HomeMy WebLinkAbout998 Howard Avenue - Staff Report (3)Item Na 9b
Design Review Study
PROJECT LOCATION
988 Howard Avenue
City of Burlingame
Design Review Study for a
New Three-Story Commercial Building
Address: 988 Howard Avenue
Item No. 9b � I
Design Review Study �
Meeting Date: September 14, 2015
Request: Design Review for an application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for a new
3-story commercial building.
Applicant: Dimitrios Sogas APN: 029-214-220
Architect: Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners
Property Owners: Robert Lugliani
General Plan: Shopping and Service- Downtown Specific Plan (Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area)
Lot Area: 15,352 (0.35 Acres) Zoning: MMU (Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area)
Adjacent Development: Auto sales, service and storage; retail and personal
residential and single family residential, railroad right-of-way
Current Use: Gas Station/Automobile Repair
Proposed Use: 3- Story Commercial Building (retail/office)
Allowable Use: Retail, Personal Services, Business Services, Service Commercial,
Government Agencies.
service, multiple-family
Office, Travel Agencies,
Project Summary: The subject property is located at 988 Howard Avenue. The site_ is bound by three streets,
East Lane, Howard Avenue and Myrtle Read. The narrowest portion of a parcel is considered the frontage for
zoning purposes; in this case Myrtle Road is considered the front of the property. The site is currently occupied
by a gas station and automobile repair shop. Abutting the property to the north is an automotive service
garage, across the street to the south is an automobile storage lot, across the street to the east is a two-story
mixed use building with retail and personal services on the ground floor and residential above, and across the
street to the west are the railroad tracks with automobile sales and service beyond (along California Drive).
The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story commercial building. The proposed building will
contain 1,325 SF of retail space on the ground floor with 22,295 SF of office space on the two floors above.
The proposal also includes a 3,800 SF roof deck. The building height proposed is 45-feet.
There will be at-grade parking located behind the lobby and retail space on the ground floor, with access off of
East Lane. In addition there will be below-grade parking provided as well with access off of Howard Avenue
with a total of 68 on-site parking spaces provided.
The retail space will be accessible from both Howard Avenue and Myrtle Road. The lobby to access the
second and third floor office spaces will be along East Lane. At this time the office space is being designed to
accommodate either a single tenant or multiple tenants. In addition to the roof deck that is proposed, both
floors of office will provide multiple deck areas along the three street facing sides of the building.
During preliminary review Planning staff identified that the following applications will be required for this project:
■ Commercial Design Review (Code Section 25.57.010(c));
■ Conditional Use Permit for building height (45'-0" proposed where 35'-0" is the maximum allowed
without a CUP) (C.S. 25.34.055);
■ Parking Variance for 5 on-site parking spaces (68 on-site parking spaces provided where 73 parking
spaces are required for the proposed uses; 5 space deficiency) (Code Section 25.70.010 (a)); and
■ Rear Setback Variance (10'-0" rear setback proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S.
25.34.060(c))
Design Review Study 988 Howard Avenue
Lot Area: 15,352 SF 0.35 Acres Plans date stam ed: Au ust 12, 2015
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQUIRED
JuNe 13, 2015 Au�usT 12, 2015
Use Office — 22,225 SF Office — 22,295 SF Office Use — Permitted
Retail Uses —1,325 SF Retail Uses — 1,325 SF C.S. 25.34.020(e)
Retail Use — Permitted
C.S. 25.34.020 a
SETBACKS
Front: 20'-0" 20'-0" 10'-0"
(Myrtle Road)
Side (interior): 0 0 None Required
(exterior): 5'-0" 5'-0" None Required
Rear: 10'-0"' 10'-0"' 20'-0"
(East Lane)
BUILDll1r'G ENVELOPE:
Lof Coverage: 20'-0" 20'-0" 11,514 SF
- 75%
0 0
Height: 45'-0"12 45'-0" 2 Heights over 35'-0" require
conditional use permit
(up to a maximum of 45-0"
OFF-STREET PARKING:
Number of 60 spaces3 68 spaces3 Office - 1 space per 300 SF
Parking Spaces: Retail -1 space per 400 SF
Office: ,
2nd fl -10,650 SF
Stnd — 44 spaces Std — 30 spaces 3`a fl - 10,230 SF
ADA — 3 spaces ADA — 3 spaces 20,880 SF/300= 69.6 spaces
Pzl stacker- 5 spaces Pzl stacker- 27 spaces Retail:
Tandem — 8 spaces Tandem — 8 spaces 1,325 SF/400 = 3.31 spaces
Total= 60 s aces Total= 68 spaces Total = 73 spaces
Drive Aisle/ 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" aisle for 90° parking or
C/ear Back-up ' exit in 3 maneuvers or less
Space:
Parking Space Standard spaces = Standard spaces = Standard spaces =
Dimensions: 8'-6" x 18' 8'-6" x 18' 8'-6" x 18'
Driveway Width: 12'-0" driveway width- 12'-0" driveway width- Parking areas with not more
East Lane entrance East Lane entrance than 30 vehicle spaces shall
(21 vehicles) (30 vehicles) have a minimum driveway
width of 12'-0"
Page 2 of 6
Design Review Study 988 Howard Avenue '
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQUIRED
JuNE 13, 2015 AuGUST 12, 2015
18'-0" driveway width- 18'-0" driveway width-
Howard Avenue Howard Avenue entrance Parking areas with more than
entrance (38 vehicles) 30 vehicle spaces shall have a
(39 vehicles) minimum driveway width of
18'-0"
LANDSCAPING:
Landscaping: 78% 78% 10% of front setback
(820 SF) (820 SF) 1,050 x 10%= 105 SF
1 Kear setbacK variance requested tor a 10'-0" rear setback where a minimum of a 20'-0° rear setback is
required.
2 Conditional Use Permit required for 45'-0° height where 35'-0" is the maximum allowed without a CUP.
3 Parking variance requested for 5 spaces; 68 on-site parking spaces proposed where 73 on-site spaces
are required.
Study Meeting: On June 8, 2015 the Planning Commission held an environmental scoping meeting and
design review study meeting for the proposed project. The commission had several comments at that meeting.
Please refer to the attached minutes for the complete overview. A brief summary is provided-below:
• Parking variance needs additional findings, hard to justify for a new building;
• Consider going two stories below for parking or add more stackers;
• Height is a concern; how will it fit in with the neighborhood- consider stepping back top floor;
• Concerned with Myrtle/Howard fa�ade;
� Building is not a good extension of downtown or transition into the residential neighborhood;
• Design should provide a buffer between downtown and residential area; and
• Architectural style, scale and massing should blend with surrounding area.
The applicant submitted a response letter, revised plans and renderings date stamped August 12, 2015, to
respond to the Planning Commission's comments.
Design Review: Design Review is required for new commercial buildings pursuant to C.S. 25.57.010(c)(1).
Design Review was instituted for commercial projects in 2001 with the adoption of the Commercial Design
Guidebook. While there was already a design review study session for this project on June 8, 2015 the
applicant requested a second study meeting to get additional feedback on the revised project from the
Planning Commission while the CEQA document for this project is being prepared.
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Special Plan therefore in addition to the
guidelines provided in the Commercial Design Guidebook, there are design recommendations provided in the
Chapter 5.0 of the Downtown Specific Plan that apply to the proposed project. The site is located in the Myrtle
Road Mixed Use Area, which has specific design provisions that apply as noted in Section 5.2.4 (Page 5-7) of
the Downtown Specific Plan.
The following design review criteria for commercial development projects are outlined in the zoning code:
(1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial, industrial and
mixed use areas; and
Page 3 of 6
Design Review Study
988 Howard Avenue
(2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of
the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street
frontages; and
(3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development; and
(4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and
(5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among
primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features,
and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and
(6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
General Plan and Zoning: The Burlingame General Plan designates this site for Shopping and Service Uses.
In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, which serves as an element of the
General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown
Specific Plan, specifically in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area. The Plan describes the Myrtle Road Mixed Use
Area as follows:
The Myrtle Road Mixed Use area is centered on Myrtle Road and East Lane, east of the
CalTrain railroad tracks. Development will be consistent with the existing neighborhood sca/e of
small streets and mix of varied commercial and residential buildings. Existing residential and
commercial properties could be improved and expanded at a sca/e consistent with the adjacent
residential areas. The area is meant to serve as a buffer between the downtown commercial
district and the residential neighborhoods to the east.
Parking Variance Request - Traffic: The code requires one parking space for each 300 SF of office space
and one parking space per 400 SF of retail space, for a total of 73 on-site parking spaces required given the
proposed square footage. The project includes 68 on-site spaces, which is 5 spaces fewer than required by
code. There will be 30 spaces provided at-grade, tucked behind the retail space with an entrance along
Howard Avenue. The at-grade parking includes five, 5-car puzzle stackers, one 7-car stacker and three
accessible parking spaces. A puzzle stacker is a mechanical parking option that provides independent access
to all cars parked on the system. There will be 38 below-grade parking spaces provided as well with access
from a driveway along East Lane. Eight of the 38 spaces will be provided as tandem spaces.
The Municipal Code does not include specifications for parking lifts, so the City currently does not have a
standard mechanism for review and approval. However, as a policy the Downtown Specific Plan encourages
"creative approaches" to providing on-site parking including parking lifts. The parking lifts and tandem spaces
could each be considered "creative approaches" to providing the required on-site parking. Other Bay Area
communities including neighboring San Mateo have approved similar projects with parking lifts. In Burlingame,
two residential projects have been approved with parking lifts (one completed at 1225 Floribunda Avenue, one
approved but not built at 1433 Floribunda Avenue.)
The applicant has prepared trip generation and parking demand analyses for the proposed project. The
analysis, prepared by Nelson Nygaard is attached for reference, memo dated March 4, 2015 and September 8,
2015. In summary the trip generation analysis indicates that due to the project location near the Caltrain station
and services, such as Samtrans Route 292 (connects to San Francisco and Millbrae BART), bike routes,
pedestrian connectivity and retail services that the number of trips generated will be reduced by 16.2% when
compared to standard ITE trip generation rates. The parking demand analysis used ITE's Parking Generation
Page 4 of 6
Design Review Study
988 Howard Avenue �
Manual, 4th Edition, and when compared to the City' parking requirements the study indicates that the project
would generate a demand for 59 spaces where the City's Zoning Code requires 73 spaces. The proposed
project will provide 68 on-site parking spaces. Using standard ITE trip generation rates, the existing gas and
service station use generates 674 daily trips, where the proposed office use would generate 256 daily trips.
However, staff notes that approximately two years ago the owner ceased gasoline sales and currently the site
operates as an automobile repair shop only. The gasoline tanks are still on-site and hypothetically the gasoline
station use could resume in the future.
Rear Setback Variance Request: Code Section 25.34.060 (c) requires properties in the MMU (Myrtle Road
Mixed Use) zone to have a rear setback of at least 20-feet. The subject property is bordered by three streets,
with Myrtle Road considered the front and East Lane considered the rear of the property. The properties along
Myrtle Road are a mix of residential and retail /personal service uses, where East Lane acts as a frontage road
along the railroad tracks. In order to have more of an interFace with the existing neighborhdood the applicant
wishes to provide a larger front setback along Myrtle Road and essentially swap the front and rear setback
requirement. The project will provide a 20-foot front setback along Myrtle Road, where only 10-feet is required
and a 10-foot rear setback along East Lane where 20-feet is required, which will require approval of a rear
setback variance.
In accordance with C.S. 25.54 the Planning Commission would need to make the following findings in order to
grant a variance:
(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;
(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.
Conditional Use Permit Request for Height: The Myrtle Road Mixed Use District states that no building shall
exceed a height of 45-feet. A conditional use permit is required for any building which exceeds thirty-five (35)
feet in height. The proposed height, measured to the top of the parapet, will be 45 feet (from average top of
curb). In order to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit the following findings must be made by the
Planning Commission:
(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.
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Chief Building Division, Parks Division, Engineering
Division, Stormwater Division and Fire Division
Planning Commission Action: As noted above, this is the second design review study meeting for the
proposed project. The applicant has revised the plans based upon the comments received at the June 8, 2015
environmental scoping and design review study meeting. The Commission should comment on the revised
Page 5 of 6
Design Review Study 988 Howard Avenue
design of the project as required by Chapter 25.57 of the Zoning Ordinance, Design Review, and to the
following design criteria for commercial projects:
a. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial,
industrial and mixed use areas; and
b. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial
use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not
dominate street frontages; and
c. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with
the surrounding development; and
d. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and
e. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is
consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant
original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the
immediate area; and
f. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches
the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. Dimitrios Sogas, applicant
Toby Levy of Levy Design Partners, project architect
Robert Lugliani, property owner
Attachments:
Planning Commission Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study Minutes- June 8, 2015
Applicant's Response Letter- dated August 12, 2015
Application to the Planning Commission
Project Description, submitted by the applicant
Environmental Information Form, submitted by the applicant
Conditional Use Permit Application
Variance Application
Nelson/Nygaard
• Vehicle Trip Generation and Parking Demand Analysis Memo, dated March 4, 2015
• Trip Generation Analysis, dated September 8, 2015
Neighborhood Photos
Staff Comments
Letters of Concern:
• Email from J. Wald, Anita Road, dated June 1, 2015
• Letter from Jennifer Pfaff, dated June 6, 2015
• Letter from Jennifer Pfaff, dated August 31, 2015
Initial Study Checklist — blank
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 4, 2015
Aerial Photo
Page 6 of 6
Pianning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8,
> Landscape plan is sparse. There is lot of exisfing concrete. Understands plan is to w�ic on
landscaping after the work on fhe house rs c p/eted? (Zinger. Correct)
> Has a landscape p/an been prepared t? (Zinger. No, focus has been on the house.)
> The existing house has clipped mers on the gab/e end and on the new garage,
additions. They wou/d continue fh ty/e of the existing ho�se matching up with the gar
a different flavor compared to other on the block.
> Vent over front window i rchitecforal but a/so probably functional. Cou/d includ 1
fronf Living Room window well. (Zinger. Attic over Living Room has been re ce�
high ceiling over Living Roo . Gipping gable would impact interior space.)
uj/Why not the
/ wou/d give it
f over the new
Wanfs to have
> Apparent/y this hou is at low portion of the b/ock,• there are problems ith water collecfing. Any
mifigation to runoff? inger. Has nof had a civil engineer or professiona o look at it. �11 need to
reconsfruct sidewa/k part of the project, can /evel it better.)
> Will applicant e coming back with /andscape plan later? Shows s e new landscaping on the p/an .
(Zinger. Minim related to garage and front walkway changes. henvise does not affecf existing
landscaping.) ould be preferable to consider landscaping now at same f e as house.
> Secon tory window in front seems too low. (Zinger. Rendering s s it raised, will be fixed.)
There re no further questions of the applicant.
Pu c comments: None.
hair DeMarfini c/osed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
> Should drainage issue be addressed o the Stormwater Division? (Barber. �l! otify Engineering
Division.)
> Well-done addition, cleverly massed aptures upsiairs space without adding a fu/l
> We/l composed and asymmetrical oes not seem forced.
> Right side gab/e e/emenf is ve �ce/y composed.
> Porch is better than existing not sure variance can be supported.
> Cannot support exacerbati condition that is a/ready out of compliance.
> Porch cou/d be too clos o the street.
> Building cou/d be b er wifh porch moved back. Only needs to be ushec
facade is nice because the different planes.
> Difference cou/d absor6ed through rest of floorplan.
floor.
back 2 1/2 feet. Existing
> Porch at 19' (block average) wou/d noi require a variance Cou/d reduce front porch, foyer, and
maybe a bit of t bedroom.
> Project s u/d retum but without the variance request.
Commis ' ner Gaui made a motion, seconded by Com ssioner Loftis, to place the item on the
Regul Action Calendar when plans have been revi d as directed. The motion carried by the
foli ng vote:
Aye: 6- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, G�f, and Bandrapalli
Recused: 1 - Sargent
� d. 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Environmental scoping and Design Review for an
application for . Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use
Permit for building height, and Setback Variance and Parking Variance for a new
3-story commercial building (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property
owner; Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Barber
City of Burlingame Page 11 Prinfed on 9H/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2015
All Commissioners had visited the project site.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
Questions of staff.•
> In the future if the retail space changed to o�ce, the parking requirement would change. Could that
happen and how wou/d the requirements be adjusted? (Barber. Would be a problem since parking
requirement for o�ce use is higher than retail use. Wou/d likely need to come back to the Planning
Commission at that time. Cou/d not be approved administratively.)
> Is there a variance application for the parking reducfion on file? (Baiber. Left out of packet by
mistake. Will obtain.)
> Guidance on ana/yzing the mefhodology of the parking study? Are these generally accepted
standards? (Barber.� The study references the ITE manual, which is generally accepted as a reference
tool. Has been reviewed by staff engineer and determined it is consistent with industry standards. wll be
furtherpeer reviewed by a third party in environmental review.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Franco Zaragoza, Toby Levy Design Partners and Demitrios Sogas, represenfed the applicant:
> Site we/l connected to downtown and Caltrain, directly across the street.
> Entry lobby off of Howard and East Lane to create pedestrian-friend/y experience.
> Wanted to define front yard on East Lane so that the Myrt/e side could have a larger setback.
Pedestrian plaza next to the retail space.
> Parking tucked behind the lobby. Garage entrances off East Lane and Howard.
> Upper floors with flexible layout to accommodate mu/tip/e tenants. Every floor wou/d have exterior
decks for connection to outside.
> Roof terrace.
> Height kept within 45-foot building height to parapet.
> Needs 13-foot floor-to-floor for the o�ce floors to have space for mechanical uses. Wou/d get 9 feet
c/ear typically.
> Wood paneling system on exterior for sunscreens along all three elevations. Vertical and horizontal
sunscreen system.
> Metal pane/s with three different co/ors, and a fourth accent color.
> Concrete and glass on ground floor.
> Sun study has been prepared and no shading on adjacent properties except north neighbor.
Commission questions/comments:
> Is the wood paneling real wood? (Zaragoza: It is a composite.)
> Variance findings need to be made to justify reduction in parking. If it is on/y because it is next fo
Caltrain, that wou/d apply to all properties in this area. Variance findings require unique circumstances.
(Zaragoza: Ground floor e/evation is tall to accommodate parfcing stackers. Cou/d add another stacker
for three additiona/ spaces if uses change.)
> Height concerns inc/ude how it fits into neighborhood. There are not a lot of buildings that height
this area - just an apartment building at Myrtle and Burlingame Avenue.
> Suggestion for flipping setbacks makes sense. Befter for transifion to residentia! neighborhood.
> Wrll there be soil studies? (Zaragoza: Yes. Has not found anything with initial soil borings. Expect
to be fu/l removal of the tanks. Not expecting much.)(Sogas: Phase 1 and 11 have bean comp/eted.
case will be opened. Some soil needs to be removed.)
in
s it
No
> Who anticipates to be tenants? (Sogas: Has nof marketed it yet untrl furfher a/ong. Can be split
multiple ways. Financial seivices, VC, tech. Lots of tenants wanf fo be in this area in a C/ass A building.)
> Encourages retail tenant that brings life to street.
> Site and comer is important. Reference ofher corner buildings in town.
> �ll g/azing be translucent? (Zaragoza: Yes.)
City of Burlingame Page 12 Prinfed on 9H/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2015
> What will gesture be for comer? (Zaragoza: Transparent corner.) Encourages stronger comer.
> Three sfories can be made to work if the architecture is right.
> How many occupants? (Brett Barron, Capital Realty: Office market is very tight. Potential tenants
want to take train, don't want to drive. Vacancy rate downtown is less fhan 3 percent for office. Numbers
of peop/e depends on how space is laid out. 10, 000 sq ft floor plates.)
> Shower accommodations? (Zaragoza: Yes.)
> Would public access to the roof deck be provided? (Sogas: !t would be accessib/e, but has not
considered it. Physically accessible, depends how the building is /eased.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini c/osed the public hearing.
Senior P/anner Barber noted letters were received from Mr. Wald (included in staff report) and Jennifer
Pfaff (received after). Also noted that Phase 1 and ll site assessments were submitted and will be
inc/uded in the hazardous materials section of the CEQA document.
Commission comments - environmenial scoping:
> Potential soi/s contaminants should be reviewed. (Barber. Wll inc/ude County letters in the report)
> Parking needs to be considered, inc/uding current use. There is a parking issue in the neighborhood,
wants to know about existing use on the site.
Commission commenfs - design review.� -
> Good to see o�ce space, and is a good sife for it, but doesn't understand fhe architecture.
> Design is frenetic when it needs to be ca/mer. There is a lot going on. Nice examples of smafl,
elegant o�ce buildings built in Pa/o Alto in recent years.
> Consider going down two sfories with parking. Frees up ground floor for other activities.
> Close fo downtown, will be an important building.
> Great location for the use, and replacement of existing use. TellApart building next door has been a
good precedent.
> Likes the front facade, but not the MyrtleMoward side.
> Retail will be tricky but important.
> Wou/d be nice fo have roof deck accessible to public, but sing/e tenant may want it exclusively.
> Parking is d�cu/f currently. Some may be from exisfing auto use on site. Neighboring TellApart
building had variance in configuration but not quantity. Hard to justify parking variance just because it is
next to Caltrain.
> TellApart example inifially did not have many emp/oyees in building, but over fime has had
substanfial increases. Layout of offce spaces has changed quite a bit over the past few years, so 3 or 4
per 1000 sq ft may not be adequate; some are pushing 6 or 7 per 1000. Doesn't want to see a parking
variance in fhis neighborhood.
> Wants to see documents to justify plate heights.
> Addition to former garden center building on Chapin Avenue is a good examp/e of contemporary
architecture. Ca/m, re/axed, not trying to do too much.
> Pedestrian realm is good but building above is a heavy mass.
> Hard to justify a variance with a brand new building. Argument is based on mitigation solutions, not
exceptional circumstances of the project.
> Pafio on Myrt/e will be a nice space.
> Suggest adding some benches.
> Office hoteling concept - rentab/e conference rooms.
> Does not seem to provide a buffer between busy downtown and calm residentiaL Seems as busy as
downtown. Needs something to create a buffer or b/end, whether architecfural or scale or mass.
> Likes swap of front and rear setbacks.
> Could step back upper floor, wou/d reduce parking requirement.
> Likes retail on ground floor, wou/d like more. Cou/d consider pufting some parking on upper floor to
City of BuAingame Page 13 Printed on 9/i/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2015
allow more �etail on ground floor.
> Not much glazing on ground floor vs. garage openings and parking walls. Not the right ur6an design _
move. It is a parking garage with planting against if, and iwo small windows into the building. Not a good
extension of downtown or fransition into the residential neighborhood.
> Wou/d like to see an examp/e of a 5-carstackerin this area.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the
application to return for another Design Review Study meeting once the project has been revised
as directed. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR
a. FYI: 19 aston Drive - Review of proposed changes to a p ously approved
Des' eview project.
ccepfed.
b. FYI: 1901 Hillside Drive - Review of proposed cha s to previously approved Design
Review project.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjoumed 11:02 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning C ission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action June 8, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for r ew by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 2015, the action beco
final. In order to be eff ive, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be acc anied by
an appeal fee of , which incfudes noticing costs.
Any wri " s or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commi � regarding any item on
this enda will be made available for public inspection during no usiness hours at the
mmunity Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Pri e Road, Buriingame, Califomia.
City of Burlingame Page 14 Prinfed on 9/1/2015
90 South Park
San Francisco CA 94�07
DATE:
T0:
FROM:
PROJECT:
08/17/2015
415 777 o56i tel
415 777 5117 fax
CITY OF BURLINGAME
TOBY LEVY,FAIA
988 Howard Ave.
APN # 029 214 220
CC:
A�
'C
LEVY DE�I�G�N PARTNERS
�1
�RF
SUBJECT: Summarized Changes
COMMENTS:
On June 8�, the project at 988 Howard was presented to the Commission. From that hearing the
project team heard several comments, which were reviewed and considered by the applicant
and design team.
The following is the summary of changes that took place to satisfy the Commission's comments:
Summarized Changes:
Ground Floor Exposure and Building Frontage at the Sidewalk:
The project's frontage along the three streets (East Lane, Howard Avenue, and Myrtle
Road), have been revised to accommodate as much possible transparent
glazing/storefront both at the building's main lobby and at the ground floor commercial
retail space. In addition to maximizing the glazing, the lantlscape design has also been
adjusted to encourage the views into these spaces from the street and vice versa.
Planters were re-arranged at the comer of East Lane and Howard, allowing for a more
open entry at the comer, by offering more of a plaza type entrance into the building's
main entry. At the retail space the fa�ade is setback 5' from Howard, providing a deeper
area at the frontage allowing for more active uses at this area. This will allow for more
uses, including removable chairs/seating if desiretl by any future tenants for this space.
At Myrtle, the landscape was adjusted to have a more visible comer and appearance
from the street, provitling a plaza type space with areas for movable chairs/seating as
desiretl.
Architecture:
The overall building expression was re-visited to address the three frontages of the
project site in a more holistic approach. Keeping in-line with the established vocabulary
of the light/industrial vemacular of the existing neighborhood, the new architectural
design incorporates a more consistent vocabulary throughout. The elevations on East
Lane, and the corner of East Lane and Howard, have been revised to accommotlate a
more simplified vocabulary using architectural elements seen throughout the rest of the
Page 1 of 2
90 South Park
San Francisco CA 94io7
4i5 777 o56itel
415 777 Sti7 fax
A�
LEVY DE�I�G�N PARTNERS
C1
�RE
project, eliminating the °two faced° fa�ade, mentioned as a comment from the
Commission Hearing. The entry to the buiiding on the corner of Howard and East Lane
has also been adjustetl by opening up the view lines from the street comer, allowing for a
more connected pedestrian plaza entrance. Both at Myrtle Road and East Lane, we
introduced the use of horizontal (composite) wood siding which connects the materials of
the second floor recessed areas down to the street level for a more volumetric reading of
form and scale. The use of the (composite) wood siding warms up the overall exterior
palette of the building and provides a scale that recalls the wood siding of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Parking:
The parking at the ground floor contains one puzzle stacker of 7 cars, and the ability of
providing (4) more puzzle stackers of 5 cars, having a range of parking for the project to
be 62-68 spaces.
Sincerely,
Toby Levy, FAIA #C-10527
Presitlent
Levy Design Partners Inc.
Page 2 of 2
����
�`�"
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMR05E ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.379� • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: D �--�i - �L � f- -Z�j
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit � Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: ' � 8 � ���^-��� ��' .
APPLICANT project contact person�81 �PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
Payor of DSR deposiUhandling fee �j �- Payor of DSR deposit/handling fee ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents i� OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
/
Name: �� w. , ���� s So�v,� Name: �,-�- � G ,
Address: _ ( 2�cn � 9i �c►�Q ,6;� �3Z Address: _ �� (���
City/State/Zip: (�, a r�,� a ti� ('�—cl c�f�' CL Cify/State/Zip: � V-�i k44 tiv (��� -. q�{(� �
V
Phone: (n,�� � D"� /� �( Z
Fax:
I
E-mail: /�_ � G c C� , ,n
_J _
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Pro�ect contact Person �
Payor of DSR deposit/handling fee
OK to send electronic copies of documents �
f
Name: �c�� .� �p .r.sL .�,� � ,, . ,
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
_ ; .,..
.
�Ju ��
City/State/Zip: s , f=, �G �'Y(Q ,2
Phone: �{ l�� -�? �� — OS(�. �
Fax: _ �-/�S- � �"� — �! t �-
��������(�
''y4:� G -- � 2 015
��' � �� :?URLINGAME
;��,ri-�I_A�lt�,�(NG D(V.
��a �Nin�!�H Td=ac:'-�
�Wt1rJNll�it�;; :;%� ;..;i�:
E-mail: '� � e � C o �lOZ 6-�a�J!%i
�Y rt tl( ,-: �� � ,, i .I.-:r ; . i ;
� Burlingame Businesls� License #: �I �� . �-8'3 ( �- � �� � ::.� � � �;
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: _ � � �, � ��;
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby
best of my kn�wledge and_beliefr_
Applicant's signatu�:' � �,;�
I am aware of the propos�rl�
Commission. /
v
� Property owner's signature:
certif,y�Gnder penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
,�� /r,'
- - �l _ Date: � / � l�
/
�i'and here� authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
\ !i �
Daie: ,�— �/�
Date submitted; 3 � �'� � �
* Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. s:�Halloours�PCAP�irconon.doc
ili
nuAuncwM�
����'
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 U
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATf4(V TO ThiE PL�ANNING COMIVIISSIO[�
Type of application:
O Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #:
O Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning ! Other.
PROJECT ADDRESS: t ��
APPLICANT
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Address:
City/Stafe/Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:
Address:
City/StatelZip:
Phone:
E-mail:
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
Burlingame Business License #:
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request andlor post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as pa e lanning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION;_ _ �� �j;���1 � (�, �`�' �v �t�.��U �
t
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: � er�by rtify ��der penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and t�elief. r ,
ApplicanYs signature: \ � : r Date: �� �� �" "
I am aware of the proppsed applicat- n and � eby authorize�,tte above applicant to submit this.application to the Planning
Commission.
Property awner's signature: Date:
Date submitted:
5: �NANDOU7S�PC AppticoYian.doc
3/4/2015
s••
Dimitrios Sogas
Emporio Group Inc
1290 Howard Ave, Suite 323
Burlingame CA 94010
To whom it may concern
Sirs
����� V C�
MAR - 9 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD•PLANNING DIV.
My company is in the process of acquiring the parcel at 988 Howard Avenue in Burlingame,
currenfly the Olde English Garage, owned by Robert. Lugliani, for the purpose of developing a
commercial building. We are currently in escrow with a ratified contract, and are scheduled to
close on or about Sept 30, 2015. Therefore Mr Lugliani will be signing documents as the owner
until the property changes ownership, with the understanding that Emporio Group (or a
subsidiary) will be paying the fees and will be responsible for the execution of the project.
If you have any question about this, please feel free to contact me at dsogas@yahoo.com or 650-
703-1042.
Emporio Group Inc
* � � S�—/�
�
Robert Lugliani
Current Owner
988 Howard Ave, Burlingame CA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 988 HOWARD STREET;
BURLINGAME
The site for the proposed 3 story, 22,225SF office building is bounded by 3 streets, East
Lane, Howard and Myrtle Avenues. The site is a connections between Downtown
Burlingame, Caltrain and the Lyon Hoag residential neighborhood.
East Lane is a essentially a service road alongside Caltrain, with surface parking along on
one side and a low scale industrial structures, some of which have been converted to
commercial uses. Myrtle Avenue has the other side of the commercial/industrial buildings
that face East Lane and some low scale residential, with the other side 2 to 4 story
residential structures. Our site on Howard Street, the connector to the other side of the
tracks faces auto storage and sales yard.
The design proposes a first floor with a setback along all three streets, with the entry lobby
on the corner of Howard and East and a small retail space at the comer of Howard and �- -
Myrtle Streets. Great care has been taken to create pedestrian friendly experience and
response to the surrounding neighborhood. There is a public plaza adjacent to the retail
space and another smaller one next to the entry. The massing of the structure also reflects
the surrounding development uses. The parking is tucked behind the lobby and retail, with
2 smaller garage entries one off of East and the other off of Howard.
The two stories of office space above, will provide flexible layout accommodating either one
or multiple tenants. The space will have multiple exterior spaces as well as a roof top open
space.
We are asking for two variances. One to reduce the amount of required parking, given our
proximity to Caltrain and the other to flip the official rear and yards.
A parking study by Nygard is being submitted along with our application. Based on their
traffic study, we have provided 61 spaces instead of the required 82 spaces.
The other variance is for the relocation of the designation of the rear yard. Per code, the
shortest side would be the front, locating it on Myrtle. However, the front set back is 10'
and the rear is 20'. Our variance requests that we designate the front as East Lane, since
that will permit us to have the greater set back along Myrtle Street, as a better transition to
the Lyon Hoag residential neighborhood. Additionally the commercial entrance will be at the
corner of East and Howard.
' _ ' �_. �.a � � V L.�. �
�1AR -- 9 2015
'` � `' :;� BURLINGAME
t�';_�i)-rLANNING DIV.
(
City of Burlingame Plantting Department 501 Primrose itoad P(650) 558-7250 F(6501696-379Q ww�v.burlinQame.ors
CI'TY
A� +
Sl1RUHC�AME
�Zw.. .�..� �
ENVIRQNMENTAL INFORMATION FC�RM
(to he completed by applicant when Negative Declaration ar Environmenlal fmpact
Report is required)
GENERAL INFORII�IATION
Project Address: 988 Hov�rard Avenue
Applicant Name: Dimitrios So�as
Address: 1290 i-�Ioward Avenue. Suite 3�3 _
City/State/Zig: Burlin ame, CA 44010
Pbone:� � 1-650-7d3-1042
Assessor's Pzircet Number: 029-214-220 � �
Property Owner �ame: Em�orio Group Inc.
Address: , I294 Howard Avenue. Suite 323
City/State/Zip: Burlin�,ame, Ct\ 94010
Pho�te: . 1-650-703-1042
Pennit apptications required for this project (special permit, variance, � subdivision map, parcel map,
condorr►inium permit, 6uilding pennit, etc.): Conditionaf Use Permit for Baildin�Hei�ht & Setback &
Parking Variances
.Related permits, applicarions and approvals required far ihis project by City, Regional, State and Federal
Agencies: Environmental Review and Commercial Desigst Review
STI'E INFORMATION
Site size: .352 Acres and 15.352 Square Feet Existing Loning: MMU
EYisting use(s} of property: Auto Gara e �
Tota! Number of Exisfing Parking Spaces : NA Number oi Compact Spaces�: NA
Number of Existing Structures and Total Square Foataae of £ach: �. 1 structure = 4.800 SF +/-
Will any structures be dernolished for this project? � X Yes No
Size ancl use of structures to be demolished:,4 800 SF Svucture existing automobile ga��?e �
Nutnber and size af. existing trees on site': (3) 4" trees f2) 5" trees (2) 6" trees. (1)l2" tree
Will any ofthe existing tress be removed? X Yes No
If Yes, list number, size and type of trees to be removed:(3.� 4" trees (21 S" trees. 2) 6" tcees :(deciduous
and species unkown) (1 l2" tree (Geijera Parviflora-Australian Willowl
Are there a�y natural or man-made water channels which run tilrough or adjacent to the site?
Yes X No If Yes, where?
1 City of Burlin�ame minimuni standard parking space size is 9`x?0'. 'fhe minimum size for compact parking spaces is 8'x17'.
Refer to City of Burlingame Zouing Ordinance C.S. 25.70 for parking requi�ements for particular uses. �
Z Refer to the City of Butlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protecfion Ordinance (C.S. 1 I.06) for tree remuval permit
and tree planting requirernents.
f>NVREV.PRht
City of Burlingame Planning Department SOi Primrose Road P{650) 558-7250 F(G50) 696-3790 w�ww.burlingame.org
Describe in general the existing surrounding land uses to the:
Norih Auto Repair ShoA �
South __ Auto Dealership Parkin� Lot
East Retail Market / Convenience Store �
V4'est Caltrain & Rail Station
PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Descriptiori: _Rerrioval of existing sti�tcture and pa�ement: �iew construction of a 3-stor;v buildin�
over basement: 2 stories of officelcommercial above ground level of lobby. retail/cafe, parkin��
Residential Projects: . .
Number of Dwe[linb Units: 0 �
Size of Unit{s): NA � � �
Household size {number of persons per unit) expected: NA �
Commerciaf/[ndustrial Projects:
Type and square footage of each use: Office Use = 22 22Ssf: cafe/retail= l 425sf
Estimated number of employees per shift: no specitic user cjetermi�ied
Will the project involve the use, disposal or emissian of potentiatly hazardous materials (including
petraieum products}? Yes X No .
Tf Yes, please describe: NA
I�stitutional Projects (public facilities, hospitals, schools):
Major functian af facility: NA
Estimated number of employees per shift: NA
Estimated Occupancy: NA
For all Projects: � � . � �
Fiood Hazard: ls this site within a s�ecial E7ood hazard area? Yes X No
Land YJse: If the project invoives a canditional use permit, va�iance or rezosiing application, please
explain why the applical:ians are required': Conditiona! Use Petmit Farm Filed for Buitdin� Hei t�t &
Variance Applicatio�n for Setback & Parking Forms (Attached,.
' Please fill out and submit the appropriate epplication i'orm 9variance special permii, etc.)
ENVP.EV.PRM
City of Buriinaame PJanning flepartment SOl Primrose Rosd P(650) 558-7250 F{650) 696-37y0 �r�ww.bvrlineame.ore
Building gross square footage: Existing: 4,800 sf �
Proposed: �Flaors 1-3) 32375sf �- basement (14.575) = 4b.950sf
Number offloors of construction: Existing: l story Proposed: 3�- basement
TraffidCircnlation: Standard and compact off-street parking spaces provided:
Existing: Standard NA
. Compact
Tota(
Proposed: Standard 60 commercial
Compact
. Total 60 commercial
Grading: Arnount of dirt/fill materiai being moved (check one):
0-500 cabic yards S,OOQ-20,000 cuUic yards
X 500-5,000 cubic_ yards � Over 20,000 cubic yards(indicate amount}
Note: If fll is being placed over existing bay fiil, provide engineerii�c reports which shotiv the effect of
the new fill on the underlying bay' mud.
Storm water runoff: Tndicate area of site to be covered with imper��ious surfaces (parking lot paving,
ete.): NA- Surfaces wiil be Permeable /And/ or plantin s/ Landscape. Roof run-off treated with bio-
retention planters
is the area with impervious surfaces less than 200 feei away from a�vetland, strearn, lagoon or bay?
Yes X No �
Noise: Describe noise sources and timing of activity �enerated by your project during construction: _
General constructiori during,twical construction hours. �
Noise sources generated during operation of facility: I��one by use.
Vibration: Will the proposal cause vibration that may affect adjacent properties? Describe any gotential
sources of vibration: NA�
Exterior Lighfing: Please describe any proposed exterior lighting of the faciiity�: Street level/ sidewalk
level low light�i 1� �r huilding ent-rances
Watef: ExPected amount of water usa�e:
Domestic �aUday Peak use � � �allmin
Commercia! gallday Peak us� aal/min
Expected fire flow de�nand gal/min �
As per the C.3 regulations set forth by the California Regional Water Qua[ity Contro( Board, please
respond to the following questions: � � �
l. � Would the proposed project result in a» increase in pollutant discharges to receivisia ���aters? .
. No. . . . . .
' Refer to City of Burlin ;ame Exterior [llumination Ordinance (�lo. 1477) regardina requirements which limit exterior
iilumioation in both residential and commercial zones.
ENVREV.FRM
City of Burlingamc Planning Department 541 Primrose Road P((»0) 558-7250 F(650} 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.or�
2. Would the proposed project result isi signi�cant alteration of receivittg water quality during or
following cor�struction? No. ,
3. Woulcl the proposed project result in increased iinpervious surfaces and associated increased
runoff? There will be a decrease in impervious area on the praposed project thus reducinn the runoff from
the site. � � �
4. Would the proposed project create a sigruficant adverse environmenlal impact to drainage patterns
due to changes in runoff flow rates voiumes? No significant adverse environmental iit�pact to drainage.
There will be a decreased in runoff flow rates volumes.
5. Would the proposed praject result in increased erosion in its watershed? The project will �iot result �
an inereased in erosion in its watershed. �
6. Is the project tributaiy to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean ViTater Action
Section 303(d) list? !f so will it result in an increase in a�ly pollutant for which the water body is already
irnpaired? No.
7. Wou1d the proposed project have a potential signifcant environmental impact on surface water
quality, to marine, fresh, or wetland . �
waters? No.
8. Would the proposed project have a potentialiy significa�it adverse impact on ground water quality?
NO. � �
9. Will tfie proposed project eause or contribute ta an exceedance of applicabie surface or
ground�vater receiving water quality objectives nr debradation of beneficial uses? No.
14. Wil1 the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habilat?
Sewer: Expected daily sewer discharge
Source of wastewater discharge on site (i.e. restraoms, restaurants, taboratory; material processin�, etc.)
Eid VR1iV.FRivi
�
City of Burlingame Plamting Aepartment 501 Primrose Road P(b50} 558-725U F(650) C96-3790 ww�v.burlingan�e.org
Geueral:
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effecis? Provide attacl�►ment to explain nature of a!1
items checked `yes'. � .
Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hilts, or
substant�al alteration of ground contours. �
Change in scenic views or vistas fro�n existing residential areas or public lands
or roads.
Change in pattern, scale or character of genera! area of projcct.
Significant amounts of so3ici �vaste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke fumes or odors in vicinity.
Change in bay, lagoon, stream, channel or groundwater quality or quantity, or
alteration of existing drainage patterns.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration ievels in the vicinity (durin�
construction and/or during operation).
Site on filled Iand or on slope of 10 % or more. "
Use or disposal of patentially hazardous materials, such as toaic substances,
flammable materials or explosives.
Substantia! change in demand for municipal services (police, fre water, sewage)
Substantial increase in fossil fuel cansumption {oil, natural gas, etc.).
Relationship ta a larger project or series of pcojects.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify thai the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits
present the data and information required for this initia[ evaluation to the best of
my ability, and that the facts, statements, and informatiot� presented are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and 6elief. �
_.r--
� ..� : � .
.J� '!:
Date 5 �'� � Sign�fure .! � ;�,.
l �--..
Yes No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E[�VREV.T'EtA4
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
a�.,
r'� a
.c;.G'— ;�
��` .—�
CITY OF BURLINGAME ""
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATICI�
www.burlin�ame.or�
�l���
-- 9 Z015
CIT`( 0� BURLINCAME
CQD-PLANNING DIV.
The Planning Com�nission is required by law to make fndings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.52.020). Your answers to tlie following questions can assist the Planning Commission in
making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly
in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocution wil/ not be detri�nental or ijtjurious tn
property or improvemeitts i�i the vicinity or to public /realt/r, safety, general welfure or
co�ivenience.
The proposed project will replace the current auto repair shop/ former gas station, with a new 22,OOOgsf
commercial structure, with a small retail space facing Howard and Myrtle Aves. The project will remove 4 large
curb cuts that interrupt the pedestrian flow, with 2 smaller curb cuts. It will remove the many cars that are often
parked on the site, with a 3 story modern commercial building, which opens directly onto the street and is well
planted. The office major entrance faces the exit of the CalTrain Station, while the smaller retail space has a plaza
that addresses the smaller scale residential and commercial neighbors on Myrtle.
2.
How wil! die proposed use be located and catducted in uccordance wit/r the Burlingame
The proposed building complies with the MMU zoning, My�tle Rad Mixed Use District, which saw this area as
a buffer from the railroad to the smaller scale residential district beyond. The active ground floor uses, will
create a safe pedestrian street as well as continue the small scale commercial on Myrtle, which already
exists. The new exterior planting and plaza spaces, makes the most of the required setbacks, in enhancing
the neighborhood experience.
3. How wi!! the proposed project be computible with t/re aestltetics, ntass, bulk u�td charucter of
tlae existiitg a�:d poteiitial uses o�z adjoi�ung properties i�r tlre generul vici�tity?
The proposed building is compatible with the many scales and varied characters around the site. The
mass is broken down to pedestrian scale, with the expressed entry off the corner of Howard and East
avenues. The solid vertical mass along East Avenue is in keeping the industrial buildings that face the
railroad tracks (many of which have been converted to offices). The building becomes more horizontal as it
faces Howard, with a deeper recess to provide a landscaped pedestrian buffer. The predominant feature
along Myrtle is the plaza for the small retail, with the deep planted setback.
CUP.FRM
� ciTr
�a � � �
_�`
� �:�
•��
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O'I PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
IY��
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
MAR - �? 2015
;I��LINGAME
COD-PIANNIf�G DIV.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The site is bordered by 3 streets; Myrtle, Howard and East. By strict reading of the code, the narrowest dimension
determines the front yard, so technically that would designate Myrtle as our front yard, with the 10' set back and having
a 20' set back along East Street.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial properfy right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the applicafion.
The variance would permit us to locate the greater open space along Myrtle, which is a mixed use residential and
commercial block with greater set backs. The uses along East Street which face the Railroad tracks are commercial
and industrial. Additionally if the high speed plan with elevated tracks goes ahead, our larger open space would
open onto an industrial street, with an elevated train. We are still proposing a 10' set back along East street, with the
building entry off of Howard and East. The Myrtle street side with the larger open space would provide a plaza for
the retail use which would be more beneficial to the business and the neighborhood.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed locafion will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvemenfs in the vicinify or to. public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
�
The proposed relocation of the rear and front yard would yield more neighborhood and pedestrian compatible uses
along the mixed use street of Myrtle that has the larger setbacks.
How will the proposed projecf be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potentia► uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The switch in location of the rear and front yard would create a well scaled transition from Howard Street into the
mixed use neighborhood. The plaza and setback along Myrtle would greatly benefit the surrounding neighbors, while
the diminished set back along East, would not be missed, since it primarily used by cars and parking.
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
__ *�
_-: #_
NELSON
NYGAARD
MEMORANDUM
To: Dimitrios Sogas
From: Brian Canepa & Francesca Napolitan
Date: March 4, 2015
����I Y ��
P�1AR - 9 2015;
CITY OF BURLINGAME'`.
CDD-PLANNiNG DIV.
Subject: 988 Howard Vehicle Trip Generation and Parking Demand Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The Emporio Group Inc is proposing a mixed-use project at 988 Howard Avenue in Burlingame,
CA. Currently, the project is envisioned as three-story building with 22,225 square feet of office
space on the second and third floors with a small retail component of i,42o gross square feet and
a 48o square foot lobby on the ground floor. A total of 6i parking spaces will be provided. Of the
61 spaces, 48 will be standard parking spaces, 8 will be tandem spaces, and 5 spaces will be
provided in parking stackers.
Under the current City of Burlingame zoning code for the Downtown district, 75 parking spaces
would be required for the office component of the project and 4 spaces would be required for the
retail component, for a total of 79 required parking spaces.1 The Emporio Group is proposing to
reduce the amount of parlang provided on-site by 23% to 6i parking spaces.
TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM
The proposed location is appropriate spot for office and retail, with easy access to the Burlingame
Caltrain station. The project is located in Downtown Burlingame and is within wallang distance to
a number of restaurants and other ameniries for office and retail workers. The location, density
and mixed-use factors will have the largest impact on trip generation.
Nelson\Nygaard has used URBEMIS to calculate the trip reduction effects of the project's
location. The URBEMIS mitigation component is a simple yet powerful tool; it employs standard
traffic engineering methodologies, but provides the opportunity to adjust ITE average rates to
quantify the impact of a development's location, physical characteristics and any demand
management programs. In this way, it provides an opportunity to fairly evaluate developments
that minimize their transportation impact, for example, through locating close to transit or
providing high densities and a mix of uses.
� Per City of Burlingame Zoning Code for the Downtown Specific Plan area one space per 300 sq.
ft. of office is required and one space per 400 sq. ft. of retail is required.
1 16 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 415-284-1544 FAX
415-284-1554
www.nelsonnygaard.com
988 Howard Ave. Parking Study � Trip Generation & Parking Demand Analysis
Emporio Group Inc
Figure i shows the inputs that have been used to complete the URBEMIS mitigation component,
along with data sources. The number of trips generated by a development depends not only on the
characteristics of the project itself, but also on the surrounding area. A project in an urban area,
for example, will generate fewer trips than the same project located close to a freeway interchange
and surrounded by low-density subdivisions or office parks. For this reason, URBEMIS requires
data for the area within approximately a half-mile radius from the center of the project, or for the
entire project area, whichever is larger. In effect, the smaller the development, the more
important the development's context.
Figure 1 URBEMIS Data Input
. . .
Office space 22,225 sq, ft. Project plan
Retail space 1,420 sq. ft. Project plan
Number of housing units within'/z mile 4,562 American Community
radius Survey 2006 - 2010
Number of jobs located within'h mile 3,573 American Community
radius Survey 2006 - 2010
Local serving retail within'/z mile Yes Site observation
radius
Transit service 38 daily buses stop within �/a mile (existing) Caltrain/Samtrans
58 daily trains stop within'h mile (existing) maps/schedules
Intersection density (1) within'/z mile 328 valences Street plan
radius
Sidewalk completeness within'/z mile 100% have sidewalk on both sides Site observation
radius
Bike lane completeness within'/z mile 25% direct parallel routes exist Site observation
radius
Notes: (1) Calculated from existing street network, based on the number line segment terminations, or each �valence°.
Intersections have a valence of 3 or higher - a valence of 3 is a"T" intersection, 4 is a four-way intersection, and so on.
Taking all of the factors identified above into consideration, the UR.BEMIS model results in a trip
reduction of up to 16.2% when compared to standard ITE trip generation (Figure 2). There is
currently a good mu� of uses around the development and the site is close to retail services
resulting in a �.2% trip reduction compared to standard ITE trip generation rates. The
Burlingame Caltrain station and Samtrans Route 292 yield another 2.2% trip reduction and
pedestrian and bicycle friendliness will further reduce trip generation by 6.8%. As result of all of
these inputs the total daily vehicle trips generated by the site will be 256 as compared to standard
ITE trip generation rates, which result in 306 daily vehicle trips.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. � 2
988 Howard Ave. Parking Study � Trip Generation & Parking Demand Analysis
Emporio Group Inc
PARKING DEMAND GENERATION ANALYSIS OF THE
' ; �Z�:7_\ul
A parking demand analysis was undertaken in order to determine the potential parking impacts
generated by the proposed project utilizing parking demand data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition.
Baseline Parking Demand Ratios
Appropriate baseline parking demand ratios were established for the project as a first step of the
parking analysis. These ratios were informed by parking demand and occupancy information
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 4� Edition,
which is considered an industry standard. Figure 3 shows the downtown parking requirements as
compared to ITE weekday and Saturday peak parking ratios used in the parking analysis. It
should be noted that ITE does not currendy have a land use code for small scale retail that is
locally serving thus; the parking generation rates for retail are likely to be very conservative for
this project.
Peak Parking Demand
The peak demand is calculated by applying the peak parking ratio for each land use to the total
square footage for office and retail. The weekday peak parking demand is 59 parldng spaces or
z ITE Land Use Code 701 Office (Urban)
3 ITE Land Use Code 820 Shopping Center
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. � 3
Figure 2 Mitigated Trip Generation with URBEMIS
Figure 3 Peak Period Parking Ratios
988 Howard Ave. Parking Study � Trip Generation & Parking Demand Analysis
Emporio Group Inc
22% lower than the number of parking spaces required under the City of Burlingame's zoning
code. On Saturday the peak parking demand is io parking spaces (Figure 4).
CONCLUSION
A trip generation analysis was conducted to show how the location of the site, its prolcimity to
transit services and locally serving retail, and adjacent pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
reduces the number of vehicle trips generated by the site by i6.2% when compared to standard
ITE trip generation rates. While trip generation is not a direct proxy to parldng demand it does
suggest that this project is likely to produce less parking demand in this specific context.
In addition, a parking demand analysis was conducted using ITE's Parking Generation Manual,
4� Edition to compare projected parldng demand to paridng requirements under the City of
Burlingame's zoning code. While the data ITE's parking generation manual does not reflect the
more urban nature of the project site, it still shows that the project is likely to generate demand
for 59 parking spaces or 25% fewer spaces than is required under zoning code. Thus, the 6i
parking spaces proposed under the current project plan should be sufficient to meet parking
demand.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. � 4
Figure 4 Peak Parking Demand
�� � �
�
,� =� � �
::.�' - _
:� ��
•
. � • �
MEMORANDUM
To: Catherine Barber
From: Brian Canepa
Date: September 8, 2015
Subject: 988 Howard Trip Generation Analysis
The proposed location is appropriate spot for office and retail, with easy access to the Burlingame
Caltrain station. The project is located in Downtown Burlingame and is within walldng distance to
a number of restaurants and other amenities for office and retail workers. The location, density
and mixed-use factors will have the largest impact on trip generation.
Nelson\Nygaard has used URBEMIS to calculate the trip reduction effects of the project's
location. The URBEMIS mitigation component is a simple yet powerful tool; it employs standard
traffic engineering methodologies, but provides the-opportunity to adjust TTE average rates to
quantify the impact of a development's location, physical characteristics and any demand
management programs. In this way, it provides an opporiunity to fairly evaluate developments
that minimize their transportation impact, for example, through locating close to transit or
providing high densities and a mix of uses.
Figure i shows the inputs that have been used to complete the URBEMIS mitigation component,
along with data sources. The number of trips generated by a development depends not only on the
characteristics of the project itself, but also on the surrounding area. A project in an urban area,
for example, will generate fewer trips than the same project located close to a freeway interchange
and surrounded by low-density subdivisions or office parks. For this reason, URBEMIS requires
data for the area within approximately a half-mile radius from the center of the project, or for the
entire project area, whichever is larger. In effect, the smaller the development, the more
important the development's context.
Figure 1 URBEMIS Data Input
� � .
Office space 22,225 sq. ft. Project plan
Retail space 1,420 sq. ft. Project plan
Number of housing units within'/2 mile 4,562 American Community
radius Survey 2006 - 2010
Number of jobs located within'/Z mile 3,573 American Community
radius Survey 2006 - 2010
Local serving retail within Yz mile Yes Site observation
radius
Transit service 38 daily buses stop within Y, mile (existing) Caltrain/Samtrans
1 16 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 415-284-1544 FAX 415-284-1554
www.nelsonnygaard.com
988 Howard Trip Generation Analysis
58 daily trains stop within Yz mile (existing) mapslschedules
Intersection density (1) within Yz mile 328 valences Street plan
radius
Sidewalk completeness within'/z mile 100% have sidewalk on both sides Site observation
radius
Bike lane completeness within %Z mile 25% direct parallel routes exist Site observation
radius
Notes: (1) Calculated from existing street nefinrork, based on the number line segment terminations, or each "valence".
Intersections have a valence of 3 or higher - a valence of 3 is a"T" intersection, 4 is a four-way intersection, and so on.
Taking all of the factors identified above into consideration, the URBEMIS model results in a trip reduction of
up to 16.2% when compared to standard ITE trip generation (
Figure 2). There is currenfly a good mix of uses around the development and the site is close to
retail services resulting in a �.2% trip reduction compared to standard ITE trip generation rates.
The Burlingame Caltrain station and Samtrans Route 292 yield another 2.2% trip reduction and
pedestrian and bicycle friendliness will further reduce trip generation by 6.8%. As result of all of
these inputs the total daily vehicle trips generated by the site will be 256 as compared to standard
TTE trip generation rates, which result in 306 daily vehicle trips. This number of trips is
significanfly less than those currently generated by the site's gas station (674 daily vehicle trips).
Figure 2 Mitigated Trip Generation with URBEMIS
•� .
�• . �- . �• .
�. � � �
� �
�. . -� •� •� •�
0. Assuming Standard ITE Trip 0% 306 26 38
Generation�
1. Project Density, Mix of Uses, 7 2% 284 24 36
Locally Serving Retail
2. Transit Service, including 9•4% 277 24 35
Step 1 (7.2%+2.2%)
3. Pedestrian/Bicycle 16.2%
Friendliness, including Steps 1 (7.2% + 2.2% 256 22 32
and 2 +6.8%)
4. Current Gas Station2 - 674 49 55
5. Net New Trip Generation - (418) (27) (23)
� ITE Land Use General Office Building (710) and Shopping Center (820)
2 ITE Land Use Gasoline/Service Station (944)
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. � 2
:� ��
:���:��I�I�C�
_�F;�2015-_
SITE - CORNER OF MYRTLE RD & HOWARD AVE.
C�ITC
ADJACENT BUILDING ON HOWARD AVE.
SITE - CORNER OF EAST� LN. & HOWARD AVE.
C'I T C
ADJACENT BUILDING 0�� MYRTLE RD.
�;iTY Of= �URLINGAME
;�!��,_�'�.�RI�ING D11/.
C�ITC
ADJACENT �UILDING ON EAST LN.
EXISTING SITE & CONDITIONS
4
R C ":�--�
LEVY ohes�G�
F
ao swn� P�x � T`
San Frond�cro. CA', .
�,o�
988 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME. �ALIFORNIA
L E V Y D E S I G N P A R T N E R S I N C
90 SOUTH PARK / SAN FRIINCISCO / CA 94107 / T/ 415.777.0561 F/ 415.777.5117
ei-r� �ni ininnov -rvo
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
April 13, 2015
� Engineering Division
(650) 55�7230
� Building Division
(s5o15ss-72so
X Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(65Q) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-72Q4
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Seiback and Parking
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commerciai building with
a roof dedc at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214-22U
Staff Review: April 13, 2015 — 2"d Submittal
1. No Further Comments- Water Conservation checklist and Irrigation Pfan will
be submitted fvr Building permit
Reviewed by: BD
Date: 5/19/15
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
March 16, 2015
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
� Building Division
(sso) 5s8-72so
X Parks Division
(65Q} 558-7334
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback and Parking
Varianc�es for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof deck at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-2'14220
Staff Review: March 16, 2015
1. No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of
tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Permit from the Parks Division.
(55&7330)
. Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape
Regulationsn (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due
for Final_
3. Provide separate irrigation (drip or bubbler) to new landscape Street Trees.
Reviewed by: BD
Date: 3/24/15
�
h+1
� y
W �
� �
ljJ r
� �
H
� �
� �
y
1--�1
�
�
�
Z
.
c fl..
5CARIFY SIDFS
ROOT BALL
COMPACT NATIVE SOIL
FOR BASE
/ 4" DIA. x 3'-4" LONC
L PERFORA7ED . Sll'RENE PIPE WITH ei.acr�
STYRENE DRAM CRA7E COVER AND
NOTES: BUBBLER IRRIGATIOIV
USE 2 PIPES IN CONCREI'E CUT-0UT AREAS. PUI' PIPE
ON UPHILL 51DE OF TREE. LEVEL SITE NORTH C�F TREE.
PVC SCH h0 -
TEE
'�PIHE STAKE
1 'G/4 " CYALV.
ROOPING NAIL
q.FACH END)
COMPACTED TOPSOIL
�,
�
Z
GRATE COVER
�`� ,i�
,l.���!
� � SAND
0 0
0 0
- o
o I o
SCH.80 PVC NIPPLE ��/ fvilN. '
PIPE 51ZE - MA7CH BASE OF HEAD ° � °
PRQVIDE A 4" MIN., 6" MAX.
SLOT TO ALLOW FOR SETTLEMENT o 0 0
WRAP PERFORATED PIPE WITH FILTER
FABRIC.
4" OIA. x 3'-0" PERFORATED o 0 0
STYRENE DRAIIV PIPE °o O� o
FILL BO'T70M 6" OF DRA(h! . ��g
PIPE Vi�fTFi 1/21N. DRAIN ROCK
4" D NOM.
BUBBLER DETAIL
BUB9LER
HfAD
.
o+
■
W I
�
� • 1'-6" MIN. PVC IATERAL LINE
2= 4-PLY 1"x 2'-0" RUBBER
� TIES INSTALLED W/A
� � 1lNIST & NAILED
�r� Z �P �N T� THE 5fA1�S
s// p
�
1"x 4" RWD TREE
RUBBER TIES PIACED 6" AMX
BEL.OW MAIN FORK OR BRANCH
INSTALLED 1NRH A TWIST AND
NAILED TO STAIC�
-(Z) 2" DIA LODCE POLE PINE STAf�S
15 CAL. �R SMALL£R
(2) 3" DIA LODGE POLE PINE �TAKES
-24' BOX OR LARCER
�7":K 4" ROUGH REDWOOD WITH (2)
2" GALV. NAILS FACH CONNECTION
(LiDCATE ON PREVAIUNG
WIND S1DE)
PLACE ROOT CROWN �� -z�
A90VE FIIVISHED GRAD
2" OF FINE SCREENED FiR eARK
r—FINISHED CRADE
SCH.B� PVC NIPPLE
�6�� PERFORATE�
PIPE
Project Comments
Date: April 13, 2015
To: � Engineering Division � Fire Division
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600
� Building Division X Stormwater Division
(650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727
� Parks Division � City Attorney
(650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback and Parking
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof deck at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214-220
Staff Review: April 13, 2015 — 2"d Submittal
"Project proponent previously submitted a completed stormwater compliance "C.3
and C.6 Development Review Checklist." Proponent submitted and proposed several
site design measures to comply with the C.3. and C.6 requirements." No additional
comments.
Reviewed by: KJK
Date: 05/12/15.
Project Comments
Date:
��
From:
March 16, 2015
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
0 Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
0 Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
X Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback and Parking
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof deck at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214-220
Staff Review: March 16, 2015
This project may be required to comply with the C.3 and C.6 provisions of the San
Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). If the project
will create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface and; the
project will replace 50 percent or more of site impervious surface, then stormwater
source control and treatment requirements shall apply to the entire project site. A
summary of applicable requirements is attached. The project proponent must
complete, sign and submit, to the City, the appropriate form for each applicable
requirement.
� Please complete, sign and return the following attached forms:
A. C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist.
B Special Projects Worksheet.
C. Rainwater Harvesting and Use Feasibility Worksheet.
For additional information, including downloadable electronic files, please see the C.3
Stormwater Technical Guidance at www.flowstobay.org
3. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's
stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution.
Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and
effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction,
including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list
of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or
larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at:
http://www.flowstobay. org/Construction
Page 1-2
4. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects
utilizing architectural copper. Please read attachment "Requirements for architectural
Copper." A downloadable electronic file is available at:
http�//www flowstobay orq/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/Architecturalcopper
Please contact Kiley Kinnon, NPDES Stormwater Coordinator, for assistance at (650)
342-3727.
Reviewed by: KJK
Date: 03/17/15
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
� � �
' SAN MATEO COUN7YWIDE
Wa�r Poltution
. Prevc;y�';onPr�ram
C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checkiist
Municipai Regiortal Stormwater Permit (MRP)
Sto�mwater Conirols for Deveiopment Projects
Project lnformation
City of Burlingame
NPDES Coordinator
11U3 Airport Blvd
Buriingame, Ca 94011
O�ce: (650) 342•3727
Fax: (650) 342-3712
1.A Enter Project Data (For'C.3 Regutafed Projecis,"data will be reporfed in the municipafrtys stormwaterAnnualReport.)
Pro ect Name: Case Number.
� q88 f�b�v���a ,a.v,sNuF
Pro e�t Address 8� Cross St: �� ���� �� � L���
� �TSS f�Du)!t%ZD �VENlJE� �U/ZL/h%GL�-M� aL�- .�i�,�yn�G� 2o.�ro
Project APN: O y9 — L�� — 22� Project Watershed: SQ !� MA�- i'�d
ApplicantName: �p/N!/7'/Z/O5 SoC��S
Applicant Phone: C6So, 703 — f O¢v Appficant EmailAddress: dS�4,r (� yq�aa , Cot�yr
Developmenf type: ❑ Single Family Residential: A stand-alone home that is not part of a larger project.
(check alt that apply) � Single Famiiy Residential: Two or more lot residential development �
❑ Multi-FamilyResidential _ __
� Commerciai
� ❑ Industrial, Manufacturing
❑ Mixed-Use
❑ Streets, Roads, eta
❑'RedevelopmenY as defined by MRP: cxeating, adding andlor repiacing exterior exis6ng
impervious surface on a site where past development has occuRed?
❑'Special land use categories' as defined by MRP: (1) auto service facitities3, {2) retail gasoline
out{ets, (3) restaurants, {4) uncovered parking area (stand-alone or part of a larger project�
❑ �Institu6ons: schools, libraries, jails, etc.
❑ Parks and Uails, camp grounds, other recrea6onal
❑ Agricuitural, wineries
❑ Kennels, Ranches
❑ Other, Piease specify
Proje�t Description4: �� P�� 3-5 Tolt�/ GaMM�iK Clh't. p��[ �� u1L eb la G
(�so note arry past W� .�,.� �� �� � � P�,� K�1� ��� 2�GE
or future phases of the
project)
I.A.1 Total Area of Site: � O. 3 S't/ acres �
�.A•2 Total Area of land disturbed during construction (inc(ude clearing, grading, excavating and stockple area): D. 3� acres.
Certification:
I certify that the infnrmaGon provided on this form is correct and acknowledge that, should the project exceed the amount of
new and/or replac�zl impervious surface provided in this form, the as-built project may be subject to addifional impr�vements.
❑ Attacfi Preliminary Calculations ❑ Attach Final Calculations �(Attach c�py of site pfan showing areas
Name of person coryipleting e form: V�/���C- • G Ll1 Ti�e: ��S/G� �E1�G /�E�2,
Signature: U ' Date: OS— OS—/S
Phone number,�6 S� � �`l3 � 8 5�° Email address: Vqq�ura,Q Nrac r��4 ss ocia�.es _t�(�
� Subdivisions or contiguous, commonly owned lois, for the construction of two or more homes developed wiihin t year of each other are
considered common plans of deve{opment and are subject to C.3 requirements.
Z Roadway projects that replace existing impervious surface are subjed to C.3 requirements on ly ii one ot more lanes ot travel are added.
3 See Standard {ndustrial Class�cation (SIC) codes here
4 Project description examples: 5-story office building, indusfial warehouse, residential with five4-story buildin9s for 200 condominiums, etc.
1 Fina! Draft October3l, 2014
; ---
I
f
i
C.3 and C.6 Developmenf Review Checkfis!
�
j.Fs Is the project a"C.3 Regulated Project" per MRP Provision C.3.b?
I,g.1 Enter the amount of impervious surfacss Retained, Replaced and/or Created by fhe project
Table I B 1 Impervious and Pervious Surfaces
I.B.1.a I.B.1.b 1.8.1.c I.B.1.d I.B.1.e
Existing Existing New Post-Project
Pre-Pro;ect Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious
Impervious Surface to be Surface to bs Surface to be Surface
Surface Refained� Replaced6 Created6 (sq.ft.)
Type of fmpervious Surface {sq.ft.) (S .ft, s.ft. s.ft. =b+c+d
.�89 0 �g s� So ro s7�
Roof area(s) . o
5 atios, aths drivewa s streeis d�j � O d �
Impervious sidewalks, p p � Y�
tmpervioussuncoveredparking' � g9
Totals of lmpervious Surfaces: �,S'Y3(o 5� �
I.B.1.f - Total Impervious Surface Replaced and Created (sum oliofals for columns I.B.l.c and f.B.1.�:
Pre-Project
Pervious
Surface
Type of Pervious Surface (sq.ft.) � �
! o, S
Post-project
Pervious
Surface
(S4�ft-)
ve37
D , �
Pervious Paving • O
Green Roof � � �
Totals of Pervious Surfaces: //(0 78
TotalSiteArea(%fallmpervious+TotaiPervious=l.A.1) /s 3SY /S 3S�
1.8.2 Piease review and atfach additional worksheets as required below using the Tofa1 Impervious Surface •
fl....,.,,.e.�'��� CrPated in cell l.B.1.f from Table 1.B.1 above and other factors: .
S Pet the MRP, pavement that meets the foilowing definition of pervious pavement is NOT an inpervious surface. Pervious pavement is
deflned as pavernent that stores and infiltrates rainfaA at a rate equal to immediatefy surrounding unpaved, landscaped areas, or that stores
and infiltrates the rainfall tunoH votume described in Provision C.3.
6"Retained' means to leave existing impervious surfaces in place, unchanged;'Reptaced'means to instali new impervious surface where
existing impervious surface is removed anywhere on the same property, and'Created" means the amount of new impervi�us surface being
proposed which exceeds the tofal existing amount of impervious surface at the property.
� Uncovered parking includes the top tevei of a parking stnedure. 2 Fina! Draff October 31, 2014
i
C.3 and C.6 D�velopment P,eviev✓ Checklist
Worksheet A
C6 — Construction Stormwater BMPs
Identify Plan sheet showing the appropriate construciion Best Management Practices (BMPs) used on this project:
(Applies to all projects v✓ifh earihworic)
Yes Plan Sheet Best Management Practice (BMP)
� Contro! and prevent the discharge of a1l potential poilutanis, including pavement cutfing
G� �L h�s wastes, paints, concreie, petroleum products, chemicsls, wash water or sediments, rinse
water from architecfural copper, and non-stormwaterdischarges to storm drains and
water�ourses.
� �� Store, handle, and dispose of construction materialsfwasfes propedy to prevent contact with
stormwater.
� �I Do not c(ean, fuel, or maintain vehicles on-site, except in a designated area where wash
water is contained and treated.
� ►t Train and provide instruction to all employees/subcontractors re: construction BMPs.
� �� Protect atl storm drain intets in vicinity of site using sediment conVols such as berms, fiber
rolls or filters.
� �t timit construction access routes and stabilize desiqnated access points._ __
�j �� Attach the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollu6on Prevention Program's consfrur.tion BMP -
" plan sheet to projed plans and require contractor to implerrientthe applicable BMPs on the
fan sheet.
� r� Use temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas unti{ permanent erosion
controls are established.
� - Delineate wi�h field markers clearing limits, easeme�rts, seEbacks, seositive or cri6cal areas,
buffer zones, trees, end draina e courses.
� � Provide notes, specifications, or atfachments describing the foqowing:
• Construction, operation and maintenance of erosan and sed'unent controls, indude
inspecEion frequency;
• Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filfing, dearing of vegetation, and storage
and disposal of excavated or cleared material;
■ Specifications for vegetative cover & mulch, include methods and scheduies for planting
and fertilization;
■ Provisions for temporary and/or permanent irriga6on. _ •
� Perform clearing and earth moving activifies only dudng dry weather.
❑ • Use sediment controls or fittration to remove sedimerit when dewatering and obtain aIl
necessa ermits. '
❑ Trap sediment on-site, using BMPs such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms,
silt fences check dams soil blankets or mats cove�s for soil stock piles, ete.
� Divert on-site runoff around exposed areas; divert off-site runoff around the site (e.g., swales
and dikes .
$� G�O PL/�NS Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas irom construction impacts using vegetafive
� buffer strips sediment barriers or fifters dikes mulchinq or oiher measures as appropriate.
Fina! Draff October3l, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Devefcpment Revievr Checklist
Worksheet B
C3 - Source Conirols
Setect appropriate source controls and identify the detail/ptan sheef where these etements are shown.
Detail/Plan
Yes Sheet No.
� c� Pc�tn�
�j r�
� �/
� �/
❑
❑
❑
. ❑
' '0
� -
❑
❑
❑
❑
� cv pc�
❑
❑
Features that require
source controi measures
Sform Drain
Floor Drains
Parking garage
Landscaping
PoolfSpa/Fountain
Food Service Equipment
(non-residentia�
Refuse Areas
-Outdoor Process Activities'
Oufdoor EquipmenU
�Materials Storage
Vehicle/ Equipment
Cleaning
Vehicle/ Equipment Repair
and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinklers
Miscelianeous Drain or
Wash Water
Architectural Copper Rinse
Source Control Measures
Refer to Local Source Control list for detailed re uirements
Mark on-site inlets with the words'No Dumping! Flows to Bay' or equivalent.
Plumb interior floor drains to sanitar,+ sewerB [or prohibit).
Plumb interior parking garage floa drains to sanitary sewer.e
■ Retain existing vegetafion as practicabie.
■ Seled diverse species appropriate to the site. Include plants that are pest-
andJor disease-resistant, drought-toferant, andlor attract beneficial insects. I
� Minimize use of pesticides and quick-release fertilizers.
• Use effiaent irriqafion system• desiqn fo minimize runoff. _
Provide connection to the sanitary sewer to facifitate draining e
Provide sink or other area for equipment cleaning, which is:
• Connected to a grease interceptor prior to sanifary sewer discharge e
• Large enough for the largest m3t or pieoe of equipment to be cleaned.
• indoors or in an outdoor roofedarea designed to prevent stormwafer run-on
and run off and siqned to require equipment washinq in this area.
■ Provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, etc.,
designed to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff. .
• Connect any drains in or beneath dumpsters, compactors� and tallow bin
areas serving food service faciGiies io the sanitary sewer. �
Perform prQcess activities eifher indoors or in roofed outdoor area, designed io
prevent sformwater run-ori and runoff, and to drain to the sanitary sewer.e
• Cover the area or design to avoid poflutant contact with stormwater runoff.
■ Locate area only on paved and contained•areas.
■ R�of storage areas thatwill contain nonfiazardous liquids, drain to sanitary
sewere and contain by berms�r similar.
• Roofed, pave and berm wash area to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff,
piumb io the saniiary sewere, and sign as a designated wash area. B
• Commeraal car wash facilities shall discharqe to the sanitary sewer.
■ Designate repaidmaintenance area indoors, or an outdoors area designed to
prevent stormwater run-on and runoff and provide secondary confainmenL
Do not instatl drains in the secondary containment areas.
■ No floor drains unless pretreated prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer.°
• Conned containers or sinks used for arts cleanin to the sanita sewer.e
■ Fuefing areas shall have imperrneable surFace that is a) minimally graded to
prevent ponding and b} separated from the rest of the site by a grade break
• Canopy shall extend at least 10 ft. in each direction from each pump and
drain awa from fuelin area.
■ Cover and/or grade to min'un¢e run-on to and ntnoff fr�m the loading area.
• Position downspouts to diredstorrnwater away from the toading area.
• Drain water from laading dock areas to the sanitary sewer.°
• Install door skitts between the trailers and the buildin .
Design for discharge of fire sprinkler test water to landscape or sanitary sewer.e
■ Drain condensate of air condi6�ning units to landscaping. Large air
conditioning units may conned to the sanitary sewer.B
• Roof drains from equipment drain to landscaped area where practicable.
• Drain boiler drain lines, roof t e ui ment, all wash water to sanita sewer.e
• Drain rinse water to landscaping, discharge to sanitary sewere, or collect and
,�;��nea mm�Prfv offsite. See 8ver `Reauirements for Architedural Copper.'
;
i
i --
$ Any connection to the sanitary sewer system is subject to sanitary distriet approval.
9 Businesses that may have outdoor process activ�tieslequipment include machine shops, auta repair, industri Final D►aff Ocfober 31,I 2014
4
C. 3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist
Worksheet C
Low Impact Development— Site Design Measures
Select Appropriate Site Design Measures (Required for C.3 Regulafed Projects,' ap other projecfs are encouraged fo
implement siie design measures, wh,ich may be r�qurred af municipalify discrefion.) Projects fhaf creafe and/or replace 2,500—
10,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface, and sfand-alone single family homes fhaf creafe/replace 2,500 sq.ft. or more of impervious
surface, must include one of Sife Design Measures a through f{Provision C.3.i requ�remenis).10 Lart7er projecfs must also
include applicable Site Design Measures g through i. Consult with municipal sfaff aboul requiremenfs for yourproject.
�
i
I
i
�
Regulated Projects can also consider the following site design measures to redvice treatment system sizing:
Yes Plan Sheef Number
� G-/ � L2.�
U
�
j. Self-treating araa (see Secfion 4.2 of the C.3 Technical Guidance)
k. Self-retaining area (see Section 4.3 ot the C.3 Technical Guidance)
i. Plant or preserve interceptor trees (Section 4.1, C.3 Techniql Guidance)
�� See MRP Provision C.3.a.i.(6) for non-C.3 Regulated Projeds, C.3.c.i.(2)(a) for Regulated Projects, C.3.i for projects that creaielreplace
2,500 to 10,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface and sYand-alone single fa�ily homes that create/replace 2,500 sq. F!'nal Draff OCtobef 31 u2014
Select appropriate site design measures and ldentify fhe Plan Sheet where these elemenis are shown.
C.3 and C.6 Developrnent Review Check!ist
Worksheet D
C3 Regulated Project - Stormwater Treatment Measures
Check all applica6le boxes and indicafe the treatmenf ineasure(s) included in the ptojecf.
Yes
Attach W� sheet F
and Calculafions
Attach Worksheet D-1
and Calculations
❑�
Attach Plans showing
system, connection to
Recycied Wafer Line
and/or ConnecUon
Approval Letter from
Sanitary District
, ❑ .
Attach worksheet D-2
and Calculations
Is the project a Special Project?"
If yes, consultwith municipal sta`f about the need to ev2luate the feasibility and infeasibilit� of 1D0% LID
treatment. Indiqfe the typs of non-LID treatment to be used, the hydraulic sizing mefhod , and
percentage of the amount of runoff specified in Provision C.3.d that is treated:
(For the % not treated by non-LID measures, continue wiLti Woricsheet D-1)
% of C.3.d amount
Non-LID Treatmeni Measures: Hydraulic sizinq method12 of rvnoff treated
❑ Media filter
� ❑2.a ❑2.b ❑2.c
�2.a. ❑2.b ❑2.c
%
_%
❑ Tree well filter
It is feasible to treat the C.3.d amount of nmoff using infilVation?
IndicAte the infiftration measures to be used, and hydrautic sizing method:
tnfiltrafion Measures: Nvdraulic sizinq method12
❑ Bioinfiltration13 � ❑1.a ❑1.b ❑2.c03
❑ infiltrafion trench ❑1.a ❑1.b �
'� Other (specify)' /NFYG %/L/�%�b1J T{7�2dU�{ f'L�4l.iT,�IL �C3 a ?C�
Is the project insfalling and using a recyc(ed water ptumbing system for non-potable waier use and the
installation of a second non-potabfe vrater system #or harvested rainwater is impracfical, and considered
infe2sible due io cost considerations? If yes, check the box beiow and skip ahead fo worksheet D-3
(There is no need for further evaluafion of Rainwater harvesting/use.)
Recvcled Water Measure:
❑ Recycled Water System for non-potable water use wili be instatled and used.
It is feasib(e to treat the C.3.d amount of runoff using rainwater harvesting/use?
Rairnvater HarvestinalUse Measures: �draulic sizinct method�Z
❑ Rainwater Harvesting for indoor non-potable wate� use ❑1.a ❑1.b
❑ Rairrvrater Harvesting for landscape irrigation use ❑�,a ❑1.b
❑
Attach
Worksheets D-1 and
D-2 and Catculations
It is infeasible to treat the C.3.d amount of runoff using either infiltration or rainwater harvesfing/use?
Indicate the biotreatment measures to be used, and the hydraulic sizing method:
Biotreatment Measures:
❑ Bioretention area
❑ Flow-through planter
❑ Other (specify):
, �draolic sizinq method�Z
❑2,c ❑3
�2.c ❑3
q copy of the iong term Opera6ons and Maintenance (0&M) Agreement and Plan for this project wifl be required. Please
contact the NPDES Representative of the applicable municipality for an agreement ternplate and consult the C.3 Technical
Guidance at �vwv✓.flowstobaV.orq for maintenance plan templates for specific faciGty types.
�� Special Projects are smart growth, high density, or transit-oriented developmenfs with the criteria defined in Provision C.3.e.ii.(2), (3) or (4)
�see Warksheet F).
Z Indicate which of the foilowing Provision C.3.d.i hydraulic sizing methods were used. Volurne based approaches; 1(a) Urban Runoff
QuaGty Management approach, or 1(bj 80% capEure approach (recortimended votume-based approach). F(ow-based aooroaches: 2(a)10°/a
of 50-year peak flow approach, 2(b) 2 6mes the 85'" percentile rainfzll intensity approach, or2(c� �.2-Inch-pervhour intens'rty approach
(recrommended flow-based approach). Combination flow and volume-based approach: 3.
13 See Section 6.1 of the C.3 Techn'ical Guidance for conditions in whicti bioretention areas provide bioinfittration.
6 Fina! Draft October 31, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Developmenf Revier� Check(ist
Worksheet D-1
Feasibitiiy of Infiltration
D-1.0 Infiltration Potential. Based on site-specific soil report14, do site soils ei�':er:
a. Have a saturated hydraulic conductivity {Ksat) less than 1.6 incheslhour), OR, if the Ksat
rate is not available:
b. Consist of Type C or D soils?
➢!f Yes, infilfra6on rs not feasib/e — skip to D-1.9 below.
➢!f No, compfefe fFie Infiltraiion Feasi6ility checklisf 6e/ow:
Evatuate infiltraiion feasibility:
D-1.1 �/�/ould infiliration facifities15 at this site conflict with the location of existing or ptoposed
underground utifities or easements, or wouid the siting of infilfration facilifies atthis site resuli
in their piacement on top of underground utifities, or otherwise oriented to underground
utilities, such that they would discharge to the utility trench, resfrict acce.ss, �r cause stability
concems? (If yes, attach evidence documenting this condi6on.) �
D-1.2
D-1.3
D-t.4
D-1.5
D-1.6
Is there a dacumented concem ihat there is a potential. on the site for soil or groundwater
po[lutants to be mobilized? (If yes, attach documentation af mobilization concerns.)
Are geotechnical hazards present, such as steep slo�pes, areas wiih landslide potential, soils
subjecf to Gquefaction, or would an infiltration facility ° need to be bu�t less than 10 feet from
a building foundation or other improvements subject to undermining by saturated soils? (If
yes, attach documentation of geotechnical hazard.)
Do locaf water district or othe� agency's policies or guide[ines regarding the locations where
�nfiliration �may occur, the separation from seasonal high��roundwater, or setbacks from
potential sources of pollution, prevent infiliration devices from being implernented atthis
site? (If yes, attach evidence documenting this condition.)
Would construction of an infiltration device10 require lhat it be located less t�an 100 feet
away from a septic tank, underground slorage tank with hazardous materials, or other
potentiai underground source oi pollution? (If yes, attach evidence doc:umenting this claim.)
ls there a seasonal high groundwater table or mounded groundwater thai v�tould be within 10
feet of the base of an infiltrafion device10 constrvcted on the site? (If yes, attach
documentation of high groundwater.) •
D-1.7 Are there land uses that pose a high threat to water quality — including but not limited to
industrial and light industrial activities, high vehicular traffic (.e., 25,000 or g reater average
daily traffic on a main raadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic on any intersecting
roadway), automotive repair shops, car washes, fleet storags areas, or nu rseries? (If yes,
attach evidence documenting this claim.)
�-� •8 1s there a groundwafer production well within 100 feet of the location where an infiftra6on
device10 would be constructed? (lf yes, attach map showing the well.}
Results of Feasibility Determination
D-1,9 �nfiltration is fnfeasible?
(If any answer to questions D-1.1 thru D-1.8 is °Yes' then Infi(tration is Infeasibie.)
Continue to Worksheet D-2
Infiltration is Feasible?
Do notfill outworksheet D-2.
Continue to Woricsheet D-3.
Yes No
� �
� �
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
o a
� 0
❑ ❑
ia lf no site-spec�c soil report is avaifable, refer to soil hydrauiic conductiviry maps in C.3 Techn'ual Guidance Appendix I.
ls Far more information on infiltration faalifies and devices, see Appe � ix E of the SMCWPPP C3TG HandbooFinal Draft Ocfober3i, 2014
c.
�.3 snd C.5 Gevelopment R,eviaw Checklist
Worksheet D-2
Feasibilify of Rainwater Harvesting and Use
D_2,� Potential Rainwater Capture Area
a. Enter the total square footage of impervious surface for this site from Table I.B.1
(Total Creafed and Replaced Impervious Surface from 1.8.1.fl
b
� D S 'Sq. ft.
� Sq.ft.
D _'L Acres
p_2,Z Feasibility of Landscape Irrigation:
a. Enter area of post-project onsife landscaping (see Column t.6.1.e in Tab(e 1.6.1)
b. Multiply the Potential Rainwater Capture Area above (D-2.1.c) by times 3.2.
j� . O(o qcres
o - 7 7 Acres
� Yes ❑ No
c. Is the amount in D-2,2.a (onsite landscaping) LESS than the a 6 ount in D-22.b {the product
of 3.2 times the size of the Poten6ai Rainwater Capture Area) ?
➢ !f Yes, confinue to D-2.3.
y!f No, there are fwo op6ons: �
� 1. !f may be possrble fo meet the ireafinenf requiremenfs by drr�c6ng runoff
from impervi�us areas fo self-refaining areas (see Sec6on 4.3 offhe C.3
Technical Guidance).
2. /f may 6e possible use fhe C.3.d amounf of runoff for irriga5on. Refer fo Tab/e
11 and fhe curves in Appendix F of the LID Feasibility Report to evaluafe
feasibi7ity of harves6ng and using fhe C.3.d amount of runoff for irri9aGon.
Complefe the calcufafions and atfach fo fhis wotksheef. If feasib/e fhat
complefes Worksheet D-2 and you may move on fo Worksheet D-3.
D-2.3 Feasibility Indoor Non-Potable Uses: {check fhe box forfhe applicable projectiype, then fr!!in the requesfed
informafion and answerfhe ques6on).17
❑ a. Residential Project
Units
If the existing impervious surface to be replaced (total from Column I.B.1.c in Table 1.8.1)
is 50% or more of the pre-project impervious surface (toiai from Column 1.6.1.a in Table
�.g,1), then enter the post-project impenrious surface (total from Column 1.8.1.e in Table
I.B.1) in D-2.1.b. If not, enter zero in D-2.1.b.
Convert the larger of the amounts in Items D-2.1.a and D-2.1.b from square feet to acres
(divide by 43,560).
This is the project's Potential Rainwater Capture Area, in acres.
Number of dwelfing units (total post-project):
Divide the amount in () by Potential Rainwater Capture Area (D-2.1.c):
(s the amount in u LESS than 124?
❑ b. Commercial Project
F{oor area (total interior post-project square f�otage):
Divide-u�e amount in () by Potential Rainwater Capture Area (D-2.1.c):
Is the amount in (ii) LESS than 84,000?
❑ c. School Project
i. Flo�r area (total interior post-project square footage):
ii. Divide the amount in (i) by Potentiaf Rainwater Capture Area (D-2.1.c):
iii, Is the amount in (ii) LESS than 27,000?
Du/ac
❑ Yes ❑ No
v3, S6 o sq.ft.
� 8 6 Sq.ftJac
❑ Yes '� No
Sq.ft.
Sq.ft./ac
❑ Yes ❑ No
i
i
t6 �andscape areas must be cronBguous and within the same Drainage Management Area to iRigate with harvested rainwater via gravity flow.
17 Rainwater harvested for ind�or use is rypically used for toilef/urinal flushing, industrial processes, or other non-potable uses.
g Final Draft Ocfo6er31, 2014
❑ d. fndus?rial Project
i. Estimated demand �or nor.-potable water (gailons/day):
ii. Is the amount in (i� LESS than 2,900?
❑ e. Mixed-Use Residentiai/Commercial Project18
i. Number of residential dtivelling units and commercial floor
area:
ii. Percentage of total interior pest-project floor area setving
eactt activity:
iii. Prorated Potential Rainwater Capture Area per activity
(multiply amount in D-2.1.c by the percentages in [ii]):
iv. Prorated project demand per impervious area (divide the
amounts in [7 by the amounts in [iii]); •
C.3 and C.6 Develcpmeni Revie:v Checklist
Gal.lday
❑ Yes ❑ No
Residen6al Commerciaf
Units Sq•ft-
o�a %
Acres Acres
Dulac Sq.ftlac
v. ls the amount in (iv) in the �esidential column fess than 124, AND is the amount
in the commercial column less than 84,000? ❑ Yes ❑ No
➢ If you checked "Yes" forthe above quesfion forthe applicable praject type, rainwaterharvesting forindooruse is
considered infeasible for ihaf buiidina. If there is only one building on fhe sife you are done with this worksheef. !f there
is more than one building on the srfe, for each fhaf has an individual raof area of 10,000 sq. ff. ormore, comp/efe
Sec6ons D-2.2 and D-2.3 of this form for each building, ConSnue fo D-2.4 if a'No' is checked for any building.
➢!f you checked °No' for the quesfion applicable to fhe type of project, rainwater harvesting for indoor use may be
feasible. Continue to D-2.4:
D-2.4 Project Infortnation •
*- See definitions in Glossary (Attachment 1)
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
D-2.5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
ProjectType: G��MF��� If residentia! or mixed use, enter # of dweiling units:
Enter square foofage of non-residential Interior floor area:
Total area being evaluated (en6re project or indvidual roof with an area > 10,000 sq.ft.):
�v3, 56�
---r—
�5 3S'�_sq.ft.
!f it is a Special ProJect•, indicate the percentage of L!D treatment* reduc6on: percent
(liem 4.4 applies onty to en6r� p�ject evaluations, noi indrvidual r�of area eva/ua6ons.)
Total area being evaluated, adjusted for Speaal Project LID treatment reduction cr�t; ���?� sq.ff•
(This Is fhe fofal area being evaluafed that requires LID freatment.)
Calculate Area of Self-Treating Areas, Self-Retaining Aceas, and Areas Contributing io Self-Retaining Areas.
Enter square footage of any self-treating areas' in the area that is being evaluated: % �i -¢� sq.ft.
Enter square footage of any seit retatning areas• in fhe area that is being evaluaied:
Enter the square footage of aseas contributing runoff to se�!-•etaining area':
TOTAL of Items 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3:
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
'�� sq.ft.
D-2.6 Subtract credit for self-freatinglsel4-retaining areas from area requiring treatrnenL
6 � Subtract the T07AL in Item 5.4 from the area being evafuated (Item 4.5). This is th e poEentiai / 3� O� Sq ft
ralnwater capture area`.
6.2 Convert the potentiai rainwaier capture area (Item 6.1) from square feet to acres. O•�✓' / acres
D-2.7 Determine feasibitity of use for toilet flushing based on demand
18 For a mbced-use project involving activities other than residentiai and commercial activiiies, foibw the steps for residentiaUcommercial
mixed-use projects. Pror>le the Potential Rainwater Capture Area for each aetivity based onthe percentage of the project serving each
� �r�,�r„
g Final Draft October 31, 2014
C.3 and C.o Development Review Checklisf
ProjecYs d•,�elling ur.its per acre of potential rainwater capture 2rea (Divide the nuMber in 4.1 by
�•� the number in 6•2)•
7.2 Non-residential interior floor area per acre of potertial rain capfure zrea (Divide the numbzr in 4.2
by the number in 6.2).
Nofe: formu!as in ltems 7. � and 7.2 are set up, respective!y, for a residential or a non-residenfialproject. Do
not use these p� e-set formufas formixed use projects. For mixed use projecfs`, evaluafe the residenti2l
toilet flushirr3 demand based on the dwelJing units per acre ;or the residentiai portion of the p�oJec! (use a
prorated acreege, 6ased on the peroenfaqe �f the project dedicated to residential use). Then evaluate the
commercial toi/et flushing demand per acr� for the commer�ial portion of the project (use a prorated acreaga,
� basedon th= percentage ofthe projectdedicefed to commercial use).
Refer to the applicable countywide table in Attachment 2, fdentify the number of dv+ielling units
� 3 per impenrious acre needed in your Rain Gauge Area to provide the toilet flushing demand
required fcr rainwater harvest feasibifity.
Refer to fhe applicable countywide fabie in Attachment 2. Identify the square feefof non-
� 4 residential interior floor area per impervious acre needed in your Rain Gauge Area to provide the
t�ilet flushing demand required for rainwater harvest feasibility.
dwelling
uni:s/acre
Int. non-
res. floor
6 b D a area/acre
dwelling
% 3 D a ti units/acre
int. non-
res. floor
area/acre
Check "Yes" or lVo" to indicate whether the foflowing condi6ons apply. If'Yes'is checked for any quesNon, then rainwater harves6ng and
use is infeasible. As soon as you answer "Yes ; you can skip fo Ifem D-2.9. !f %Vo"is check2d for al! items, d�en rainwater harves6nq and
use is feasible and you musf harvesf and use the C.3.d amount of stormwater, unless you infilfrafe the C.3.d amounf of sformxater'.
7.5
7.6
Is the projecYs number of dwelfing units per acre of potential rainwater capture area Qisted in Item
7,1} LESS than the number identified in Item 7.3?
Is the projecf`s square footage of non-residential interior floor area per acre of potential rairnvater
capture area (listed in ttem 7.2) LESS than the number ideniified in Item 7.4?
D-2.8 Determine feasibifity of rainwater harvesting and use based on faciors other than demand.
8•1 Does fhe requirement for rainwater harvesfing and use af the project conflict with local, state, or
federal o�nances or buiidng codes?
❑ �
❑ Y�
❑ �
�Yes
❑ �
❑ Yes
Would the technica! requirements cause the harvesting system to excsed 2% of the Tota! Project
Cost', or has the appficant documented economic hardship in rela6on to maintenance costs? (If so,
82 atiach an expianation.)
❑ Yes
8.3 Do constraints, such as a slope above 10% or lack of available space at the site, make if infeasible
to locate on the site a cistem of adequate size to harvest and use fhe C.3.d amount of water? (If so, � Y�
attach an explanation.)
❑ Yes
g.q Are there geotechnicaUstability concems related to the surface (roof or ground) where a cistern
would be lopted that make the use of rainwater harvesting infeasible? (If so, aflach an
. explanation.)
8.5 Does the location of utilities, a septic system and/or Heritage Trees' limit the placement of a cistem
on the site to the extent that rainwater harvesting is infeasible? (If so, attach an explanafion.)
��
❑ �
❑ �
❑ �
❑ �
Nofe: lt is assumed thaf pmjecfs with significanf amounts of landscaping will eifher treat runoff wifh landscape dispersa! (self-treafing and
self-retaining areasJ or will evaluafe the feasibifity of harvesffng and using rainwafer for iniga6on using the curves in Appendix F of fhe UD
Feasibility Repori
*- See definitions in Gfossary �Attachment 1)
10 Final Draff Ocfober3l, 2014
C. 3 and C.6 Gevelopment Revre�i Checklist �
. �
D-2.9 Results oi Feasibility Determination . Infeasible Feasible `
a Based on the results of the feasibility analysis in Items 7.5, 7.6 and Section D-2.8, rainwater � �
harvesting/use is (check one):
--> !f "F�SIBLE" is indicated for ftem D-2.9.a the amouni ofsformwater requiring treafinent must be freated wifh harvesting/use, unless
it is infilfrafed inio the soil.
-� lf'7NFEAS/BLE"is checked forifem D-2.9.a, fhen fhe applicantmay use apprapriafety designed bioretention*facififies ("see
defrnifio�s in Glossary — Attachment 1) for comp/iance witit C.3 freafinent requirements. ff Ksaf > 1.6 inJhr., and infr(frafion is
unimpeded 6ysubsurface condr6ons, then the biorafenfion facrfities are predicfed fo infilfrafeBD% ormore average annualrunoff. If
Ksaf < 1.6, maximize lnfiltrafion of stormwafer by using bioreten6on if sife condifions a(low, and remaining runoff wilf be drscharged to
storm drains via facility underdrains. !f site conditions preclude infilfraGon, a lined bior�ten6on area or flow-through pfanfer may be
used.
�
T i Frna! Draft October 31, 2Q14
C. 3 ar,d C. o Develcpmer,! Review Checidist
Wor[csheet E
Hydromadification Management
E-!
E-1.1
E-1.2
E-1.3
Is the project a Hydromodification Management19 (HM) Project?
Is the total impervious area increased over the pre-projzct conditicn?
❑ Yes. Continue to E-12
❑ No. The proiect is NOT required to incorporate HM Measures.
Go to item E-1.4 and check'No'
Is the site located in an NM Cont�of Area per the HM Control Areas map (Appendix H of the C.3 Technical Guidance)?
❑ Yes. Continue to E-1.3
❑ No. Attach map, indicating project foca6on: The proiect is NOT required to incorporate HM Measures.
Skip to Item E-1.4 and check "No.'
Has an engineer or quafified environmental professional determined p�t 9 noff from the project fiows only through a
hardened channei or enciosed pipe along its entire length before em in into a waferway in the exempt area?
❑ Yes. Attach map of facility. Go to Item E-l.4 and check `Yes." •
❑ No. Atfach map, indicating project location. The ro'ect is N�T re uired to inco orate HM Measures_
Skip to item E-1.4 and check "No.'
E-1.4 Is the project a Hydromodification Management Projecf?
,❑ Yes. The project is subject fo HM requiCements in Provision C.3.g of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.
❑ No. The project is IXEMPT from HM requirements.
➢ If the project is subject to the HM requiremen#s, incorporafe in the projectflow duration contro! measures designed
� such that post-project discharge rates and durations match pre-projecf discharge rates and durations.
' ➢ The Bay Area Hydrology Model {BAF3N� has been developed to hetp s"¢eflow duration controts. See
www baYareahvdroloavmodel.orq. Guidance is provided in Chapter 7 of the C.3 Technical Guidance.
E.2 Incorporate HM Controls (if required)
�
Are the app[icable items provided with the Plans?
'es No
❑ �
❑ Site plans with pre- and post-projed impervious surface areas, surrace now airea��r�s ��
enfire site, focations of flow duration controls and site design measures per HM site
design requirement '
f-1 ❑ ❑ c��i� reoorF or other site-speafic document showing soil
on site
❑ ❑ ❑
�
�
u � I If project uses the Bay Area
e ■
Modei {BAHM), a list of model inputs and outputs.
If project uses cusfom modeting, a summary of the modeling calculations with
corresponding graph showing curve matching (exis4ng, Qost-projed, and post-projeet
with HM controts curves), goodness of fif, and (al[owable) fow flow rate.
If project uses the Impracticability Provision, a listing ot ai� appnca�ie costs ana d �� �C�
descrip6on �f the altemative H1i1 project (name, location, date of start up, entity
responsible for mainienance).
[i ❑ ❑ lf the project uses aftematives to the default BAHM approacn or senings, a wr�«e��
descripfion and rationale.
19 Hydromodification is the change in a site's runoff hydrograph, including increases in flows and duraUons that results when land is devefoped
(made more impervious). The effects of hydromodification include, but are not limited to, inaeased bed �nd bank erosion of receiving sUeams,
loss of habitat, increased sediment transport andlor deposition, and increased flooding. Hydrornodification contro! measures are designed to
reduce these effeds. 12 Fina! Draft Ocfo6er31, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Developmenf Review Checkl;sf
Worksheet F
Special Projects
Complete ihis worksheet for projecfs fhat appear to meet the definition of 'Specia/ ProjecY; per Provision C.3.e.ii c( fhe Municipal
Regional Sformwater Permit (MRP). The form assists in defermining whether a prnjecf inesfs Specia/ Projecf criferia, and fhe
percentage of !ow impact development (L!D) treatmenf reduction credit. Special Projecfs that implemenf (ess fhan 100% LlD
treafinerf musf provide a narrafive discussion of fhe feasibility or infeasibilify of 10C% LID freafinent See Appendrx J of the C.3
Technica( Guidance Handbook (download at www.flowstobay.orr�) formore information.
F.1 "Special Project" Determination (Check the 6oxes to defermine rf ihe pmjed meefs any of fhe fo!lowing categories.)
Speciaf Proiect Cateqory "A"
Does the project have ALL of the fallowing characterisfics?
❑ Located in a muniapality's designated central business district, downiown core area or downtown core zoning district,
neighborhood business disfrict or comparable pedestrian-oriented commercial district, or historic preservation site
and/or district20;
❑ Creates and/or replaces 0.5 acres or less of impervious surface;
❑(ncludes no surface parking, except for incidental parking for emergency vehicle access, ADA access, and passenger
or freight loading zones;
❑ Has at least B5°/a caverage of the entire site by permanent sttudures. The remaining 15% poRion of the site may be
used for safety access, parking structure entrances, trash and recyding service, uliiity access, pedestrian connedions,
puhlic uses, landscaping and stormwater treatment. -
❑ No (confinue) .
❑ Yes — Complete Sectlon F.2 below
Special Proiect Cateqory °B" .
� .Does the projed have ALL of the following characteristics? .
�' •�
❑ Located in a municipality's designated central business district, dovrniown core area or downtown core zoning districf,
�' _ neigbborhood business district or comparable pedestrian-oriented comrnercial district, or hisforic preservation site
; _ andlo� district20;
❑ Creates and/or replaces an area of impervious surface that is greaterthan 0.5 acres, and no more than 2.0 acres;
- ❑ Includes no surface parking, except for incidental parking for emergency access, ADA acxess, and passenger or
freight loading zones;
❑ Has at least 85% coverage of the en6re site by permanent sfructures The remaining 15% portion of the site may be
used for safety access, parking structure entrances, trash and recycling service, uUlity access, pedestrian connections,
pubfic uses, landscaping and stormwater treatmen�
❑ Minimum density of either 50 dwelling units per acre (for residential projects) or a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 21 (for
commeraal or mixed use projects)
❑ No (continue)
❑ Yes — Compfete Seciion F-2 below
Special Proiect Cateqory °C'
Does the project have ALL of the following characteristics?
❑ At least 50% of the project area is within 1/2 mile of an existing or planned transit hub21 or 100%within a planned
Priority Development Areau; �
❑ Ttie project is characterized as a non-auto-related use23; and
� Minimum density of either 25 dwelling unifs per acre (for residential projeds) or a Ffoor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2:1 (for
commercial or mixed use projects) •
❑ No (coniinue)
❑ Yes — Complete Section F-2 belovr
20 And bult as part of a muniapafity's stated objective to preserve/enhance a pedestrian-orierded type of urban design.
Z� 'Transit hub" is defined as a rail, light rail, or commuter rail station, ferry terminal, or 6us Uanster station served by three or more bus routes. (A
bus stop with no suppotting services does nof quatify.)
� A°planned Priority Development Area" is an infill development area formally designated by the Association of Bay Area Governmenfs /
Metropolitan TranspoRa6on Commission's FOCUS regional planning program.
� Category C specificalty excludes stand-alone surface parking lots; car dealerships; auto and truck rental facifties with onsite surface storage; fast-
food restaurants, banks or pharmacies with drive-through lanes; gas stations; car washes; aufo repair and senrlce facilities; or other auto-related
project unrelated to the concept of transit oriented development
. 13 Final DraR �ctober 31, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Cevelopmertt Re��iew Checklisf
F.2 LID Treatment Reduction Credit Calculafion
(lfmore fhan one category applies, choose only one of the appl;cab!e cafegories ar� filf o��t the fable forthaf category.)
Category ImperviousArea Site Projeci DensitylCriteria Allowable Applied
Created/Replaced Coverage Density or Credit Credit
(sq. ft) (%) FAR (%) (%)
A NA. N.A. 100%
B Res Z 50 DU/ac a FAR >_ 2:1 ��%
� Res Z 75 DU/ac a FAR Z 3:1 75%
Res Z 100 DU/ac or FAR >_ 4:1 100%.
C Location credit {select one)2°:
Within %. mile of iransit hub 50%
�• Within'/ mite of transif�hub 25% �
.. Within a planned PDA 25% �'
� � Density credit (selec�one): •
Res Z 30 DU/ac or FAR Z�2:i • 10%
Res � 60 DU/ac a FAR Z 4:1 � 20%
� Res Z 100 DU/ac�r FAR >_ fi:1 30%
Parking credit (selectone):
510% at-grade surface parking25 10%
. . No surface parking 20%
. TOTAL TOD CREDIT =
F.3 Narrative Discussion of ihe Feasibifityllnfeasibility of 100% lID Treatmen�
If project wiil implement less than 100% LID, prepare a discussion of the feasibilityor infeasibility of 100% LlD treatment, as
described in Appendix K of the C.3 Technical Guidance.
F.4 Seiect Certified Non-L1D Treatment Measures:
If the project will include non-LIO treatment measures, select a treatment measure certified for'Basic' General Use Level
Designation (GULD) by the Washington State Department of Ecolog�s Technical Assessment Protocol — Ecol�gy (TAP�.
Guidance is provided in Appendix K of fhe C.3 Technical Guidance (dov+mload at www.flowstobay.orq)26
24 To qualify for the location credit, at least 50% of the projecYs site must be located within Ihe %< mile or'� mile radius of an ewsting or planned
transR hub, as defined on page i, footnote 2 A planned transft hub is a station on the MTCs Regional Transit Expansfon Program fist, per MTC's
Resolution 3434 (revised Aprii 2006), which is a regional priority funding plan for future transit statiorts in the San Frandsco Bay Area. To qualify for
the PDA location ctedit,100% of the project site must be located within a PDA, as defined on page 1, footnote 3.
zs Ths at-grade surface parking must be treated with LID treatment measures.
Z6 TAPE certification is used in order to satisfy Special Projed's repo;�g requirements in the MRP. FIRai Draff OCfobef 3'1, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Gevelopmenf R2vie�v Checklist .
Worksheet G
(For municipal staff use oniy)
0
G-1 Alternative Certification: Were the freatment andfor HP�1 control sizing and dasign revie:�ed by a qualified third-pa�y !
professional that is not a membe: of the project team or agency staff?
❑ Yes ❑ No Name of Revie4ver
I
G-2 High Priority Site: High Priority Sites can inciude these located in or within 100 feet of a sensitive habitat, Area of Special .
Biofogical Significance (ASBS), body of water, or on sites with slopes (subjed to rnonthly inspections from Oct 1 to April
30.)
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then add site to Staff's Monthly Rainy Season Consttiction Site Inspecfion List
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Submittals
G-3 Stormwater Treatment Measure and/HM Control Owner or Operators Informa6on:
0
�
Name: j
Address: I
�.
Phone: Email: :
D Applicant musf call for rnspection and receive inspection v✓ithin 45 days of insfa!laSon of treafinenf ineasures and/or �
hydromodification management controls. _ �
(
The fo/lowing ques6ons apply fo C.3 Regulated Prajecfs and Hydramodifrcation Management Projects. !
� Yes No N/A �
G-3.1 Was maintenance pian submitted? ❑ ❑ ❑
G-3.2 Was maintenance plan approved? ❑ ❑ ❑ �
G-3.3 Was maintenance agreement submitted? (Date executed: 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ �
➢ Atiach.the execufed mainfenance agreemenf as an appendix to this checklist. •
G-4 Mnual Operations and Maintenance (0&M} Submittals (for municipal sta�f use oniy): �
For C.3 Regulafed Projects and Nydromodr6ca6on Managemenf Projecfs, in�ca fe fhe dafes on which the Applicanf �
submitted annua! reports for prujecf 0&M:
G� Comments (for municipal staif use only):
G-6 NOTES (for municipal staff use only):
Section I Notes:
WorksheetA Notes:
Worksheet B Notes:
Warksheet C Notes:
Worksheet D-1 Notes:
Worksheet D-2 Notes:
15 Fina1 Draff Octo6er 31, 2014
�
C.3 and C.6 Ce�elopmert Revie.v Checklisf
Worksheet E Notes: -
Worksheet F Notes:
G-7 Projecf Close-Out (for municipal staff use only):
7.1 Were�final Conditions of Approvai met?
7.2 Was initial inspection of the completed trea�ment/I-IM measure(s) conducted?
(Date of inspection: 1
7.3 Was maintenance plan submitted?
(Date executed: 1
7.4 Was project informa6on provided to siaff responsible for 0&M verification inspections7
•{Date provided to inspection staff: i '
Yes No NA
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ - ❑
0 ❑' ❑
G-8 ProjecE Cfose-0ut (Continued --formunicipal staff use onlyj:
Name of staff confirming project is closed out: �
Signature: Date: '
Name of 0&M staff receiving information: +
Signature: Date: �
. _� . .
96
Final Draff October 31, 2014
i
i
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
March 16, 2015
�Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
0 Building Division
(650) 558-7260
� Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback and Parking
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof deck at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214-220
Staff Review: March 16, 2015
� JOn the survey or site plan, please show where the stormwater runoff is currently being
v directed to. There is a CB on the survey and site plan but it does not show where it directs
the runoff.
�`'2.) A sewer analysis report will be required for the development and proposed connection on
l/ Myrtle Road.
�� Please be aware that there is currently no parking along Howard Avenue. With the proposed
design, there will be no room for public parking fronting the main entrance of the building.
�� Will the 5-car stacker be designated for public use or be assigned parking spaces for the
�� commercial or retail tenants?
�,.i Verification of the number and size of the recycling/debris bins will be required by Recology.
A letter from Recology will be sufficient stating the occupancy usage and ability to service the
building.
� Please provide a ramp profile. Please verify (and show) that line of sight is sufficient when
exiting from the ramp onto the sidewalk with respect to the planter structures and proposed
street trees.
� 7.� Please dimension the sidewalk surrounding the property and include the typical dimensions of
`% the planting area in the right-of-way.
8�? Please provide a stormwater table showing the areas and totals for treatment. In addition,
-� hatch the areas showing which planters are treating which areas.
`9. � Please show where the mailroom or mailboxes will be located.
Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 4/13/15
�]ac��I�oOD a�� Q��OC�DQ�C��9 ��1C�o
CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING
May 7, 2015
City of Burlingame
Building Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Re: 988 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA
APN: 029-214-220
To Whom It May Concem:
Per review comments prepared by various departments of the City of Burlingame, I respond as
follows: �
ENGINEERING DIVISION (comments bv Martin Ouan, dated 03-16-2015):
1. See enclosed Pre-Development Hydrology Map. It shows where the stormwater runoff is
currently directed. It is all sheet flow from the site and ultirnately collected at the
northerly corner of the property on Myrtle. The connection of the existing catch basin is
- unknown.
2. Per our discussion you would like us to submit a total fiarture units calculations for the
proposed project to deternune if a sewer analysis report will be required. Please see
enclosed calculations.
3. I understand that there is no public paiidng on Howard Avenue. The proposed design will
have less driveway openings that will provide more public pazking on Myrtle Road and
East Lane.
4. The 5-car stacker will be assigned for the commercial tenants.
5. This comment will be addressed by the architect.
6. The ramp profile is now shown on sheet C-1. The line of sight when exiting from the
ramp onto the sidewalk is now shown on sheet C-1.1fie proposed planters on both sides
of the driveway are only 2 foot high and will not cause any obstruction to the line of
sight.
7. Sidewalk dimensions and planting area dimensions surrounding the property are now
shown on plan (sheet C-1).
8. See enclosed stormwater table calculations with the attached roof and treatment planters
plan.
9. This item will be addressed by the architect.
STORMWATER DIVISION (comments by KJK, dated 03-16-2015):
1. Enclosed is the completed C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
I
VergeI P. Gal �
�
965 CENTER STREET • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 •(650) 593-8580 • FAX (650) 593-8675
� NV. 9238
�
N�
O��4 �
N�f
L=
LEGEND
BASIN OVERFLOW
EXIT POINT
� DRAINAGE DIRECTION
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
H YDROLOGY M AP
SCALE: NONE
�.^ \V• �
0
b+ ��
��1
� '�
\ 9^�
I \ �1
Z
�
'�+ N
1 \
/O�/ TC 95.51
F.O.D.
SD SD SD 'Z� SD SD SD
t G G 2� G G G G G
INV. 91.10 �
o"
�
I
S
N
N
1 I
AC PAVE (�
�
�
:� N
N
�� 9�� �
f �
� �
�
0 �
v N
nl i �
�
�
�
�
�
+
��
� AC PAVE �
wv. si.cKx�
WY. 90.84(NEhNN�
SD�
G G-
. R-oo� �L�� O
-� Q 5 S.�` GENERAL NOTES
1 1. ROOF 10 COl1PLY WRN 'COOL ROOF� RCWIRE4ENT5 Of 7HC
2 = A32 � 7010 fiLLfOPN41 EMN4Y CDDC SCC7ION tS1f.1I.
M.
� Y. �Ll ROOF ARUS TO BE CUSS 'A" �-Pl'/ PER CBC T/,A.E
4ECXANICAL EOWPYFNT—. —ROOi'lOP wALN PADS I505, R00� TO SIOPE t0 DNNN AT 1/1' PER f00T M�N. Zu !
166�-7' ' : ' �
_ 27'-i�'—{-e'-E' 60'-10' �— - 20'-D' S[T&�CK 1. FOOF ANO OVERIIUr DRNNS O ROOF AND DECK MEAS 9NLl � q� �
� �I � � � � � ' � � � � � � � CONNECT/FLOw i0 %AMERS 10 tltt SEWER. $.C.D. � & .S
� - � :. . . . . _ �.� �'��, t ' ' . � �. BU0.T-UG wliX NGD ROOi INSUhTqN OY£R STRUCTURAI. � }
� . � ' '. � . ., ,,;,,�� � � �� �.� � � � . SHUTWNG. ttP. �
� �' " . At�1�K'1t . ^1 I / r ��� � � � �. illA1 2 u:
� -�.. � 1 11 �I I :L �� ,
y[SB� _ .(�571:`EIt�Sb 1_J ` '_.•.._•.._..._ 7MY6W^Pndp�d�oldr
� lJ N07�f�
M M prepM� W mprlpt R
j . " p ry� ��i'��P� PY`rn MG n! �1M
�` _1 3 _ I _ . � i�.vv� � � t �qeNw�.�hLayDeYTPronen
� �' T 1�� �. A�..� �\K"q�,- ����.• [ kFHY .MYIIL � ' J� I
\ 1�J1' :i� � �T� \M;�'�4 ' �P'� j�l��\\�1��'�4 J tYl P '�FEi 1 � � 7� i . �✓
� ! �+ :� / //�'. 1� �� �� `/IS�� I
' :4:�. �:: `�'%: � .��'�/ ..
, ' �
, �1 ( ;�....b
� _ , ; ���� a► � O ll.l
, � !�, �.,,.,. � ,;�� ,,,�Y- � ' `F'So5 •� �
-
,., � �i•'• -- � ;:
� ;ui � a•, ;�h;�J� ��,: �,���,��,
s.',,\��6��4�;,. �+'�1��\\�,�,G�•��W s`��\�',r„`r7`��x'b`' - � Z
� �r y� pr ,�r�' ♦ � �� '� i.e�°7� ���'4�`' 1 �
` �k � � i` , � �t� ih1 � W 1
�` ' ' , � ���n A` � y,s �� ' � `J V
\ � � j. '; '�f �2 �� /
` ' �
_ : � w
� . EYT'F.6iF • ^1.MERCVL'k00�'DEC�( � � W
1 xo
� •3•rC� �vE'i: Al
p \� �6,_8• .�u'' �li��". � I: ��� � �.. ���� - � .' _ Q 5
� '� �v�' i, I; �/�(af�,,. `� 1'� �.� I `
�i ` y�1`��,�`�'.�� n �,��1jq,��`�b�., i;>l�`� � � �b. � �
,�p
g�t�j3� rt.�' �,.` : p���\\•�+���1P:w:,� � r\��.�, r�,�` e'.z - � ,
��' ,�,�tZj i.��rrc . �'' � ;.��-:, _`` � ��`r 1 �
•' � ° i-/�C` �'/,� � '�� � ^�! �� i� %/��. � 1 .
� .. ��� 5 i' f iH#. � .f.� 1?'. I
� _ _— 1 ' C'�iy t- - . 1 � ._ .`i�Y" I
_ _ _ ` . j4 :"` i
\ � t . � ' /' •�''+.
� i�-� � � '� > � �
.. . . � . � � � �il4� . . ., j r �'' ��I ` � i I
� � \4 �
'� . ����;,�c �,�;u..�_ �'`�ao�� ,� `; p � C
y� �,ltiyw.� . ��, �;rl '
� � ��—w � � � �ij '
` �� ��� ' �' - 52
•N , � ' _, ;; � R "g '1. ' � x ''� � a i i
� __� i.�. i � ' � I
_ J . . . ; low—H[iart .
ruw�� � _ :. � 1
l2� � e�. l�� p, �- : ?- . ,r,�� _ � � -�X _..�' „ry/ i '
3 � �' � ,t����: � � -� {�, �1 �S � i
^ S "'Adi ��� � f����! 1�\-�r uu au�, �
— 3� S�t S-�• ` fi�1,s w;`�>�n�� *: i� �, � r R'��.�tmU � �$p) �,Y �1h ' I
- j� i-. � � - � � � �� �'�h; I
... . ��,. , < +f ^,.. �''h�- � J: i
s 1�} ! � �5 1 I 1
,1 1� ����� -- = - - 1
,' � � � � � � L� � _ _ _ __ __ _ = � ��� ' •' •, � � �
s'-o'
77'-5�' JY-3' I�'-6' 11'-11' 2D'-D' SFfB7CK �.
a'-r �is._2.
b�� K �rL� 2
t� = go s. �:
�PLA�L• ROOF PLAN
trr=r�
� �
� �
O �
— T �
1
-a � � �
�
� � m
` �g1EL�H�f
� m �� �a
* � C-70547 �
� acr�wu oAh r
� �15 �2
Tf �F CAI���
� 888 HOWARD AVENUE
• APN: 02827f 220
BURLINGAME, CA
F\ PR6,�CT NO. 2014-21
a�n a�sc�e
raa•nns n�oca�
CpHrACr: T06`( LEVY
p�s�masc� P
g�s�m-sm F
scuFAS NOTED
FLOOR PLAN:
ROOF PLAN
PRQIECE NOAIH TRU[ N0�71N
� � A2.4
p��� ��� ���� �
� � �� � -�
t IJ2
166'-Y
.yB_T• � �20' �SCfBACK
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � • �'� r
. L+f.'� ' t �
�i ��-ti5� .; i � �
�y COW COWf COi�1 Ce1r1 Q01�1 [nW CGMf COw W11Y mr1 ta�if COUY �' / �
�^ 1 iTMIDARD tiAh6lRD �IAMDAM t7I t1FYWIO RA/mFRD �TAM0.1 RAMGA110 iTAlOAAO �� ii�MID i1i�10 '\\\�_� —{
�� o • i . ; r
'°�' " <
�Z ,�jr �� � � o o �� v. e �. o a o � _ r^ ' j O
c�` � � � � � Q � � � � � � � � , .l� ;,� , o
..��• , 5 i i s "� s "� � � N `�- _�f ��
:i �,
� � � � � � � � � � � � � i ` -
� .. . �_o. e._6. _ T_�^--�
� '�` ttr. �'�` �._��I I ���#:
\ ° L _ J +�. '.�,' I
, � 0 �� �
\ � 22 COYM[iCUI SUda1II1 k�: \ �� .
� �u�K e'-z' �ancr� (wc. 3 wro�ciw saaas� LMk �z'-o- vurr� #` r'
VENICUIIR DlifYC1AT �� �� CtFMANCE FOR QFARIuiCE /OR •i J �� I
��� To � n��] = �
� - � AOCF59BlC PfFICNG � � �
\ . . . � � SPACES � / � �� '. �
�
s� rruar S tM PUZRE �
�:
� 7pA5H SWqcER� �`�7� � } 1
� � �_� RECEPfACLES ���
� � ' ` _ � i'�' � 5'-0' � 9'-0' � B'-0' �y. 1'-0' � ##- 1'-0' � .
� I I "��.'� i . ^' � � .', r :
� .o. .a, _ .m, R f TTTTTI _ � — �� �� �I �
� ; : � � � � � L11.L11J I s ,
M., � :� " - � � i �i �u �i � : : �` � �. .,
o r � s �e �R � � e � � I �I{ �II �I Y � � I :o
' �s �� ; I �II �II �� ..�:-� , .
�LA�l�'f�fZ �n.�� �d` ��,� �, .
�� ��- � � � �� � �� � � �ti� � �--,,
si��oiwo snunwru rt�wonRo n�wwm � ,� �
� y !
�' I � � � rme: rn.c. � _ � _ � � — +'"� r'� +�
� � ` � , . . �� :
/ ^i•_e" L = _ � L _ _ srow�c[ � � - . . .
. � ' �
. Ii: �� ' 1
.. ,a.. ¢ o0
. �� �� ���,� ��� � � i � � �
g �`: . : -� .;: . -: �i i .. - � , . n . ,
\ n . -
I�.� / / \ �� � . �� /
�•:. . .� . ' � � � . '�
!. .'. __ '.— r PE�NL SPACE � - ' .
\ `. � � � ---' — � S1AIR �1 ut55f lXol . . I �
IB'-0' �
. ' ' �i6`:a• .. rrce DrtNE _ .. (
� �`'�;� . - __. ASIE . �
� • \':� � � . .
� — --- = �— " . . - - :I
------ — . _ I o„ .
�
oK
_ 1 � i.5x.sloP[ 1
� �c �.�V'j 6 � , :. s
�� '_ � - ��� . - - � b - : \ -
a :: .":
�,� . , :' m
�---#.. -- r — — . -- -- ��� _ !
. . ' ' � tB'- . B'-B' 20'-0' �Ii'-0' M•_ SEf9�CK�' •"••j
w•-r , •-�-
vu�iaaix
ix
. OWVLWAY - - �
� �. �., �IOWA AVENUE /�
� `� \M�.-.----""'--1
�PUW: GROUND FLOOR
1l8�1'�
�a���', ��.� 3
= 3g S•�:
GENERALNOTES
1. CONTRACTOR 70 PROhDE SOLD COMI1MqU5 6PCNNG �OR KL
WALL MD. iIxMES. �CCCSSORI[5. N�IIMORK, EIXHPNEM
RACkS. SwEiVINC. C7C. NL BIDCIlWG 70 BE SWE DIYENS�ON
AS ASSOCWED fRAW1C, SCf A0.5 r k
2. A7 ALL lOIIR ROOMS PFWIDE TME f011OwiNG: ZV I
p.t. YM. 30i(16� ClR SPACE N/RONT pF SWK � ��
7.2. 41N. 3U1(IB' CLR. SP/LE AT WY CF TUB ''n
7.3. 41N. 36�f18' CLF. SPACE N �POM OG TOICT �� 8,�3
1. SEE �0.5 FOR 1rP�CN. 4WtffWG HEIGHfS W B�TMp00NS `}
7
�, µl 9A7N(tppYS NUSf CO4PlY riliH CBC SEC110N 11A �
- �ronce
nru a�vn� r�e weee�.
�rt M poprM w eapl+�yrt d
�a�1pYP FYbMt� hm �d NM
nolMu�d�*aKbf'w�+i
'�^'C��1./��' ��� O �V�ene+r.in4vJDeYaTPraen
�
= 7�. S.�
W^
r
Z Q
W
'L A� h��itL �.� � � V
w
—. •zr� � s, �� 0 W
� �
aQ
/ �
O �
2 —�
00 �
�
V/ W
AR �
\ �StE� T
.. 0 �i" ,�
* o a,osv i
,f rseunwu e..r r
9 �15 �2
lf OF CA��f�
� 988 HOWARD AVEMIE
ApN: p28 414 420
BURLWGAME, CA
�to,�cr Na zo��2�
ACCESSISfIITY NOTES
DAR fE1Rt'.R
�l 0?I7-2116 RMMWCO�MiON
� OOORS: 80
J
INIEPIOR DOORi 18"
:IENqA PIALIC DOORS: i1'
r+me: s� eo.s rar
�nomowu �e �ccEss�ury
awwcc ocues CONTAC7: 708Y LEVY
I (41�7T1-0661 P
(41�fl1-5117 F
acuE AS NOTED
FLOOR PLAN:
GROUND FLOOR
PROZR NCR7N TRUE NOHiN
� � A2.1
Project Comments
Date:
To:
March 16, 2015
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
� Building Division
(650) 558-7260
� Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
X Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback and Parking
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof deck at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214-220
Siaff Review: March 16, 2015
1. The building shall be equipped with an approved NFPA 13 Sprinkler System
throughout. Sprinkler drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Central
County Fire Department prior to installation. The system shall be electronically
monitored by an approved central receiving station.
2. The applicant shall ensure proper drainage in accordance with the City of
Burlingame Engineering Standards is available for the fire sprinkler main drain and
inspector test on the building plumbing drawings. These items may drain directly to
landscape or in the sewer with an air gap.
3. The fire protection underground water line shall be submitted and approved by
the Burlingame Building Department prior to installation.
4. Minimum fire flow shall meet requirements of California Fire Code Appendix B,
no less than 1,500 gallons per minute. Contact Burlingame Engineering Dept.
5. The building shall be equipped with an approved Class I NFPA 14 Standpipe
System. The standpipe system shall be submitted and approved by the Central
County Fire Department prior to installation.
6. The fire sprinkler system and fire standpipe system will not be approved by
the Central County Fire Department until the fire protection underground has been
submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department.
7. A manual and automatic fire alarm system shall be installed throughout the
building.
8. Provide elevator recall for use by emergency responders.
9. Elevator machine room(s) shall be constructed with the minimum fire rating as
the�elevator hoistway, including all openings. Fire sprinkler coverage shall not be
provided in room. Do not install elevator shunt trip.
10. Evacuation signs required throughout the building per California Code of
Regulations, Title 19, §3.09.
11. Ground floor of Stair #1 shall be extended to the exterior of the building with
an exit passageway.
Reviewed by: Christine Reed
�1 �,
Date: 3-26-15
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Aprii 13, 2015
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
X Building Division
(650) 558-7260
� Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback and Parking
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof deck at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214-220
Staff Review: April 13, 2015 — 2"d Submittal
No further comments.
All conditions of approval as stated in all previous reviews of the project will apply to this
project.
Reviewed by:
�ate: 5-14-2015
\
�,_._ _. _ �..---_ � . _ _ ��,. .. � ___ . ._ __. , � ...M.�
�
� Project Comments
s
�
Date:
To:
From:
March 16, 2015
0 Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
X Building Division
(650) 558-7260
� Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback and Parking
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof deck at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214-220
Staff Review: March 16, 2015
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Plans submitted for any commercial project must be designed, wet-stamped, and
signed by a licensed architect. 1997 Uniform Administrative Code §302.2 and
§302.3.
On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building
Code, 2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California
Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing
Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the
Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on
December 31, 2013 then this project must comply with the 2013 California
Building Codes.
Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy
Efficiency Standards.
Go to http://www.enerqv.ca.qov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and
details.
Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the
submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition,
replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must
provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure
can be found.
Place the following information on the first page of the plans:
"Construction Hours"
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)
Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited fo
weekdays and non-City Holidays befween 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be
included on the plans.
6) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that
require work to be perFormed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for
these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning
Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must
submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job
Copy of the plans prior to performing the work.
7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame
business license.
8) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries,
the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on-site
parking.
9) Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be
submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation
of any work not speci�cally shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if
changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by
City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled
and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans.
10)A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been
finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of
Occupancy has been issued.
11)Provide a complete demolition plan that includes a legend and indicates existing
walls and features to remain, existing walls and features to be demolished, and
new walls and features.
NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will
not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of a�
building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the
project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is
authorized or performed.
12)When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a
completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition
Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project.
13)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed
property lines
14)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures.
15)Obtain a survey of the property lines.
16)The plans show that the side of this structure is less than three feet
from the property line. Revise the plans to show that there are no openings on
this side of the building and that gable end venting and attic ventilation will be
achieved through other means. 2013 CBC §705.8.1 and Table 705.8
17)The plans show that the structure is three feet from the property line. To comply
with the opening protection required in 2013 CBC, Table 705.8 the building face
must be more than three feet from the property fine or the gable end venting
must be eliminated and attic ventilation must be achieved through other means.
18)On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the
property line.
19)Provide details on the plans which show that all roof projections which project
beyond the point where fire-resistive construction would be required will be
constructed of one-hour fire-resistance-rated constructi�n per 2013 CBC §705.2.
20)Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the
property line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. (2013 CBC, Table
602)
21)On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and
unprotected, will comply with 2013 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart
that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the
openings proposed.
22)Indicate on the plans that, at the time of Building Permit application, plans and
engineering will be submitted for shoring as required by 2013 CBC, Chapter 31
regarding the protection of adjacent property and as required by OSHA. On the
plans, indicate that the following will be addressed:
a. The walls of the proposed basement shall be properly shored, prior to construction
activity. This excavation may need temporary shoring. A competent contractor shall be
consulted for recommendations and design of shoring scheme for the excavation. The
recommended design type of shoring shall be approved by the engineer of record or
soils engineer prior to usage.
b. All appropriate guidelines of OSHA shall be incorporated into the shoring design by
the contractor. Where space permits, temporaty construction slopes may be utilized in
lieu of shoring. Maximum allowable vertical cut for the subject project will be five (5)
feet. Beyond that horizontal benches of 5 feet wide will be required. Temporary shores
shall not exceed 1 to 1(horizontal to vertical). In some areas due to high moisture
content / water table, flatter slopes will be required which will be recommended by the
soils engineer in the field.
c. If shoring is required, specify on the plans the licensed design professional that has
sole responsibility to design and provide adequate shoring, bracing, formwork, etc. as
required for the protection of life and property during construction of the building.
d. Shoring and bracing shall remain in place until floors, roof, and wall sheathing have
been entirely constructed.
e. Shoring plans shall be wet-stamped and signed by the engineer-of-record and
submitted to the city for review prior to construction. If applicable, include surcharge
loads from adjacent structures that are within the zone of influence (45 degree wedge up
the slope from the base of the retaining wall) and / or driveway surcharge loads.
23)Indicate on the plans that an OSHA permit will be obtained for the shoring* at the
excavation in the basement per CAL / OSHA requirements. See the Cal ! OSHA
handbook at: http://www.ca-osha.com/pdfpubs/osha userquide.pdf
* Construction Safety Orders : Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6, Section
1541.1.
24)Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the
Department of Public Works.
25)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at
any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the
Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in
height.
26)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2013 CBC
§ 1009.
27)Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
28)On your plans provide a table that includes the following:
a. Occupancy group for each area of the building
b. Type of construction � �
c. Allowable area
d. Proposed area
e. Allowable height
f. Proposed height
g. Proposed fire separation distances
h. Exterior wall and opening protection
i. Allowable
ii. Proposed
i. Indicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered _
29)Acknowledge that, when plans� are submitted for building code plan check, they
will include a complete underground plumbing plan including complete details for
the location of all required grease traps and city-required backwater prevention
devices.
30)Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described
in the 2013 California Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 422.1 Minimum
Plumbing Facilities and Table A- Occupant Load Factor.
�In the commercial space shown on sheet A2.1 provide details that show a
minirnum of one accessible Uni-sex restroom in the tenant space.
32)Provide details on the plans which show that the entire site complies with all
accessibility standards. NOTE: If full accessible compliance cannot be achieved
complete the attached Request for Unreasonable Hardship.
33)Specify on the plans the location of all required accessible signage. Include
references to separate sheets on the plans which provide details and graphically
illustrates the accessible signage requirements.
34)Specify the accessible path of travel from the public right of way, through the
main entrance, to the area of alteration.
35)Specify an accessible path of travel from all required exits to the public right of
way.
36)Specify the path of travel from on-site parking, through the main entrance, to the
area of alteration
37)Specify a level landing, slope, and cross slope on each side of the door at all
required entrances and exits.
38)Specify accessible countertops where service counters are provid�d
39)Provide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms
40)Provide complete, dimensioned details for aceessible parking
41)Provide details on the plans which show that the building elevator complies with
all accessible standards. 2013 CBC §11 B-407.
42)On the first page of the plans clearly state that all paths of travel and common
use spaces will be accessible and all living units will be adaptable.
43)Please Note: Architects are advised to specify construction dimensions for
accessible features that are below the maximum and above the minimum
dimension required as construction tolerances generally do not apply to
accessible features. See the California Access Compliance Manual —
Interprefive Regulation 118-8.
�emove all references to the ADA (see the accessible parking on sheet A2.1) as
this project must comply with the 2015 CBC, Chapter 11 B not the ADA.
45)Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel
46)Specify the total number of parking spaces on site.
47)Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit.
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically
address items 31 and 44 must be re-submitted before this project can move
forward for Planning Commission action. The written response must include
clear direction reqardinq where the requested information can be found on the
lans.
Reviewed by. Date: 3-20-2015
CD/PLG-Barber, Catherine '
From: James Wald • � � .com>
Sent: Monday, June Ol, 2015 6:39 PM
To: CD/PLG-Barber, Catherine
Subject: 988 Howard Ave
Hello Catherine,
i received a post card from the Community Development Department regarding 988 Howard Ave construction. If this
isn't your realm of expertise, then please pardon my error and forward this email to the correct department.
I live at Anita Rd where I own a duplex (formerly a house built in 1922) which I absolutely adore. My main concern
is that the potential 3 story building will block the setting sun and invade my privacy with its roof top deck. I live in a one
story home so I'm a little uneasy with the height of this building. Overall, I support the revitalization of Howard Ave and
believe there is an opportunity there to offer restaurants and shops. It's a much wider street than Burlingame Ave so it
can definitely support the overflow from it's more popular sister street.
Another issue, will anything that close to the railroad tracks be in danger of being taken over through imminent domain
by the high speed rail cabal?
Thank you for reading my email and like I stated earlier, just forward to those that should be aware of my concerns. I'm
not much of a political person but this possible building has me worried.
With sincerity,
Jim Wald
Anita Rd
Received After
06.08.15 PC Meeting
Item 9d
988 Howard Avenue
paqe 1 of 4
Burlingame Planning Commission
Burlingame City Hall
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
June 6, 2015
CU.�i�jl UNI CATION RECEIVED
AFTER PKEPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT'
�E������
.)UN - � 2Gi:.�
Honorable Chair DeMartini and fellow Planning Commissioners: CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLAhNiNG DIV.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the office building proposal for
988 Howard. This is the first significant project to take place in the area under
the guidelines and zoning established in the DSAP in 2010.
As such, it is also a critically important project, as it will set the bar for all
future project proposals in the area. Furthermore, Howard Avenue is the
central entrance into the Lyon and Hoag neighborhood, and a structure in this
specific location, with three exposed sides, will carry with it a certain stature,
by default. - -
As background, the Lyon & Hoag subdivision derives its character from a
number of sources. Dating back to the pioneer family of W.D.M. Howard, by
1896, dairy cows and large-scale flower production dominated the landscape
until after the Great Quake of 1906 when refugees started building scattered
modest cottages in the area.
Being in close proximity to the railroad with frequent freight transport, as well
as the subsequent growth of adjacent auto row uses by the 1920s and 30s
meant the inevitable intermingling of light industrial enterprises, with
bungalows and gracious Spanish-revival garden style apartments.
In the Myrtle Mixed use area, it is this delicate mix of character that defines
the project area and should be celebrated rather than camouflaged.
GENERAL:
This project has an industrial edge and character that successfully reflects the
area's light industrial roots. With some tweaking that will tailor it more to its
immediate surroundings, it has the potential to become a real gem that is not
only an asset to my neighborhood, but also to this city.
Note: It i.r my underftanding that a traffic study Will be conducted on tbir
project, .ro I �von't rva.rte time or space addre.r.ring thir topic.
SCA.L.E:
Whereas the project's use of industrial-like building materials in this setting is
an asset that meshes with the area's character, the overall scale is more of a
detriment. With the exception of Atria Senior Living at the Burlingame
1
Received After
06.0�.15 PC Meeting
Item 9d
988 Howard Avenue
page 2 of 4
CU.i,'.ii' .`,:+;".��7/t�,\'!tL:C1;IbL1J
,��i r�; ni,�r:l�-rr;.a� ic�tti�
Ol' ST�FFIiEI'ORT
����t���
JUN - ° 20�v
Avenue end of Myrtle that is approximately 47 ft. tall and built with huge f�R�'�F BUR��r�G,�,�^-=
and side setbacks containing extensive landscaping and an enormous terraC�-PlJ,h��!!'�'�, :::`;.
all under a canopy of 100 ft. + eucalyptus trees, most all properties within the
immediate two block area eastward are less than 25ft. tall, if that.
I do not see justification for the 13ft. second and third office floors, nor the
extra (four?) feet to facilitate a private roof garden. Taller buildings may have
their place in our city, but here, marking the primary entrance to a
neighborhood that quickly transitions into an established low-rise single
family residential district as it reaches Anita Rd. risks creating a visual
boundary from both directions that repels rather than welcomes. Furthermore,
the additional height requested will most certainly be pointed to as a
benchmark setting precedent for much larger and impactful combined parcel
projects in this immediate area.
Some deference needs to be paid to the humble, yet proud workshops and the
wood clapboard corner market and cafe that have characterized and defined
the entrance to this neighborhood since 1906. Stan Vistica, a proud eastsider,
longterm planning commissioner and fellow DSAP advisor and I would talk
endlessly about the gritty charm (and respectful potential) of this small node,
and I hate to see that lost. I am concerned about what is likely going to be a
significant shadow cast on the Howard end of Myrtle, and in particular, on the
precious corner market. I think the neighborhood character provided by the
charm of the corner market should not be sacrificed for extra height on the
new building. Will the corner market always be there? Probably not, but even
if it is one day gone, the character and scale embedded from these humble
structures should remain.
Were shadow studies done on this project?
Additionally, even when viewed in isolation, without due consideration for its
neighbors, I do not think the extended height for each of the upper stories
does this building any favors. In my opinion, the upper floors seem to visually
overwhelm the ground floor--essentially a glass-walled podium. The glassy
ground floor, however, DOES need its stated 14ft height, as it already looks '
overpowered from above.
The two upper stories appear to me to be very "clunky" and top-heavy, though
that surely was not the intent. This is most evident on Pg. A3.3 of the
renderings #2 and #3, that show the very large cube-like structure with heavy
dark colored protrusion (accommodating two deep and wide decks) that
further makes the entrance below it look somewhat lost, perhaps recessed into
shadow at certain times. Note that rendering #1 only poorly indicates what #2
and #3 show. See pages A 2.3 and A 2.2 (Decks 3 and 4) to see what is actually
2
Received After
06.08.15 PC Meeting
Item 9d
988 Howard Avenue
page 3 of 4
co.tr��-, c�T� �c.-}rto�v ��L c��:�
AFTER PREP1iRATIUN
OF ST�FF REPUKT
��������
�IUiJ - �� �01.5
happening there: because of the deck construction, the setback on Howard�' OF BURLINGAiv1E
C�JP-PLr�.!�N!�G �iV.
becomes very minimal--just 1 ft. for the length of 32 feet toward the upper end
of the structure. For the prominence already afforded by this corner simply by
virtue of its location on Howard, the extra large deck appendage appears even
more top heavy, perhaps, than it would have been elsewhere. A similar, albeit
more refined structure along Myrtle is more successful, and even attractive,
made more interesting by the clever stairwell enclosure and smaller window
treatment at the far end along Myrtle, closest to the adjacent Honda garage.
MATERIALS:
There was only limited information provided with regard to the palette of
materials; perhaps these will be shown during the hearing. This project
depends heavily on the use of composites as well as refined use of color, the
choice thereof could make, or break the result. How warm (or cool) are these,
and how enduring, both aesthetically and physically will these be? I think in
particular, there needs to be sufficient use of the warmly colored components
to offset the heavy charcoal grays.
GLASS TREATMENT:
PLEASE make sure that at least the base, ground floor podium of glass panes
are CLEAR and unobstructed. This is the primary walkable link to and from
downtown Burlingame from the eastside, and the ground floor
interior/exterior visual interplay is essential. With the proliferation of ground-
floor office space in the Burlingame downtown business district, there has
been an unfortunate trend where traditional clear storefront glass has been
altered to obscure the view, presumably for privacy. The businesses at 333
(formerly Trio Salon) and 350 Lorton QumpStart) show the negative impacts
of ldlling off visual interplay. In my mind the use of obscured glass or film on
the ground floor is contrary to the intent of our commercial guidelines.
Though these are not technically retail spaces, they should follow rules for
ground floors meant to encourage the pedestrian experience. These
businesses now look abandoned, and people no longer find it interesting to
"finish the block" on foot, without a specific destination in mind. This is
arrificially limiting the foot traffic and is a detriment to the block as a whole.
For privacy, there are so many creative, attractive blinds available today that
can be added, and unlike obscured glass or films, these are not permanent and
can change position during the day, adding interest.
SIGNAGE:
The renderings (I'age A 3.3 #1) show a huge font used for the address number.
This may or may not be in the purview of the Planning Dept., but I think it
unfortunately cheapens what is going to be a beautiful building. Since this is
�
Received After � � � � ��� �
06.08.15 PC Meeting Cp,il.�1L�.�V1C.�7I'IU.�'1z1iC;E1VED
Item 9d AI'TER PRI.P-lIUi170N )UN -� 2015
988 Howard Avenue OF ST.�FF RL'PORT '
page 4 of 4 c�TY OF BURLINGr�ME
the only structure on this block of Howard and certainly cannot be confusec�DD-FIA�NING DIV.
with any other, the enormous font seems to be overkill. I am sure that a more
subtle treatment worthy of this building can be substituted.
TREES:
I am a big gingko fan, and very much appreciate the use of this tree that has
beautiful, dramatic form all year, and striking yellow leaves that will warm up
the cool tones in structure, particularly on Myrtle and Howard. However, there
is only one gingko provided on East Lane, at the far end. I think it would look
more balanced and also help to obscure the garage crevice with the addition of
a second gingko on East Lane, even if it should replace the planter box area or
small tree(s). Though attractive, the lesser plantings will get visually lost
whereas the gingko will be more of a balance to the mass.
Thank you for your patience in reading my long letter and for your kind
- - --
consideration of my commerits and suggestions. — --- — - - - -- -- -
_ _ ---
Sincerely,
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Avenue
(proud Eastsider since 1988)
cc: Catherine Barber, Kevin Gardiner
4
RE: 988 Howard Avenue Sept 3, 2015
Honorable Chair DeMartini and fellow Planning Commissioners:
I have looked carefully through the plans for the office complex at 988 Howard that will be
revisited for a Design Review Study Session on Sept 14th, and was sadly underwhelmed. The
previous plans shown at the June meeting (I thought) reflected the eclectic and industrial feel of
the Myrtle Triangle of Lyon & Hoag, whereas the new iteration has lost that "magic".
The purpose of the Downtown Plan, among other things, was to quantify distinctive
characteristics of defined areas in and near the downtown, and to encourage applicants to use
those guidelines in their developments so the new structures "fit" into the respective settings. In
this case, beyond the excessive height issue (that has not been addressed) I found that the
previous plans possessed an edgy kind of industrial flair that is now lacking.
One of my favorite commissioners, William Loftis, used the word "frenetic" to describe the
project in June. At first I was disappointed, but then I realized he had something, there.
"Frenetic": wild, frenzied, delirious, overwrought, fanatical, excited, crazy.
Yes! The original building design was all these things, but so is Lyon & Hoag. The dominant
neighbor in this section of town is the railroad with its incessant noise and vibrations. All
around are workshops, replete with paint, metal, rubber, leather, vinyl, weeds--all mixed with an
attitude. It is a neighborhood full of creative people of all types and backgrounds who have a
mind of their own. I can tell you after living here for almost 30 years, it is anything but calm and
homogeneous, so why try to make it that way?!
I've sat with both the old- and new renderings in front of ine for three days, thinking that when I
come to my senses, I'll like the "updated", restrained version, better. But I don't In an effort to
"calm" it down, it's been neutered on the drafting table. Where fins on East Lane looked light and
airy before, now the East Lane elevation looks fundamentally dark and clunky, with all too-
regular massing. The lack of interest in the massing and proportion is obvious when comparing
the basic line drawings on the East Lane elevation (old and new) side by side. The "monotony" of
the newer elevation on East Lane gets worse when rendered in 3-D, and the addition of two
other colored metal composites on those surfaces looks like a half hearted effort to bring some
interest into the less-than-exciting elevation.
The new renderings seem to indicate a few more trees, but the actual plans show that we've
actually lost some. There is also a discrepancy on page A3.3, where the Howard/Mrytle
renderings and their corresponding plans also appear to be different. The rendering shows a
(too thin) strip of horizonally stacked wood composite running vertically down the side of the
second floor windows above the podium, looking quite "striped," but actual drawings showing
dark metal on all the window sections on the middle floor as was the design suggested in
original version. There is also a change in the addition of wood composite in the stairwell area
on Myrtle that helps lighten things, the area being large enough that the wood-look actually has
an impact. I think that part is an improvement on the Mrytle side, but haven't decided if I like the
capped roof piece on parapet or not, but at this point, that is minutia; the larger issue is the
overall design.
As far as a good "fit" for the spirit of the neighborhood, I find version One is spot-on.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jennifer Pfaff, Bayswater Ave. Burlingame
Attachments: 4 photo montages of the Myrtle Triangle neighborhood of Lyon & Hoag
_; � _ ; t� i.. ".. . .
". a.�;!�;��;;.. �';
,:
,
��:
- �� . . , - rr^ � -
�� _ _r : � i
� ,��
� �,
�
— � ��„�� �
� = �� _ �__��.I�
,si.. ,. 9'�����- �xr.��' I:�,/� �, -/
S : ��� `. ���/:�.�! _ ��
` i �� �/ 1/_�1� �
'=�� �� .�/i__: ��/�/� � --
3�. . .: �c-� - �`-.�._ ..�..�d:.�=
1 `' �: Y
-'" _���
; . i � ,�, �� � Y- ` � �Y i L �:
•`: i '
�-- `'��'� - � �_��� '"3___��_; �_-'�-�-�s�� 't�.: -� t���
�L � - � -�`` ,� �` �t'`�
':�n = -f "' - - . r :Z � i
�� - � ^ ` � �k �� �� � � �
�.m-� ? � �i �
��� .:, �
�� . - , _
{� - _
� � < � .
;.
. ;-� �= — — — - _
�.� �-
s::�. - � — _ :'� �
= = = _s � _ : � .� <�+ _ . --.�
,g- - - F �-,�� - — -
. g � ; � - -- '-
°"� f _ _ti' �t _ - - _
�
� � 7 ,.�-� � . . . -
� .,;,
, �M� �
r �'� ,
M�V�
V
., � ���� �
�' ,� ' ��."�`� �i
�� a'�� � � #x .``�r ,� .1�" '�;'' .
,� .,* t��,,.; �, � ,
�f ;r v, : k s, .,� �•
Y� ' ��� '.�.•.
iX .
{, .
��
, ` ft. .
�� .
. - '�-� .��."!.
� ,
._..r . - _ . ,
•.",. "' "_" � .. :���- £ '_' �
�-a _ '
_ . �_.�.��- � �,`'\ C ; � '. _' �^' _ _ _
- ��. ' � J . � __ _
- � _�� _ � J
.. . ':Q �.�' �- ��� # �y.�'�.��.`� _ �
` � �� �r�� 8 R �§
� � -=- .. . .%� i � '' � . !-��
_ � �i �"'�L J
.. �i'C�a . . � . _ �+ � '✓ �
' _ �:� 6� �
f:� . �. . � b� � , _ �����
... . , . . , ; . � . . - -.. - . " , £ • --. � -
ti ��R -
-: �-� �- �r- _ .�o � _ .
�
� , . .. ..
�'f�
���,
�
; � i F :
r 'r [,•� J- �
.,, I
W�S ?z`—.'�F -..
�Y `r.
��, �
� �
. � � 1 � 7`"u��' - �
�� - t�
i _ !
� E�
'—_..�;
��;
: �:-
�:
t
� t S�+ �- - f� � -; �►a��r,� ��jF�
� '�.�
�
� •�.'�, �-' ' ' �� �`
"` t j, �
, } �� `� a . - [�`4 � . . �
'�I%�1� �,� • / y � •
� �
is. � . ! \
Y �y i
,�\i"„a ( � � � `���r �
'r
�"`-;. � � ,' ��4+ti'
��� s. � �.
._'^P[�� ;�: ��•� V
� - r=
.� �� �._ st �
�� T:, '
k� } �u
� � �1,T
., . .. � :`i' . .,. o.
��
�
,.
�
h � t+e.,�c ,�„l�'�sTk.r $�'_ - .'�,.`�,sta - �
� Y+5"E �,'; � .3 5-
I- \ I
► j-.
�a�� ���� ;._ _
��-�.:�¢i�, �_ _
-' � i��
�� ,
k__ �� � '
� &� i
��� r� _3 , �g� j z. � � � �f
`��
�; � .t�^,,� �,
� � '�.,� .� 1 � s-�
...
� � �'V �� t
� �..._�.� r��.:
�,
�y �—_Ei;r�.r,� 7, I`L, : i'k�J�iS
�r�1 '� I .
I:Yr� R
�' Rr f
V.:. '
� ��
�
�
,a��
� � .�
•• N '' Y `•� � _
� tl� 1
_�
��
:�
-3_.x� il:�
�`�. • �
, � ~ �
� �� �� � - — � "
M
Of {
c. �. - 6{ =s -�:Ru � �'r-��, - .#-3`�, T . . � .ez��(
� s i . ��_`:�� _ � 5... x� ) cE� �_ iiPEY� �.i.��=a �i���s�� - • _
��_ _. ._ __:
} � _ _
1 �`
`: .. .�i . ..
. J � � Y/ , f''. "
�• � { ,
� .
I t CNW.;
�. ! ', k
. , t • ' ';���� �
�%•,yy , ��
•t '' , - _
, �
" `1'"' �jj
�a; :/` �a �s —
M•. ''J�: �
�./' �, . tR�!4 ..
'' I� "'`j ` r
ii� . �..
� .,_; r,.l '-_i� _
�'�
_ � —j
� � L �:
� { �:
.�
� � n ..
�`�� :��. �?,-.:
�;�';
f..: �. i� °�..
I �� ► `.
,��} � _ . .
-.� � ��— �_; -
---_—��—_ �` � �, r
r ,
�� :
` � �� „����` ��6���,�`r . _ �.#e � 'A 7` �. � +�. a�
71
i � r � J � }a���� 5 �L 4 �� � �'£ � '
� � r� t
i �� � �-�;� %
���':�.. f.E � :i c.�i;�':'; � -������.��.��N� _. ,..._,_�1���-..L'. _ z ..,.w.,.�.�� � �.�
- t _ � � c r' s .r , �.
'�Y �s t.r ` �k �,:.
�.-_ ��._'a�� - � d � '
. -. —
,��F.. --- y I �
���
� �
, y �
- � � � �., t & `,�..� .e
�. : �'
:= s � c. z c3� ,�,,_,;F�
.. . . �,y •�^^�-..r,Yu... l�w-, �g9F'
,. � � 3` � 4 p`C
,� sr
. . �"C+ 3. � �. � �'��` iin°�,'.. ,:'r.'tY�
1 � A:I . . � r� .-, .'..
�
� . . `�''�.' :a� �. '� `�.F.y,�:� .�.LL�' }��
_ . . .',. � .� •'
c �� 1
j }
. , �� ,. ( ?w�:� � - w. _. .._ . ...� . .5.t, _ ._<�%
"s_-;.:. .. . _ .
� _, ,. , ., r ., _ . .
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FROM APPENDIX G OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
❑ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
❑ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
❑ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
❑ Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
❑ Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
❑ Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
❑ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
❑ Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
❑ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (inclucling releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
❑ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
❑ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
❑ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
❑ Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
❑ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
❑ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
❑ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
❑ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
❑ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in '15064.5?
❑ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
' 15064.5?
❑ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
❑ Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Environmenta! Checklist from Appendix G of fhe CEQA Guidelines
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
❑ Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fauit
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
b) Strong seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Landslides?
❑ Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?
❑ Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
❑ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
❑ Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
❑ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, ei er directly or in irecfly, that may ave a sign�ican impaci on the
environment?
❑ Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
❑ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
❑ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
❑ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
❑ Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
❑ For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
❑ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
❑ Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
❑ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
❑ Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
❑ Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
❑ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
-2-
Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
❑ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
❑ Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
❑ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
❑ Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
❑ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
❑ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
❑ Physically divide an established community?
❑ Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
❑ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
❑ Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
❑ 2b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, speci*ic plan or other land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
❑ Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
❑ Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
❑ A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
❑ A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
❑ For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
❑ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
❑ Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
❑ Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
❑ Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
-3-
Environmsntal Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
❑ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which
coul� cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
RECREATION.
❑ Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
❑ Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
❑ Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase m either t� numbe� vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
❑ Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
❑ Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
❑ Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
❑ Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
❑ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
❑ Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
❑ Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
❑ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
❑ Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? �
❑ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
❑ Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
❑ Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
�
Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
❑ Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
❑ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
-5-
CITY OF BURLINGAME
� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
_ � BURLINGAME, CA 94010
— i PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 988 HOWARQ AVENlJE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission ❑nnoun�es the
following pu6lic hearing IViS�NbAY, SEPTENIBER 14, 2Q15
at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Cham6ers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Design Review for an application for Environmentol Review,
Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permii for
building height, Rear Sefiback Variance ❑nd Parking Variante
for a new 3-story commercial building at
9�S HOWARD AVENUE zoned MMU. APN 029-214-220
Mailed: Septerrber 4, 2U15
(Please refer to other side)
Ciiv of Burlinaarne
P�J�l�1� HE��i��
���f��
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, Califiornia.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be f�mited to
raising only those issues yau or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence �elivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Propefij owners who receive ihi�. notice are responsible for iniorming their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. ► hank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
�u��s� ����a�� �o�°sc�
(Please refer to other side)