement is clad in vertical T-111 siding at left, and the remainder of the façade is clad in wood shingle. At center, a short
concrete stair framed by low brick walls leads to an entry porch which spans the center and left bays. The primary entrance, a
multi-lite glazed wood door, is located at left and is sheltered within the entry porch. The porch is supported by square posts clad
in wood shingle, and is enclosed at its west edge by a multi-lite wood sash window. Additional fenestration within the entry porch
includes a fixed six-lite wood sash window at center and a multi-lite glazed wood door surrounded by multi-lite casement
sidelights and transom at right. The right bay consists of a 40-lite wood sash window (historic photographs reveal that this area
was originally an open part of the porch). At the second story, a large central hipped dormer includes four double-hung wood
sash windows with ogee lugs. The primary façade terminates with boxed eave overhangs at the roof and at the dormer.
(continued)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View of primary (south) façade,
5/14/2013
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1903, Assessor's Appraisal Report
*P7. Owner and Address:
Burlingame Park LLC
8 Vista Lane
Burlingame, CA 94010
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
*P9. Date Recorded:
05/14/2013
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter “none”) None
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
The west façade (Figure 2) is partially visible from the street and includes a brick chimney stack that extends the full height of the
building and is capped by a contemporary aluminum vent. The exposed basement at this façade includes four utility doors and
vented windows. Fenestration at this facade includes the multi-lite porch window previously described, and double hung vinyl sash
windows flanking the chimney at both the first and second stories. A two-story addition is visible at this façade toward the rear of
the house. The addition in built out from the volume of the house, clad in T-111 siding, and includes both double-hung and fixed
wood sash windows at the first story and a small porch at the second story with aluminum sash windows and a glazed wood door.
The west façade terminates in a flush roofline, except for the second story porch at the rear addition, which terminates in a
projecting flat roof.
The east façade (Figure 3) faces the driveway and is largely visible from the street. A concrete foundation is visible at the exposed
basement. A brick chimney is located toward the rear of the façade which extends beyond the roofline and is capped by a
contemporary aluminum vent. First story fenestration at this façade includes a multi-lite wood sash window at left, a shallow angled
bay with double-hung wood sash windows at center, and three six-over-one double-hung wood sash windows at the rear. A one
story shed roof addition with a fixed multi-lite window is located at the rear of the house. Fenestration at the second story includes
five double hung windows (four wood, one vinyl). Ornamentation at the second story includes a raised molding which traces the
line of the gable from the front façade.
The north (rear) façade (Figure 4) partially abuts the apartment building at the rear of the lot. The first story of the north façade
includes a pedestrian entrance at the right, sheltered by a shed roof, and a one-story projecting section at left with a shed roof, and
double-hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs. Two windows of the same configuration are located at the second story. The
façade terminates with a moderate eave overhang with exposed rafters.
The four unit apartment complex located at the rear of the lot (Figure 5) was constructed in 1952. It is two stories tall, L-shaped in
plan, clad in horizontal wood siding and capped with a shallow-pitched cross gable roof. The windows are wood sash.
There are two large trees in the front yard of the property, one redwood and one oak, which may be associated with Jesse N.
Murphy, wife the original owner.
The house appears to be in good condition.
Figure 1: 1128 Douglas Avenue, west facade.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013) Figure 2: 1128 Douglas Avenue, east facade.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description: (continued)
Figure 3: North (rear) facade, partial view.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013)
Figure 4: Apartment behind subject property.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013)
Figure 5: Redwood and oak, front yard 1128 Douglas Avenue.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 13 *NRHP Status Code 3CS
*Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
B1. Historic name: The James R. Murphy Residence, 1208 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA
B2. Common name: 1128 Douglas Avenue
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence
B4. Present use: Multi-unit Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular (Shingle-style influence) `
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
1128 Douglas Avenue was constructed in 1903 and was located at that time at 1208 Burlingame Avenue. The architect and builder
are unknown. The house was moved in 1914 to its current location on Douglas Avenue. Additions and alterations with known permit
dates include: reroofing (1977), fire repairs (1986), front and side yard fence (1994), and electric service and meter adjustments
(1998). Additional alterations with unknown dates include enclosure of the right side of front porch (after 1916), reconfiguration of
the primary entrance (after 1916), second story porch construction at west façade (date unknown), and one story shed addition at
the rear façade (date unknown).
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: 1914 Original Location:1208 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA
*B8. Related Features: Two-story apartment building at the rear of the lot (1952).
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme Association with early settlement, Murphy family Area Burlingame Land Co. Subdivision
Period of Significance Early settlement, 1885-1915; Murphy family, 1903-1940 Property Type Residential
Applicable Criteria 1, 2
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context:
City of Burlingame
The first known inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula were a linguistically and culturally diverse array of indigenous tribes
known collectively as the Ohlone. The Ohlone lived in close relation with the tideland resources of the San Francisco Bay, in
communities that the Spanish later termed rancherias -- small villages of unrelated family groups that collaborated in hunting,
fishing, harvesting, and religious practices. Spanish settlement of the California coast began after 1770, and increased European
presence on the San Francisco peninsula after the turn of the nineteenth century eventually led to a terminal decline in the area’s
once dense indigenous population. (See Continuation Sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) n/a
*B12. References:
(See Page 9)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: May 26, 2013
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2013.
Modified by Page & Turnbull.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
B10. Significance (cont’d):
During the era of Spanish control of the San Francisco peninsula, today’s Burlingame was utilized as farmland, worked primarily by
Ohlone people under the purview of Mission San Francisco de Asis. After Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, the process
of secularization of formerly Church-controlled land saw large grants of land made available for purchase to private Mexican
citizens.
The City of Burlingame was initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano
Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen,
including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the
US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s
business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy
and stock farm operations.
In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an
exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-
scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between
large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve
the needs of the wealthy estate owners.
Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903.
However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their
homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses.
Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910
annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Land Company
The Burlingame Land Company was located north of Burlingame Avenue on land now bounded by Bellevue Avenue at the south,
Oak Grove Avenue at the north, El Camino Real at the west, and California Drive at the east. The land was originally part of 440
acres owned by William Corbitt, a wealthy Scottish coffee merchant who acquired his land in the early 1870s and was one of the
area’s first full-time residents.1 After Corbitt’s death in 1898, the land was purchased by F. M. Moody and James Newlands Jr.
(nephew of Burlingame landowner Francis Newlands). The land was subdivided in 1905 by civil engineer Davenport Bromfield and
marketed by the real estate firm of Lyon and Hoag (Figures 7 & 8). Promotional materials describe the availability of 184 lots with
water connections already established for every lot. Building covenants enforced a 25’ setback for all properties to ensure a
uniformly bucolic feeling.
Settlement of the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision was strongly affected by its location. Although Southern Pacific had established
railroad service to Burlingame as early as 1894, transportation between Burlingame and San Francisco improved in frequency and
reliability in 1903, when the United Railway Company began to operate electric streetcar service between San Francisco and San
Mateo down California Avenue, the eastern perimeter of the Burlingame Land Co. area. Proximity to this convenient service made
lots in the new subdivision attractive to buyers. Additionally, the subdivision was located directly north of Burlingame Avenue, one
of the earliest settled streets in the town and the site of many town founders’ homes. By 1910, however, Burlingame Avenue had
become increasingly commercial, and the owners of these homes sought new locations for their homes. The Burlingame Land
Co.’s physical proximity to Burlingame Avenue made it a logical choice for these moved homes. Three homes associated with the
town’s earliest residents, city clerk James Murphy, Dr. A. L. Offield, and train stationmaster George Gates, were moved in the
1910s from their original location on Burlingame Avenue to lots within the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision. These houses were
moved to 1128 Douglas Avenue, 1124 Douglas Avenue (1904), and 1214 Donnelly Street (1903), respectively and are all extant at
the time of this report, though all three buildings and their immediate settings have been altered to an extent.2
1128 Douglas Avenue
The residence at 1128 Douglas Avenue was constructed in 1903 for Mr. and Mrs. James R. Murphy (Figure 9). The house was
originally located at 1206 Burlingame Avenue and stood there for ten years before the increasingly commercial nature of the street
compelled the Murphys to move their home to its current location in 1914 (Figures 10 & 11). The Murphy family was one of the
1 “History of Burlingame”, Vinther Properties website, http://www.vintherproperties.com/Burlingame_City_Facts.htm. 2 Joanne Garrison, Burlingame Centennial, 1908-2008, (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 6 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
earliest to settle in Burlingame; according to family history, the Murphy house was the seventh constructed in the unincorporated
town.3
James Russell Murphy was born in Redwood City in 1871, the son of Jeremiah and Catherine Murphy. His father was a native of
Ireland who came to California in 1862 and worked as a foreman on the San Francisco-San Jose rail line. James R. Murphy
attended Redwood City High School and worked afterward as a telegraph operator for Southern Pacific. In 1895, Murphy married
Jessie E. Nichols, daughter of Benjamin Nichols, a lumber baron and early settler of Santa Cruz, California. By 1900, the Murphys
were living in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County that would become Burlingame. Murphy worked as a station agent in
Millbrae and Burlingame. By 1910, the Murphys were living in their newly-constructed home on Burlingame Avenue, and James
Murphy was employed as the Burlingame City Clerk, in addition to his continued duties as Burlingame station master and as the
agent of an express company he had founded, Murphy’s Transfer. There were three Murphy children by 1910, including Justina
(12), Russell (8) and Robert (5).
Murphy retained the post of City Clerk for the next 30 years, until his death in 1940. According to his obituary, during those 30
years, he also served in a temporary capacity at every city job with the single exception of city attorney, including as an interim
mayor.4 Murphy was active in club life, including establishment of the local Elks chapter, as well as civic promotion, including
participation in the League of California Cities. Jessie Murphy was civically active as well, and served as one of the area’s first park
commissioners. Her lifelong commitment to the planting of trees, specifically redwood trees, was said to be an attempt to right
some of the damage her lumber baron father had wrought on the area’s landscape (Figure 12).5 The redwood tree in front of the
house at 1128 Douglas Avenue is very likely associated with Jessie Murphy’s tree advocacy. For several years in the early 1920s,
former Burlingame mayor Gustav MacGregor lived at 1128 Douglas Street with the Murphys. During his tenure as mayor (1912-
1913), Macgregor had been active in the drafting and implementation of tree ordinances in Burlingame, which likely spurred his
friendship with Jessie Murphy. The tree ordinances implemented by MacGregor continue to contribute to Burlingame’s enduring
legacy as a city of trees.
At the time of his death in July 1940, James Murphy was regarded as a beloved San Mateo County official, and his casket was
carried by Burlingame mayor Edward McDonald and various members of city and county council. Jessie Murphy continued to
reside at the house on Douglas Avenue after her husband’s death, and oversaw the construction of the apartment buildings at the
rear of the family lot in 1951 (Figures 13 & 14). After her death ca. 1960, ownership of the property passed to the Murphy children,
Justina and Robert. The home was occupied by Justina Murphy in 1970. In 1985, Robert Murphy sold the property to Elizabeth
Stevenson. Stevenson and her husband Larry owned the property through the 1990s. In 2005 the property was owned by Denham
LLC. The date of transfer to current ownership occurred on March 28, 2013.
Evaluation (Significance):
1128 Douglas Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register
of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is
not listed locally.
In February 2008, the City of Burlingame engaged Carey & Co. Inc. to complete an inventory of historic resources for the
Downtown Specific Plan Area. The purpose of this inventory was to identify properties that appeared eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources and/or the National Register of Historic Places. The inventory included 1128 Douglas
Avenue as one of 23 structures that Carey & Co. found would qualify as historic resources for the City of Burlingame and appeared
eligible for the California and the National Registers. No register nomination action was taken in response to these 2008 findings.
This evaluation finds that 1128 Douglas Avenue does not appear to meet the threshold for national significance within the local,
state, or national context such that it would be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under any criterion.
Criterion 1 (Events)
1128 Douglas Avenue appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its
association with early settlement patterns in the town of Burlingame. The period of significance for this context is 1885-1915.
Constructed in 1903, the house is one of the very oldest extant residential structures in Burlingame, the seventh constructed in the
town according to owner family recollection. It was originally located at 1206 Burlingame Avenue, which was where many of the
town’s earliest middle-class and upper-class families built their homes. The subdivision of the Burlingame Land Co.’s property in
1905, directly to the north of Burlingame Avenue, as well as the increasingly commercial nature of Burlingame Avenue after 1910,
3 Historic property files, Burlingame Historical Society. 4 “Jim Murphy, Loved Burlingame Official for 30 Years, Dies,” San Mateo County Times (1 July 1940) 1. 5 Murphy family file, Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 7 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
combined to motivate the Murphy family and other homeowners on Burlingame Avenue to relocate their homes. Relocation does
not negatively affect this property’s eligibility for register inclusion because it was undertaken nearly 100 years ago and undertaken
as part of a local development trend for property owners around the same time. Thus, the move itself was associated with a
significant aspect of physical development for the city. Additional extant residential structures that were moved from Burlingame
Avenue to the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision are rare and include the Dr. A. L. Offield, house (1124 Douglas Avenue) and the
George Gates house (1214 Donnell Street). Because the property was one of the first residences constructed in Burlingame and
exemplifies an important pattern of development in Burlingame, the property at 1128 Douglas Avenue appears be individually
significant for its association with early settlement, and is therefore eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1
(Events).
Criterion 2 (Persons)
1128 Douglas Avenue also appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons) due to
its association with James R. and Jessie N. Murphy. The period of significance for this association is 1903-1940, the period in
which both Murphys were alive, contributing actively to the city, and living in the house. James R. Murphy was living in the
Burlingame area by 1900 and serving as the town’s station master. By 1910 he was county clerk, a position he retained through to
his death in 1940. His contributions to Burlingame government and civic life were varied and well documented, and he died a
beloved town son in 1940. Jessie Murphy was also active in Burlingame government and civic life, serving as park commissioner
and acting as a lifelong advocate for trees, a subject integral to Burlingame’s civic identity as the “City of Trees.” Both James and
Jessie Murphy lived the majority of their lives in their house in Burlingame and raised three children there. The Murphys’ role in the
development of Burlingame as well as their long association with the property meet the threshold for significance for listing in the
listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons).
Criterion 3 (Architecture)
1128 Douglas Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture)
because the building does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The building is
vernacular in style and displays little in the way of distinctive features or detailing. The architect and builder are unknown and thus
cannot be considered masters in this evaluation. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and
does not appear eligible for register inclusion under Criterion C/3.
Criterion 4 (Information Potential)
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and
California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The
analysis of the house at 1128 Douglas Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Evaluation (Integrity):
1128 Douglas Avenue was constructed in 1903 at 1206 Burlingame Avenue and was moved to its current location in 1914. The
building retains integrity of location because its tenure at its original location was 11 years, and its tenure at its current location has
been 99 years. Integrity of setting is fair because the surrounding residential neighborhood has shifted from an area characterized
by single family homes to one that is increasingly characterized by larger multi-unit apartment buildings and condominiums.
However, a few other homes from this era of early settlement are extant in the area, including 1124 Douglas Avenue (the Dr. A. L.
Offield house), 1214 Donnelly Avenue (the George W. Gates house), and 1132 Douglas Avenue (the Everett J. Savill house),
which bolsters integrity of setting.
With regard to integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, integrity in relation to the Early Settlement period of significance
(1895-1915) has been somewhat compromised due to alterations to the primary façade, including the enclosure of part of the front
porch and the reconfiguration of openings at the primary facade. However, careful examination of historic photographs indicates
that between 1905 and 1916, the western facade of the front porch was enclosed by multi-lite windows, and a multi-lite window or
multi-lite doors was located at the eastern portion of the porch (Figure 9 & 11). Although the date of the enclosure of the eastern
portion of the porch is unknown, photographs taken ca. 1920 of the Murphys on their front porch show the north façade of the front
porch enclosed, and the multi-lite doors at the northern portion of the porch in place (Figure 12). Visual inspection of the porch
enclosure, which includes a multi-lite wood sash door, sidelights, and transom windows, places the enclosure prior to 1940. The
date of fenestration changes at the remainder of the porch are unknown, but the door at the south and the central window are both
wood multi-lite, and appear to match in configuration the doors at the northern part of the porch. Therefore, integrity of design,
materials and workmanship in relation to the association with the Murphy Family period of significance (1903-1940) remains high
because the majority of porch and fenestration changes appear to have taken place during this period. Larger alterations to the
rear are not easily visible from the street and do not compromise overall integrity of design, materials, and workmanship.
1138 Douglas Avenue retains integrity of feeling and association because the house retains its original use as a residence. The
redwood tree at the front of the property, very likely planted by Jessie Murphy, confirms the property’s association with the Murphy
family.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 8 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Overall, integrity is sufficient to convey the property’s significance in association with early Burlingame development and James
and Jessie Murphy.
Conclusion
1128 Douglas Avenue appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1 and 2. The California
Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “3CS” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found eligible for
California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory
inspection of the surrounding area reveals a moderate concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further
study. Additional research and evaluation of the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision as a whole would need to be done to verify the
neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B12. References:
- Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.
- Building Permit Records, 1128 Douglas Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingame Historical Society files.
- Burlingame Planning Department, Property file: 1128 Douglas Avenue.
- Burlingame Property Owner Cards, Burlingame Historical Society.
- Carey & Company. “Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” February 19, 2008.
- Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
ca. 2004.
- Evans, Beverley L., ed. Burlingame: Lively Memories- a Pictorial View. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977.
- Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007.
- “Jim Murphy, Loved Burlingame Official for 30 Years, Dies,” San Mateo County Times (1 July 1940) 1.
- McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
- Online Archive of California, “Loomis (Francis B.) Papers.”
- Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City.
- “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” July 26, 1982.
- United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930.
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 10 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Historic Maps and Photographs:
Figure 7: Illustration of Burlingame Land Co. subdivision, ca. 1905, from Lyon & Hoag promotional brochure.
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 8: Burlingame Land Co. Subdivision Map, 1905. Subject property located on what was
originally a larger lot, highlighted; map edited by author.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 9: 1128 Douglas Street, ca. 1905, prior to move, located on Burlingame Avenue.
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 10: 1913 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1128 Douglas Avenue lot
(building not yet moved) highlighted in red; edited by author.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 12 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 6: 1128 Douglas Street, 1916, after it was moved (address visible).
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 12: James R. and Jessie Murphy on their porch, 1128 Douglas Street, undated (ca. 1920).
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 13 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 13: 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1128 Douglas Avenue
highlighted in red (subject lot larger in size); edited by author.
Figure 14: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1128 Douglas Avenue
outlined in red (subject lot larger in size); edited by author.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page 1 of 11 Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
P1. Other Identifier: Everett J. Savill Residence
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999
*c. Address 1132 Douglas Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 029-132-190
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1132 Douglas Avenue is single family residence comprising two stories over a partially exposed basement. The Queen Anne-
style building is clad primarily in wood shingle and wood horizontal lap siding and is capped with a front gable roof with large
shed dormers. The 1,344 sq. ft. building occupies an 8,100 sq. ft. lot on the north side of Douglas Avenue between California
Drive and Primrose Road. The house was constructed in 1910 for Everett J. Savill, an early Burlingame resident. The house is
sited approximately 20 feet back from the front lot line, and slightly west of lot center to accommodate a driveway at the east
perimeter of the lot which leads to a one-car garage at the rear.
The primary façade faces south on Douglas Avenue and is arranged in a three-bay pattern. The exposed basement is clad in T-
111 siding. At center, a short brick stair leads to a paneled and glazed wood porch door with a large transom window with corner
moldings. Left of the porch door, the porch is enclosed by three large single paned wood frame windows, each with three-lite
transom windows. The primary entrance to the house is located within the entry porch; additional porch fenestration includes a
single pane wood framed window at left. Right of the porch door, there is a shallow angled bay clad in T-111 siding, which
includes a double-hung vinyl sash window at each bay facet.
(See Continuation Sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View of primary (south) façade,
5/15/2013
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1910, Assessor's Appraisal Report
*P7. Owner and Address:
Burlingame Park LLC
8 Vista Lane
Burlingame, CA 94010
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
*P9. Date Recorded:
05/15/2013
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter “none”) None
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description: (continued)
The second story of the primary façade is a large shingle-clad gable front, which includes a pair of centrally located double-hung
wood sash windows with ogee lugs. Below these windows is a wood window box with faux-rafter tail detailing, and above the
windows there is a hipped brow. At the gable peak there is a vented window with embellished wood molding. The gable is flared,
and the primary façade terminates with flush eaves.
The east façade (Figure 2) faces the driveway and is largely visible from the street. The exposed basement level is clad in T-111
siding, and the first and second stories are clad in narrow wood horizontal lap siding. Fenestration at the first story includes a
leaded glass window at left and a pair of double-hung vinyl sash windows with wide wood surrounds at right. The first story
terminates with a moderate boxed eave overhang. The wide second story dormer includes a double-hung vinyl sash window with
wide wood surrounds, and terminates with a shallow eave overhang. Portions of the dormer are clad in asphalt shingle. A two-story
tall furnace ventilation pipe is located at the center of the façade.
The west façade (Figure 3) faces an abutting property and is largely not visible from the street. The exposed basement includes
three vented windows. Fenestration at the first story includes two 12-lite sliding windows as part of the enclosed entry porch, a
contemporary greenhouse window at center, and a pair of double-hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs towards the rear. The
first story terminates with a moderate boxed eave overhang. The dormer includes two double-hung wood sash windows with ogee
lugs and wide wood surrounds and terminates with a shallow eave overhang. Portions of the dormer are clad in asphalt shingle. A
two-story tall furnace ventilation pipe is located at the center of the façade.
The rear (north) façade includes a full-height brick chimney stack at center that rises above the roofline (Figure 4). A contemporary
wood deck spans the width of the façade and obscures the exposed basement. The first story is clad in wood lap siding and
includes a fully-glazed entry door at left and, at right, an enclosed mud room clad in T-111 siding and capped with a hipped roof.
The mud room includes a contemporary entry door and several vinyl sash windows. At the second story, which is clad in wood
shingle, fenestration includes two double-hung windows—wood sash with ogee lugs at right and vinyl sash at left. The façade
terminates with flush eaves.
A one story cinder-block garage with a wood overhead vehicular door and a paneled wood pedestrian door is located in the
northeast corner of the backyard. The garage was constructed in 1952.
The house appears to be in good condition.
Figure 1: 1132 Douglas Avenue, east facade.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013.)
Figure 2: 1132 Douglas Avenue, west façade.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 3: 1132 Douglas Avenue, north (rear) facade.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 5 of 12 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # 1132 Douglas Avenue
B1. Historic name: Everett J. Savill Residence
B2. Common name: 1132 Douglas Avenue
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence
B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Queen Anne `
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
1132 Douglas Avenue was constructed in 1910; the original architect and builder are unknown. Additions and alterations with known
permit dates include: reroofing (1984), removal and replacement of seven windows (2008). Additions and alterations with unknown
permit dates include: enclosure of the front entry porch (prior to 1980), recladding of bay at primary façade (estimated 1985).
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:________
Original Location:_____________________________
*B8. Related Features: none
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme Association with early settlement Area Burlingame Land Co. subdivision
Period of Significance _Early settlement,1885-1915 Property Type_Residential_____Applicable Criteria n/a
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context:
City of Burlingame
The first known inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula were a linguistically and culturally diverse array of indigenous tribes
known collectively as the Ohlone. The Ohlone lived in close relation with the tideland resources of the San Francisco Bay, in
communities that the Spanish later termed rancherias -- small villages of unrelated family groups that collaborated in hunting,
fishing, harvesting, and religious practices. Spanish settlement of the California coast began after 1770, and increased European
presence on the San Francisco peninsula after the turn of the nineteenth century eventually led to a terminal decline in the area’s
once dense indigenous population. (see continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
(See Page 9)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: May 15, 2013
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2013.
Modified by Page & Turnbull.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 5 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
During the era of Spanish control of the San Francisco peninsula, today’s Burlingame was utilized as farmland, worked primarily by
Ohlone people under the purview of Mission San Francisco de Asis. After Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, the process of
secularization of formerly Church-controlled land saw large grants of land made available for purchase to private Mexican citizens.
The City of Burlingame was initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano
Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen,
including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the
US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s
business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy
and stock farm operations.
In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive
semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-scale
subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large
country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the
needs of the wealthy estate owners.
Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903.
However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes
began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses.
Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910
annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Land Company
The Burlingame Land Company was located north of Burlingame Avenue on land now bounded by Bellevue Avenue at the south,
Oak Grove Avenue at the north, El Camino Real at the west, and California Drive at the east. The land was originally part of 440
acres owned by William Corbitt, a wealthy Scottish coffee merchant who acquired his land in the early 1870s and was one of the
area’s first full-time residents.1 After Corbitt’s death in 1898, the land was purchased by F. M. Moody and James Newlands Jr.
(nephew of Burlingame landowner Francis Newlands). The land was subdivided in 1905 by civil engineer Davenport Bromfield and
marketed by the real estate firm of Lyon and Hoag (Figures 5 & 6). Promotional materials describe the availability of 184 lots with
water connections already established for every lot. Building covenants enforced a 25’ setback for all properties to ensure a
uniformly bucolic feeling.
Settlement of the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision was strongly affected by its location. Although Southern Pacific had established
railroad service to Burlingame as early as 1894, transportation between Burlingame and San Francisco improved in frequency and
reliability in 1903, when the United Railway Company began to operate electric streetcar service between San Francisco and San
Mateo down California Avenue, the eastern perimeter of the Burlingame Land Co. area. Proximity to this convenient service made
lots in the new subdivision attractive to buyers. Additionally, the subdivision was located directly north of Burlingame Avenue, one of
the earliest settled streets in the town and the site of many town founders’ homes. By 1910, however, Burlingame Avenue had
become increasingly commercial, and the owners of these homes sought new locations for their homes. The Burlingame Land Co.’s
physical proximity to Burlingame Avenue made it a logical choice for these moved homes. Three homes associated with the town’s
earliest residents, city clerk James Murphy, Dr. A. L. Offield, and train stationmaster George Gates, were moved in the 1910s from
their original location on Burlingame Avenue to lots within the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision. These houses were moved to 1128
Douglas Avenue, 1124 Douglas Avenue, and 1214 Donnelly Street, respectively.2 There they joined the neighborhood’s earliest
residents, among whom was Everett J. Savill.
1132 Douglas Avenue
The house at 1132 Douglas Avenue was constructed in 1910 for Everett J. Savill, an Iowa native who was raised by a butcher and
became a butcher himself. Born in 1882, Everett Saville was living by 1900 in Oakland and working as a clerk in a market. By 1909,
he had married his wife Esther and opened a butcher shop in Burlingame, where he cut meat and Esther worked as the
bookkeeper. In 1910, Savill commissioned the construction of the Queen Anne cottage at 1132 Douglas Avenue. According to the
recollection of Savill’s son Marvin Joe Savill, the Savill house was the third house on Douglas Avenue; the first was built for sales
agent Steven Doyle, the second for wholesaler Eugene Bannerot (neither extant), and the fourth was James R. Murphy’s house,
1 “History of Burlingame”, Vinther Properties website, http://www.vintherproperties.com/Burlingame_City_Facts.htm. 2 Joanne Garrison, Burlingame Centennial, 1908-2008, (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 6 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance (cont’d):
moved to Douglas Avenue from 1206 Burlingame Avenue in 1914.5
The 1910 United States Federal Census recorded a small crowd living in the new Savill house. In addition to Everett and Esther,
there were also two female servants living in the house, three male laborers, and Everett and Esther’s young son Marvin Joe Savill.
Marvin (who went by Joe) spent his entire life in residence at the house on Douglas Avenue and retained ownership of the property
until his death in 1999.
When Everett Savill moved in to his new home, the lot was wider and included an ancillary building that may have been a carriage
house (Figures 7 & 11). By 1921, the carriage was labeled as an auto garage on Sanborn maps. The adjacent lot was owned by
James R. Murphy, San Mateo county clerk and Burlingame’s station master.
In 1918, Savill was the manager of the Burlingame Meat Market, located at 1108 Burlingame Avenue. Joe Savill worked as a cutter
in his father’s market for most of his young life, followed by several years in the U. S. Army, after which he returned to the house on
Douglas Avenue and was employed as a meat cutter. Everett Savill owned and operated the Burlingame Meat Market until his
retirement in 1945.
Everett Savill passed away in November 1947 after a long illness. At his time of death, he was regarded as a Burlingame pioneer.6
He was an active member of the Holy Name Society of St. Catherine’s Church in Burlingame, Woodmen of the World, and an
honorary member of the Peninsula Meat Dealers Association. After his death, his wife Esther continued to live in the house on
Douglas Avenue, joined by her son Joe. Esther Savill died in 1972, after which Joe occupied the house. After Joe Savill died in
1999, ownership of the property passed through several hands in the 2000s. This included the following: James Paul Laumond
(1999), Manoocheha Javaherian (2003), Denham LLC (2004), Burlingame Land Ventures LLC (2007), and Burlingame Park LLC
(2011).
Evaluation (Significance):
The house at 1132 Douglas Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is
not listed locally.
In February 2008, the City of Burlingame engaged Carey & Co. Inc. to complete an inventory of historic resources for the Downtown
Specific Plan Area. The purpose of this inventory was to identify properties that appeared eligible for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. The inventory included 1132 Douglas Avenue as one of
23 structures that Carey & Co. found would qualify as historic resources for the City of Burlingame and appeared eligible for the
California and/or the National registers. No register nomination action was taken in response to these 2008 findings. Alterations
have been made to the primary façade of the house since it was surveyed for the 2008 inventory.
Criterion A/1 (Events)
Constructed in 1910, 1132 Douglas Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California
Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house was built relatively early in
Burlingame’s suburban development, but was one of a number of buildings constructed by the early 1910s, as evidenced by the
1913 Sanborn Map (Figure 8). The house does convey contextual significance in association with the development of the
Burlingame Land Co. subdivision, but it does not appear significant or influential in the development of the neighborhood. Therefore,
1132 Douglas Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1 (Events).
Criterion B/2 (Persons)
1132 Douglas Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion B/2
(Persons). The property is associated with its long-time owner and occupant Everett J. Savill. Although Savill is remembered as an
early resident of Burlingame, his contributions to the history of Burlingame do not meet the threshold of significance for register
inclusion. Esther and Marvin Joe Savill similarly do not garner significance for the property. Therefore the property is not eligible for
5 Property file, 1132 Douglas Avenue, Burlingame Historical Society. 6 “Everett J. Savill Obituary”, San Mateo Times, November 6, 1947.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 7 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
register inclusion under Criterion B/2.
Criterion C/3 (Architecture)
1132 Douglas Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3
(Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The Queen
Anne-style building is relatively well preserved and had undergone moderate alterations, but displays little in the way of
characteristic period style or detailing. It is a modest example of the style and does not appear to be an influential or noteworthy
example of residential construction in the neighborhood. The architect and builder are unknown and cannot be considered masters.
Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for register inclusion
under Criterion C/3.
Criterion D/4 (Information Potential)
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and
California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis
of the house at 1132 Douglas Avenue for eligibility under Criterion D/4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report.
Evaluation (Integrity):
The house at 1132 Douglas Avenue stands where it was originally constructed and therefore retains integrity of location. Integrity of
setting is has been compromised to an extent because the surrounding residential neighborhood has shifted from an area
characterized by single family homes to one that is increasingly characterized by larger multi-unit apartment buildings and
condominiums. A few other homes from this era of early settlement area extant in the area, including 1124 and 1128 Douglas
Avenue, which bolsters integrity of setting. The building retains overall integrity of design, though integrity of materials and
workmanship has been somewhat compromised due to the use of replacement materials at the windows and angled bay. The
building retains integrity of feeling and association because the house continues its use as a single family residence. Overall, the
building retains integrity.
Conclusion
1132 Douglas Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion A/1. The
California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found
ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory
inspection of the surrounding area reveals a moderate concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study.
Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Land Co. subdivision as a whole would need to be done to verify the
neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 8 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
*B12. References:
- Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.
- Building Permit Records, 1132 Douglas Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingam Historical Society files.
- Burlingame Planning Department, Property file: 1132 Douglas Avenue.
- Bulingame Property Owner Cards, Burlingame Historical Society.
- Carey & Company. “Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” February 19, 2008.
- Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
ca. 2004.
- Evans, Beverley L., ed. Burlingame: Lively Memories- a Pictorial View. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977.
- Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007.
- McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
- Online Archive of California, “Loomis (Francis B.) Papers.”
- Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City.
- “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” July 26, 1982.
- United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930.
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
Historic Maps and Photographs:
Figure 5: Illustration of Burlingame Land Co. subdivision, ca. 1905, from Lyon & Hoag promotional brochure.
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 9 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Figure 6. Burlingame Land Co. Subdivision Map, 1905.
Subject property located on larger lot, highlighted; map edited by author.
Figure 7: Men in front of the Burlingame Meat market, ca 1915. Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 10 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Figure 8. 1913 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1132 Douglas Avenue highlighted in red;
edited by author. Savill barn is located on adjacent property to the east.
Figure 9. 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
map of the subject block with 1132 Douglas Avenue
highlighted in red; edited by author.
Figure 10. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
map of the subject block with 1132 Douglas Avenue
highlighted in red; edited by author.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 11 of 11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1132 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Figure 11: 1132 Douglas Avenue, ca. 1910.
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 12: 1132 Douglas Avenue, 1980.
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
PROJECT LOCATION
524 Oak Grove Avenue
Item No. 9d
Design Review Study
Item No. 9d
Design Review Study City of Burlingame
Design Review and Front Setback Variance
Address: 524 Oak Grove Avenue Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance to demolish the existing house at 524
Oak Grove Avenue and replace it with an existing house to be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue;
the project includes a first and second story addition to the house moved from Douglas Avenue and
construction of a new detached garage.
Applicant and Architect: Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. APN: 029-083-010
Property Owner: Zers Douglas LLC Lot Area: 8,788 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Background: The proposed project includes demolishing the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and
replacing it with an existing house to be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue. The proposal to move the house
from 1128 Douglas Avenue is part of a concurrent application to build a new apartment building at 1128-1132
Douglas Avenue. This application for 524 Oak Grove Avenue includes a first and second story addition to the
house moved from Douglas Avenue and construction of a new detached garage.
In 2008, the City of Burlingame engaged Carey & Co. to complete an inventory of historic resources for the
Downtown Specific Plan Area. The purpose of this inventory was to identify properties that would qualify as
historic resources for the City of Burlingame and appeared eligible for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Carey & Co. determined that
23 structures within the Plan Area appeared to be eligible for the CRHR or the NRHP. 1128 and 1132 Douglas
Avenue are included on this list.
Historic Resource Evaluations (Evaluation) were prepared for 1128 & 1132 Douglas Avenue by Page & Turnbull,
Inc., dated May 14, 2013. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1128 Douglas Avenue is eligible for
individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association
with early settlement patterns in the town of Burlingame. The Evaluation notes that “Because the property was
one of the first residences constructed in Burlingame and exemplifies an important pattern of development in
Burlingame, the property at 1128 Douglas Avenue appears to be individually significant for its association with
early settlement, and is therefore eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events).”
1128 Douglas Avenue is also eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources
under Criterion 2 (Persons) due to its association with James R. and Jessie N. Murphy. The Evaluation notes
that “James R. Murphy was living in the Burlingame area by 1900 and serving as the town’s station master. By
1910 he was county clerk, a position he retained through to his death in 1940. His contributions to Burlingame
government and civic life were varied and well documented. Jessie Murphy was also active in Burlingame
government and civic life, serving as park commissioner and acting as a lifelong advocate for trees, a subject
integral to Burlingame’s civic identity as the “City of Trees.” Both James and Jessie Murphy lived the majority of
their lives in their house in Burlingame and raised three children there. The Murphys’ role in the development of
Burlingame as well as their long association with the property meet the threshold for significance for listing in the
listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The Historic Resource Study for 1128 Douglas
Avenue is attached.
The results of the evaluation for 1132 Douglas Avenue concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria.
The purpose of this design review study meeting is to provide initial comments on design elements as they relate
to the project at 524 Oak Grove Avenue (compatibility of the architectural style with the neighborhood,
architectural style and mass, parking and garage patterns, interface with structures on adjacent properties and
landscaping). A separate environmental scoping meeting will be held once an environmental consultant is
chosen.
Design Review and Front Setback Variance 524 Oak Grove Avenue
2
Project Description: The subject property is located at the corner of Oak Grove Avenue and Marin Drive. For
setback purposes, the shorter frontage along Marin Drive is considered to be the lot front. The proposed project
includes demolishing the existing two-story house, attached garage and detached shed on the site located at
524 Oak Grove Avenue. Rather than building a new house on the property, the applicant is proposing to move
the existing house currently located at 1128 Douglas Avenue onto this site as part of a concurrent application to
build a new 29-unit apartment building at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue. This application includes a first and
second story addition to the house moved from Douglas Avenue and construction of a new detached garage at
524 Oak Grove Avenue. Planning staff would note that compliance with the R-1 District development regulations
is based on a new house being proposed on the lot.
The existing two story house currently located at 1128 Douglas Avenue contains 2,676 SF of floor area (includes
a 100 SF covered porch exemption). In conjunction with moving the house to 524 Oak Grove Avenue, the
applicant is proposing a remodel and addition to the existing house, which includes demolishing approximately
one-half of the rear of the house (669 SF of the first floor and 524 SF of the second floor) (see Demolition Floor
Plan on sheet A2.1d). With the proposed first and second floor addition at the rear of the house and a new one-
car detached garage, the floor area will increase to 4,013 SF (0.45 FAR) where the zoning code allows a
maximum of 4,037 SF (0.46 FAR). The proposed project is 24 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.
Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site for the proposed four bedroom house.
The applicant is proposing to build a new detached one-car garage (12’-10” x 23’-5” clear interior dimensions);
one uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. The driveway and detached garage would be
accessed off Marin Drive. The existing curb cut and driveway apron along Oak Grove Avenue will be removed.
All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review to demolish the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and replace it with an existing
house to be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue; the project includes a first and second story addition to
the house moved from Douglas Avenue and construction of a new detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)
(1)); and
Front Setback Variance to the second floor of the house (18’-0” proposed where 20’-0” is the minimum
required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (a) (b) (3)).
The subject property contains a total of ten existing trees, six of which are of protected size (measuring 20.9 to
52 inches in diameter). This application includes removing three of the protected size trees, including two Olive
trees (17.8 and 19.3-inch diameter), an 18.5-inch diameter Spanish Fir Tree and four non-protected size trees.
A Protected Tree Permit will be required from the Parks Division for removal of the protected size trees.
There are also several street trees in front of the subject property, including two Stone Pine trees along Marin
Drive (60.4 and 54.3 inches in diameter) and an Olive tree along Oak Grove Avenue (14 inches in diameter).
Both Stone Pine trees will remain; the Olive tree will be removed. In his memo dated June 19, 2014, the City
Arborist notes that the existing Olive tree has poor structure and may be removed as part of this project.
An arborist report, dated August 11, 2014, was prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, which evaluates
several trees on the site as well as the street trees located within the City’s planter strip an provides tree
protection specifications (see attached). The City Arborist/Park Supervisor reviewed and accepted the report,
noting in his memo that “Tree Protection must be in place during all phases of construction” and that the
applicant must “follow independent arborist report for care and maintenance of all trees on site.”
This space intentionally left blank.
Design Review and Front Setback Variance 524 Oak Grove Avenue
3
524 Oak Grove Avenue
Lot Area: 8,788 SF Plans Date Stamped: December 22, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 18’ to house
(15’ to overhang)
15'-0" ¹
(2nd flr): 18’-0” ² 20'-0" ¹
Side (interior):
(exterior – 1st flr):
(exterior – 2nd flr):
12’-7”
10'-0” to house
(7’-6” to overhang)
> 12’-0” average
7'-0"
7'-6"
12’-0” average
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
71’-0” to porch
77’-0”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2448 SF
27.8%
3515 SF
40%
FAR: 4013 SF
0.45 FAR
4037 SF ³
0.38 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(12'-10” x 23'-5”)
1 uncovered
(9'-0” x 20’-0”)
1 covered
(10'-0” x 20’-0”)
1 uncovered
(10'-0” x 20'-0”)
Building Height: 26’-8” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075
¹ Since the block average calculation excludes corner lots and the highest and lowest front setbacks, there are
no parcels remaining on the block to serve as the basis for the block average. Therefore, the minimum
required front setbacks to the first and second floors are 15’-0’ and 20’-0”, respectively.
² Front Setback Variance to the second floor of the house (18’-0” proposed where 20’-0” is the minimum
required).
³ (0.32 x 8788 SF) + 1100 SF + 324 SF = 4037 SF (0.46 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Design Review and Front Setback Variance 524 Oak Grove Avenue
4
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc., applicant and architect
Zers Douglas LLC, property owner
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance Application
Arborist Report Prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated August 11, 2014
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 13, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Historical Resource Evaluation for 1128 Douglas Avenue, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated May 14,
2013
DPR 523L
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page 1 of 13 Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 1128 Douglas Avenue P1. Other Identifier: James R. Murphy Residence
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999
*c. Address 1128 Douglas Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 029-132-180
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1128 Douglas Avenue is a two-story over raised basement, single-family residence. It is designed in a vernacular style with
Shingle-style influence, and is clad in wood shingle and capped with a side gable roof. The 2,382 sq. ft. building occupies an
8,100 sq. ft. lot on the north side of Douglas Avenue between California Drive and Primrose Road. The house was constructed in
1903. It was originally located at 1208 Burlingame Avenue, but was moved to its current location in 1914. The house is sited
approximately 20 feet back from the front lot line, and slightly west of lot center to accommodate a driveway at the east perimeter
of the lot. A four-unit apartment complex is located at the rear of the lot and abuts the rear of the main house.
The primary façade faces south on Douglas Avenue and is arranged in a largely symmetrical three-bay pattern. The exposed
basement is clad in vertical T-111 siding at left, and the remainder of the façade is clad in wood shingle. At center, a short
concrete stair framed by low brick walls leads to an entry porch which spans the center and left bays. The primary entrance, a
multi-lite glazed wood door, is located at left and is sheltered within the entry porch. The porch is supported by square posts clad
in wood shingle, and is enclosed at its west edge by a multi-lite wood sash window. Additional fenestration within the entry porch
includes a fixed six-lite wood sash window at center and a multi-lite glazed wood door surrounded by multi-lite casement
sidelights and transom at right. The right bay consists of a 40-lite wood sash window (historic photographs reveal that this area
was originally an open part of the porch). At the second story, a large central hipped dormer includes four double-hung wood
sash windows with ogee lugs. The primary façade terminates with boxed eave overhangs at the roof and at the dormer.
(continued)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View of primary (south) façade,
5/14/2013
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1903, Assessor's Appraisal Report
*P7. Owner and Address:
Burlingame Park LLC
8 Vista Lane
Burlingame, CA 94010
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
*P9. Date Recorded:
05/14/2013
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter “none”) None
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
The west façade (Figure 2) is partially visible from the street and includes a brick chimney stack that extends the full height of the
building and is capped by a contemporary aluminum vent. The exposed basement at this façade includes four utility doors and
vented windows. Fenestration at this facade includes the multi-lite porch window previously described, and double hung vinyl sash
windows flanking the chimney at both the first and second stories. A two-story addition is visible at this façade toward the rear of
the house. The addition in built out from the volume of the house, clad in T-111 siding, and includes both double-hung and fixed
wood sash windows at the first story and a small porch at the second story with aluminum sash windows and a glazed wood door.
The west façade terminates in a flush roofline, except for the second story porch at the rear addition, which terminates in a
projecting flat roof.
The east façade (Figure 3) faces the driveway and is largely visible from the street. A concrete foundation is visible at the exposed
basement. A brick chimney is located toward the rear of the façade which extends beyond the roofline and is capped by a
contemporary aluminum vent. First story fenestration at this façade includes a multi-lite wood sash window at left, a shallow angled
bay with double-hung wood sash windows at center, and three six-over-one double-hung wood sash windows at the rear. A one
story shed roof addition with a fixed multi-lite window is located at the rear of the house. Fenestration at the second story includes
five double hung windows (four wood, one vinyl). Ornamentation at the second story includes a raised molding which traces the
line of the gable from the front façade.
The north (rear) façade (Figure 4) partially abuts the apartment building at the rear of the lot. The first story of the north façade
includes a pedestrian entrance at the right, sheltered by a shed roof, and a one-story projecting section at left with a shed roof, and
double-hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs. Two windows of the same configuration are located at the second story. The
façade terminates with a moderate eave overhang with exposed rafters.
The four unit apartment complex located at the rear of the lot (Figure 5) was constructed in 1952. It is two stories tall, L-shaped in
plan, clad in horizontal wood siding and capped with a shallow-pitched cross gable roof. The windows are wood sash.
There are two large trees in the front yard of the property, one redwood and one oak, which may be associated with Jesse N.
Murphy, wife the original owner.
The house appears to be in good condition.
Figure 1: 1128 Douglas Avenue, west facade.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013) Figure 2: 1128 Douglas Avenue, east facade.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description: (continued)
Figure 3: North (rear) facade, partial view.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013)
Figure 4: Apartment behind subject property.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013)
Figure 5: Redwood and oak, front yard 1128 Douglas Avenue.
(Page & Turnbull, May 2013.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 13 *NRHP Status Code 3CS
*Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
B1. Historic name: The James R. Murphy Residence, 1208 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA
B2. Common name: 1128 Douglas Avenue
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence
B4. Present use: Multi-unit Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular (Shingle-style influence) `
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
1128 Douglas Avenue was constructed in 1903 and was located at that time at 1208 Burlingame Avenue. The architect and builder
are unknown. The house was moved in 1914 to its current location on Douglas Avenue. Additions and alterations with known permit
dates include: reroofing (1977), fire repairs (1986), front and side yard fence (1994), and electric service and meter adjustments
(1998). Additional alterations with unknown dates include enclosure of the right side of front porch (after 1916), reconfiguration of
the primary entrance (after 1916), second story porch construction at west façade (date unknown), and one story shed addition at
the rear façade (date unknown).
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: 1914 Original Location:1208 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA
*B8. Related Features: Two-story apartment building at the rear of the lot (1952).
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme Association with early settlement, Murphy family Area Burlingame Land Co. Subdivision
Period of Significance Early settlement, 1885-1915; Murphy family, 1903-1940 Property Type Residential
Applicable Criteria 1, 2
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context:
City of Burlingame
The first known inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula were a linguistically and culturally diverse array of indigenous tribes
known collectively as the Ohlone. The Ohlone lived in close relation with the tideland resources of the San Francisco Bay, in
communities that the Spanish later termed rancherias -- small villages of unrelated family groups that collaborated in hunting,
fishing, harvesting, and religious practices. Spanish settlement of the California coast began after 1770, and increased European
presence on the San Francisco peninsula after the turn of the nineteenth century eventually led to a terminal decline in the area’s
once dense indigenous population. (See Continuation Sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) n/a
*B12. References:
(See Page 9)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: May 26, 2013
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2013.
Modified by Page & Turnbull.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
B10. Significance (cont’d):
During the era of Spanish control of the San Francisco peninsula, today’s Burlingame was utilized as farmland, worked primarily by
Ohlone people under the purview of Mission San Francisco de Asis. After Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, the process
of secularization of formerly Church-controlled land saw large grants of land made available for purchase to private Mexican
citizens.
The City of Burlingame was initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano
Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen,
including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the
US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s
business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy
and stock farm operations.
In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an
exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-
scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between
large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve
the needs of the wealthy estate owners.
Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903.
However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their
homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses.
Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910
annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Land Company
The Burlingame Land Company was located north of Burlingame Avenue on land now bounded by Bellevue Avenue at the south,
Oak Grove Avenue at the north, El Camino Real at the west, and California Drive at the east. The land was originally part of 440
acres owned by William Corbitt, a wealthy Scottish coffee merchant who acquired his land in the early 1870s and was one of the
area’s first full-time residents.1 After Corbitt’s death in 1898, the land was purchased by F. M. Moody and James Newlands Jr.
(nephew of Burlingame landowner Francis Newlands). The land was subdivided in 1905 by civil engineer Davenport Bromfield and
marketed by the real estate firm of Lyon and Hoag (Figures 7 & 8). Promotional materials describe the availability of 184 lots with
water connections already established for every lot. Building covenants enforced a 25’ setback for all properties to ensure a
uniformly bucolic feeling.
Settlement of the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision was strongly affected by its location. Although Southern Pacific had established
railroad service to Burlingame as early as 1894, transportation between Burlingame and San Francisco improved in frequency and
reliability in 1903, when the United Railway Company began to operate electric streetcar service between San Francisco and San
Mateo down California Avenue, the eastern perimeter of the Burlingame Land Co. area. Proximity to this convenient service made
lots in the new subdivision attractive to buyers. Additionally, the subdivision was located directly north of Burlingame Avenue, one
of the earliest settled streets in the town and the site of many town founders’ homes. By 1910, however, Burlingame Avenue had
become increasingly commercial, and the owners of these homes sought new locations for their homes. The Burlingame Land
Co.’s physical proximity to Burlingame Avenue made it a logical choice for these moved homes. Three homes associated with the
town’s earliest residents, city clerk James Murphy, Dr. A. L. Offield, and train stationmaster George Gates, were moved in the
1910s from their original location on Burlingame Avenue to lots within the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision. These houses were
moved to 1128 Douglas Avenue, 1124 Douglas Avenue (1904), and 1214 Donnelly Street (1903), respectively and are all extant at
the time of this report, though all three buildings and their immediate settings have been altered to an extent.2
1128 Douglas Avenue
The residence at 1128 Douglas Avenue was constructed in 1903 for Mr. and Mrs. James R. Murphy (Figure 9). The house was
originally located at 1206 Burlingame Avenue and stood there for ten years before the increasingly commercial nature of the street
compelled the Murphys to move their home to its current location in 1914 (Figures 10 & 11). The Murphy family was one of the
1 “History of Burlingame”, Vinther Properties website, http://www.vintherproperties.com/Burlingame_City_Facts.htm. 2 Joanne Garrison, Burlingame Centennial, 1908-2008, (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 6 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
earliest to settle in Burlingame; according to family history, the Murphy house was the seventh constructed in the unincorporated
town.3
James Russell Murphy was born in Redwood City in 1871, the son of Jeremiah and Catherine Murphy. His father was a native of
Ireland who came to California in 1862 and worked as a foreman on the San Francisco-San Jose rail line. James R. Murphy
attended Redwood City High School and worked afterward as a telegraph operator for Southern Pacific. In 1895, Murphy married
Jessie E. Nichols, daughter of Benjamin Nichols, a lumber baron and early settler of Santa Cruz, California. By 1900, the Murphys
were living in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County that would become Burlingame. Murphy worked as a station agent in
Millbrae and Burlingame. By 1910, the Murphys were living in their newly-constructed home on Burlingame Avenue, and James
Murphy was employed as the Burlingame City Clerk, in addition to his continued duties as Burlingame station master and as the
agent of an express company he had founded, Murphy’s Transfer. There were three Murphy children by 1910, including Justina
(12), Russell (8) and Robert (5).
Murphy retained the post of City Clerk for the next 30 years, until his death in 1940. According to his obituary, during those 30
years, he also served in a temporary capacity at every city job with the single exception of city attorney, including as an interim
mayor.4 Murphy was active in club life, including establishment of the local Elks chapter, as well as civic promotion, including
participation in the League of California Cities. Jessie Murphy was civically active as well, and served as one of the area’s first park
commissioners. Her lifelong commitment to the planting of trees, specifically redwood trees, was said to be an attempt to right
some of the damage her lumber baron father had wrought on the area’s landscape (Figure 12).5 The redwood tree in front of the
house at 1128 Douglas Avenue is very likely associated with Jessie Murphy’s tree advocacy. For several years in the early 1920s,
former Burlingame mayor Gustav MacGregor lived at 1128 Douglas Street with the Murphys. During his tenure as mayor (1912-
1913), Macgregor had been active in the drafting and implementation of tree ordinances in Burlingame, which likely spurred his
friendship with Jessie Murphy. The tree ordinances implemented by MacGregor continue to contribute to Burlingame’s enduring
legacy as a city of trees.
At the time of his death in July 1940, James Murphy was regarded as a beloved San Mateo County official, and his casket was
carried by Burlingame mayor Edward McDonald and various members of city and county council. Jessie Murphy continued to
reside at the house on Douglas Avenue after her husband’s death, and oversaw the construction of the apartment buildings at the
rear of the family lot in 1951 (Figures 13 & 14). After her death ca. 1960, ownership of the property passed to the Murphy children,
Justina and Robert. The home was occupied by Justina Murphy in 1970. In 1985, Robert Murphy sold the property to Elizabeth
Stevenson. Stevenson and her husband Larry owned the property through the 1990s. In 2005 the property was owned by Denham
LLC. The date of transfer to current ownership occurred on March 28, 2013.
Evaluation (Significance):
1128 Douglas Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register
of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is
not listed locally.
In February 2008, the City of Burlingame engaged Carey & Co. Inc. to complete an inventory of historic resources for the
Downtown Specific Plan Area. The purpose of this inventory was to identify properties that appeared eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources and/or the National Register of Historic Places. The inventory included 1128 Douglas
Avenue as one of 23 structures that Carey & Co. found would qualify as historic resources for the City of Burlingame and appeared
eligible for the California and the National Registers. No register nomination action was taken in response to these 2008 findings.
This evaluation finds that 1128 Douglas Avenue does not appear to meet the threshold for national significance within the local,
state, or national context such that it would be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under any criterion.
Criterion 1 (Events)
1128 Douglas Avenue appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its
association with early settlement patterns in the town of Burlingame. The period of significance for this context is 1885-1915.
Constructed in 1903, the house is one of the very oldest extant residential structures in Burlingame, the seventh constructed in the
town according to owner family recollection. It was originally located at 1206 Burlingame Avenue, which was where many of the
town’s earliest middle-class and upper-class families built their homes. The subdivision of the Burlingame Land Co.’s property in
1905, directly to the north of Burlingame Avenue, as well as the increasingly commercial nature of Burlingame Avenue after 1910,
3 Historic property files, Burlingame Historical Society. 4 “Jim Murphy, Loved Burlingame Official for 30 Years, Dies,” San Mateo County Times (1 July 1940) 1. 5 Murphy family file, Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 7 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
combined to motivate the Murphy family and other homeowners on Burlingame Avenue to relocate their homes. Relocation does
not negatively affect this property’s eligibility for register inclusion because it was undertaken nearly 100 years ago and undertaken
as part of a local development trend for property owners around the same time. Thus, the move itself was associated with a
significant aspect of physical development for the city. Additional extant residential structures that were moved from Burlingame
Avenue to the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision are rare and include the Dr. A. L. Offield, house (1124 Douglas Avenue) and the
George Gates house (1214 Donnell Street). Because the property was one of the first residences constructed in Burlingame and
exemplifies an important pattern of development in Burlingame, the property at 1128 Douglas Avenue appears be individually
significant for its association with early settlement, and is therefore eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1
(Events).
Criterion 2 (Persons)
1128 Douglas Avenue also appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons) due to
its association with James R. and Jessie N. Murphy. The period of significance for this association is 1903-1940, the period in
which both Murphys were alive, contributing actively to the city, and living in the house. James R. Murphy was living in the
Burlingame area by 1900 and serving as the town’s station master. By 1910 he was county clerk, a position he retained through to
his death in 1940. His contributions to Burlingame government and civic life were varied and well documented, and he died a
beloved town son in 1940. Jessie Murphy was also active in Burlingame government and civic life, serving as park commissioner
and acting as a lifelong advocate for trees, a subject integral to Burlingame’s civic identity as the “City of Trees.” Both James and
Jessie Murphy lived the majority of their lives in their house in Burlingame and raised three children there. The Murphys’ role in the
development of Burlingame as well as their long association with the property meet the threshold for significance for listing in the
listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons).
Criterion 3 (Architecture)
1128 Douglas Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture)
because the building does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The building is
vernacular in style and displays little in the way of distinctive features or detailing. The architect and builder are unknown and thus
cannot be considered masters in this evaluation. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and
does not appear eligible for register inclusion under Criterion C/3.
Criterion 4 (Information Potential)
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and
California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The
analysis of the house at 1128 Douglas Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Evaluation (Integrity):
1128 Douglas Avenue was constructed in 1903 at 1206 Burlingame Avenue and was moved to its current location in 1914. The
building retains integrity of location because its tenure at its original location was 11 years, and its tenure at its current location has
been 99 years. Integrity of setting is fair because the surrounding residential neighborhood has shifted from an area characterized
by single family homes to one that is increasingly characterized by larger multi-unit apartment buildings and condominiums.
However, a few other homes from this era of early settlement are extant in the area, including 1124 Douglas Avenue (the Dr. A. L.
Offield house), 1214 Donnelly Avenue (the George W. Gates house), and 1132 Douglas Avenue (the Everett J. Savill house),
which bolsters integrity of setting.
With regard to integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, integrity in relation to the Early Settlement period of significance
(1895-1915) has been somewhat compromised due to alterations to the primary façade, including the enclosure of part of the front
porch and the reconfiguration of openings at the primary facade. However, careful examination of historic photographs indicates
that between 1905 and 1916, the western facade of the front porch was enclosed by multi-lite windows, and a multi-lite window or
multi-lite doors was located at the eastern portion of the porch (Figure 9 & 11). Although the date of the enclosure of the eastern
portion of the porch is unknown, photographs taken ca. 1920 of the Murphys on their front porch show the north façade of the front
porch enclosed, and the multi-lite doors at the northern portion of the porch in place (Figure 12). Visual inspection of the porch
enclosure, which includes a multi-lite wood sash door, sidelights, and transom windows, places the enclosure prior to 1940. The
date of fenestration changes at the remainder of the porch are unknown, but the door at the south and the central window are both
wood multi-lite, and appear to match in configuration the doors at the northern part of the porch. Therefore, integrity of design,
materials and workmanship in relation to the association with the Murphy Family period of significance (1903-1940) remains high
because the majority of porch and fenestration changes appear to have taken place during this period. Larger alterations to the
rear are not easily visible from the street and do not compromise overall integrity of design, materials, and workmanship.
1138 Douglas Avenue retains integrity of feeling and association because the house retains its original use as a residence. The
redwood tree at the front of the property, very likely planted by Jessie Murphy, confirms the property’s association with the Murphy
family.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 8 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Overall, integrity is sufficient to convey the property’s significance in association with early Burlingame development and James
and Jessie Murphy.
Conclusion
1128 Douglas Avenue appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1 and 2. The California
Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “3CS” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found eligible for
California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory
inspection of the surrounding area reveals a moderate concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further
study. Additional research and evaluation of the Burlingame Land Co. subdivision as a whole would need to be done to verify the
neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B12. References:
- Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.
- Building Permit Records, 1128 Douglas Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingame Historical Society files.
- Burlingame Planning Department, Property file: 1128 Douglas Avenue.
- Burlingame Property Owner Cards, Burlingame Historical Society.
- Carey & Company. “Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” February 19, 2008.
- Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
ca. 2004.
- Evans, Beverley L., ed. Burlingame: Lively Memories- a Pictorial View. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977.
- Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007.
- “Jim Murphy, Loved Burlingame Official for 30 Years, Dies,” San Mateo County Times (1 July 1940) 1.
- McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
- Online Archive of California, “Loomis (Francis B.) Papers.”
- Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City.
- “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” July 26, 1982.
- United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930.
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 10 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Historic Maps and Photographs:
Figure 7: Illustration of Burlingame Land Co. subdivision, ca. 1905, from Lyon & Hoag promotional brochure.
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 8: Burlingame Land Co. Subdivision Map, 1905. Subject property located on what was
originally a larger lot, highlighted; map edited by author.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 9: 1128 Douglas Street, ca. 1905, prior to move, located on Burlingame Avenue.
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 10: 1913 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1128 Douglas Avenue lot
(building not yet moved) highlighted in red; edited by author.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 12 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 6: 1128 Douglas Street, 1916, after it was moved (address visible).
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
Figure 12: James R. and Jessie Murphy on their porch, 1128 Douglas Street, undated (ca. 1920).
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 13 of 13 Resource Name or # 1128 Douglas Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date May 2013 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 13: 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1128 Douglas Avenue
highlighted in red (subject lot larger in size); edited by author.
Figure 14: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1128 Douglas Avenue
outlined in red (subject lot larger in size); edited by author.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 13, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1119 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling at 1119 Eastmoor Road, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning
Commission on the July 28, 2014 Consent Calendar (see attached July 28, 2014 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in November 2014 and
construction is underway.
With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of as-built changes which include
replacing the existing round window next to the attached garage with a square window and
eliminating the gable end over the second floor window along the Right Elevation . Please refer
to the attached explanation letter, dated March 11, 2015 for a detailed explanation of why the
changes occurred.
The designer submitted plans showing the originally approved and as-built building elevations,
date stamped March 11, 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 March 11, 2015
July 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and as-built plans, date stamped March 11, 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 13, 2015 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN
REVIEW PROJECT AT 1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3.
Summary: An application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Design
Review, Parking Variance and Tentative Condominium Map for construction of a new four-story,
10-unit residential condominium at 1433 Floribunda Avenue was approved by the Planning
Commission on February 24, 2014 (see attached February 24, 2014 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes ). The applicant recently submitted for a building permit; however a permit has
not yet been issued.
The applicant is requesting approval of a variety of exterior changes along all four sides of the
building. These changes presented themselves during the construction document and building
permitting phases. The applicant submitted letters dated February 19 and March 13, 2015,
accompanied by proposed plans, date stamped March 6, 2015, to explain in detail the proposed
changes to the previously approved Design Review project.
There also changes proposed to the landscaping. The applicant notes that due to a change to
the location of the basement wall, the landscape strip along the right side property line was
reduced from 3’-0” to 1’-6” in width. Along with required shoring for the basement wall, there is
not enough room for an adequate landscape strip. In addition, there will also be 6-inch storm
water sewer pipe located 12 to 24 inches below grade at this location. As a result, the
evergreen shrubs between the first five trees along the right side property line will be eliminated
and the trees previously proposed to be planted in the ground will need to be planted in
containers.
The previously proposed Fern Pine trees along the right side property line are proposed to be
replaced with Sweet Olive trees. Sweet Olive trees were selected for their more leafy evergreen
foliage. These trees will be planted in 24-inch box containers rather than in the ground and
have a growth height of 10 to 18 feet.
Planning staff would note that because of the minor revisions to the exterior elements of the
house, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item.
If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners Inc., architect
Community Development Department Memorandum
March 13, 2015
Page 2
Attachments:
Explanation Letters from Applicant, dated February 19 and March 13, 2015
February 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally Approved and Proposed Plans, date stamped March 6, 2015