HomeMy WebLinkAbout998 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportItem No. 8g
Regular Action Item
PROJECT LOCATION
988 Howard Avenue
Item No. 8g
Regular Action Item
City of Burlingame
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback
Variance for a New Three-Story Commercial Building
Address: 988 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: March 14, 2016
Request: Design Review for an application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Rear Setback 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 Road. 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 3,500 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 67 on-site parking spaces provided including one permanent car sharing space.
The retail space will be accessible from both Howard Avenue and Myrtle Road. The main entrance to 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.
The following applications are requested 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);
■ Rear Setback Variance (10'-0" rear setback proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S.
25.34.060(c))
Commercial Design Review, Mifigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance
988 Howard Avenue
The original application also included a request for a Parking Variance for 5 on-site parking spaces (68 on-site
parking spaces provided where 73 parking spaces are required for the proposed uses). However the
Downtown Specific Plan allows on-site parking requirements to be reduced by up to 10% (as determined by
the Community Development Director) for developments with at least one car share facility provided on-site.
The project has subsequently provided one permanent car share space (allowing a reduction of up to 7
spaces) and the Parking Variance request has been withdrawn from the application.
Table 1 below provides a comparison of the proposed project (including earlier versions) to the Myrtle Mixed
Use (MMU) development standards.
Table 1— 988 Howard Avenue
Lot Area: 15,352 SF (0.35 Acres) Plans date stamped: Februa 23, 2016
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQUIRED
JUNe 13, 2015 AUGUST 12, 2015 JANUARY 4, 2016 &
FEBRUARY 23, 2016
Use Office — 22,225 SF Office — 22,295 SF Office — 22,295 SF Office Use — Permitted
Retail Uses —1,325 SF 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" 20'-0" 10'-0"
(Myrtle Road)
Side (interior): 0 0 0 None Required
(exterior): 5'-�° 5'-0" 5'-0" None Required
Rear: 10'-0"' 10'-0"' 10'-0"' 20'-0"
(East Lane)
BU/LDING ENVELOPE:
Lot Coverage: 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 11,514 SF
75%
0 0 p Heights over 35'-0"
Height: 45'-0"2 45'-0" 2 45'-0" 2 require CUP
u to maximum of 45'
OFF-STREET PARKING:
Number of 60 spaces 68 spaces 67 spaces Office - 1 space / 300
Parking Standard 44 Standard 30 Standard 30 SF
Spaces: ADA 3 ADA 3 ADA 3 Retail - 1 space / 400
Stacker 5 Stacker 27 Stacker 25 SF
Tandem 8 Tandem 8 Tandem 8
Total 60 Total 68 Carshare 1 Office:
Total 67 20,880 SF/300= 69.6 sp
Retail:
1,325 SF/400 = 3.31
Subtotal = 73
spaces
Carshare Bonus (10%)=
7 spaces max = 66
s aces
Page 2 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance 988 Howard Avenue
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQUIRED
JUNE 13, 2015 AuGUST 12, 2015 JANUARY 4, 2016 8�
FEBRUARY 23, 2016
Drive Aislel 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" aisle for 90°
Clear Back-up parking or exit in 3
S ace:
maneuvers or less
Parking Standard spaces = Standard spaces = Standard spaces = Standard spaces =
Space 8'-6" x 18' 8'-6" x 18' 8'-6" x 18' 8'-6" x 18'
Dimensions:
Driveway 12'-0" driveway width- 12'-0" driveway width- 12'-0" driveway width- Parking areas with not
Width: East Lane entrance East Lane entrance East Lane entrance more than 30 vehicle
(21 vehicles) (30 vehicles) (30 vehicles) spaces shall have a
minimum driveway width
of 12'-0"
18'-0" driveway width- 18'-0" driveway width-
18'-0" driveway width- Howard Avenue Howard Avenue Parking areas with more
Howard Avenue entrance entrance than 30 vehicle spaces
entrance (38 vehicles) (38 vehicles) shall have a minimum
(39 vehicles) driveway width of 18'-0"
LANDSCAPING:
Landscaping: 78% 78% 78% 10% of front setback
(820 SF) (820 SF) (820 SF) 1,050 x 10%= 105 SF
, rcear setoacK vanance requestea ror a�iv-u rear setnacK wnere a minimum ot 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 had been requested for 5 spaces; 68 on-site parking spaces proposed where 73 on-
site spaces are required. Variance request has been withdrawn with provision of carshare space.
a Carshare bonus/credit requested for up to 10% reduction in onsite parking (maximum 7 spaces) for
providing 1 permanent carshare space.
January 11, 2016 Action Meeting: On January 11, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
take action on the proposed project. The Planning Commission had several comments at that meeting (refer to
attached 1/11/16 minutes). -Comments from various commissioners included:
• Do not like ground level with two driveways into two different garages - takes up too much ground floor
space, one parking entrance would be better;
• Would prefer to see less parking on ground floor;
• Retail is in right location — adds urban vibrancy on ground floor;
• Retail on East Lane would not be successful;
• Retail is on wrong side of the project;
• Like simplicity of Myrtle Road elevation;
• Liked the East Lane elevation on the first design; too boxy now;
• Architectural design is supportable-applicant has been responsive to design suggestions;
• Not compatible with the neighborhood;
• Not sure this is the right building for this location;
• Consider reducing building height, which would reduce parking requirement;
• Height is acceptable - buildings within 1 or 2-blcoks that are similar height as proposed;
Page 3 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance
988 Howard Avenue
• Taller plate heights are needed for office;
• Height and massing are too big for this gateway location on the edge of a residential area; and
• Would like to see more trees- larger trees,
The applicant submitted a response letter, dated March 4, 2016, and revised plans, date stamped February 23,
2016, to address the Planning Commission's comments from the January 11, 2016 meeting. In summary staff
notes that the building footprint, number of parking spaces, parking layout and access, overall building height
and square footage remain unchanged from the previous proposal. However, the major change was to the
building "skin" to address the Commission's concerns, with the additional changes summarized below:
• Myrtle Elevation: portion of building parapet lowered by 42-inches with a reduction to the size of the
roof deck from 3,800 SF to 3,500 SF;
• Horizontal sun shade projection on top of upper floor windows lowered;
• Composite wood siding material eliminated and replaced with cement panel siding; and
• Change to tree selection for new planting to increase overall mature height (40'-55').
June 8, 2015 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.
September 14, 2015 Study Meeting: On September 14, 2015 the Planning Commission held a follow-up
design review study meeting for the proposed project to consider the revisions that had been made to the
design. Please refer to the attached minutes for the complete overview. A brief summary is provided below:
• Car sharing seems like a good opportunity;
• Parking variance may be difficult to support, though the shortage is modest;
• There are taller buildings in the area and this will not be the tallest. However building height should
provide a buffer to the residential neighborhood to the East;
• Wings on front fa�ade of previous design helped lessen the sense of mass;
• There may be more materials in the palette than necessary, and the logic in the material transitions
needs to be more clear;
• Retail space will be a benefit, but may need designated parking depending on the specific use;
• Office is good for the location, and the building height provides a buffer from the railroad tracks.
The applicant submitted revised plans and renderings date stamped January 4, 2016, to respond to the
Planning Commission's comments.
Environmental Review: The June 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting included environmental scoping as
well as design review. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared by Circlepoint environmental consultants. Based on
the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for review by the Planning
Page 4 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance 988 Howard Avenue
Commission. As presented the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified issues that were "less than significant
with mitigation incorporation" in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, and noise. Based upon the mitigation measures identified in the
Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative
Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to
acceptable levels by mitigation (please refer to the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
587-P). The mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the recommended conditions
of approval (in italics). The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on November 16,
2015, and the required 20-day public review period concluded on December 7, 2015. No comments were
received during the review period, and no comments on the IS/MND have been received as of the publication
of this staff report.
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.
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 cou/d be improved and expanded at a scale 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 and Trip Generation: 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. However the Downtown Specific Plan allows on-site parking requirements to be reduced by up
to 10% for developments with at least one car share facility provided on-site, which would reduce the required
parking to a minimum of 66 spaces. The project includes 67 on-site spaces, including a car share space.
The ground floor includes 29 spaces tucked behind the retail space and office lobby with an entrance along
Howard Avenue. The ground floor parking includes five, 5-car puzzle stackers, three accessible parking
spaces, and one car share space. A puzzle stacker is a mechanical parking option that provides independent
access to all cars parked on the system. Below grade in the underground garage there will be 38 parking
spaces with access from a driveway along East Lane. Eight of the 38 spaces will be provided as tandem
spaces.
Page 5 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance 988 Howard Avenue
The Municipal Code does not include specifications for parking lifts or stackers, 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.)
Furthermore the Municipal Code does not include specifications for the provision of car sharing, though the
Downtown Specific Plan provides direction with the provision: On-site parking requirements may be reduced by
up to 10% (as determined by the Community Development Director) for developmenfs with at least one car
share facility provided on-site. The car share program wou/d require recorded easements which must be
maintained indefinitely and cannot be modified without the City's consent (Downtown Specific Plan page 3-12).
Car sharing allows people to rent vehicles for a short period time, generally for a few hours or even a fraction
of an hour. Zipcar is one of the more familiar commercial car share providers, but there are a variety of
providers offering the service, and some companies choose to operate their own car sharing in the form of fleet
or "pool" vehicles. In general, car sharing is one of many tools in a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategy that cities use to reduce the impacts on the region's transportation system. Car sharing can
reduce private automobile ownership, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and help encourage the use of
transit because there would be reliable transportation available once someone gets off the transit system. For
example, office employees may be more likely to utilize transit for their commute if they know a car would be
available for midday errands.
As further information 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 analyses indicate 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 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 67 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 neighborhood 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.
Page 6 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance 988 Howard Avenue
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) to the highest point.
Public Impact Fees: The purpose of public impact fees is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and
improvements created by development projects. In imposing such fees, cities must necessarily establish a
"nexus" between the fee and the impact of a proposed development. Based upon the proposed size of the
project, the public impact fees for the project total $202,439.97, based upon the following breakdown:
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Stormwater and Fire
Divisions.
Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must
review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant (negative) effect on the environment.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652
adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows:
1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas;
2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of
the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street
frontages;
3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development;
4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby;
Page 7 of 14
This fee is required to be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit.
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Condifional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance 988 Howard Avenue
5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent
among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural
features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and
6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for building height, the
Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-
c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general
plan and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems
necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner
compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining
properties in the general vicinity.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Rear Setback Variance, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings for accepting the environmental document (Mitigated Negative
Declaration), Commercial, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Rear Setback
Variance. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record.
Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures taken from the IS/MND (shown in italics). If
the Commission determines that these conditions do not adequately address any potential significant impacts
on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. The
mitigations will be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property and constitute the
mitigation monitoring plan for this project.
Page 8 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance
988 Howard Avenue
At the public hearing the following mitigation measures and conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped February 23, 2016, sheets A0.0 through A4.1, C-1, L-1.1 through L-2.2;
2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or
Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl;
5. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof parapet shall not exceed elevation 141.56' for a
maximum height of 45'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and
approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing
inspections. The ground floor finished floor shall be elevation 97.78'; second floor finished floor
shall be elevation 111.78'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 124.78', and the roof level shall
be elevation 137.78'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be
removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum
height shown on the approved plans;
6. that the project shall include at least one dedicated off-street, car share parking space with the
following requirements:
a. the car share space shall be maintained in perpetuity and cannot be modified without the City's
consent;
b. the car share space shall be clearly labeled both with painted in-ground signage as well as eye-
level signage;
c. the car share space shall be accessible to tenants of the building and at the discretion of the
building owner may also be available to non-tenant subscribers from outside the building;
d. the dimensions of the car share space shall be in accordance with requirements set forth in the
Zoning Code for off-street parking spaces.
7. that the 66 on-site parking spaces (excluding the car share space) shall be used only for the
tenants and visitors of the commercial/retail and office facilities on this site and shall not be leased
or rented for storage of automobiles or goods either by individuals or businesses not on this site or
by other businesses for off-site parking;
8. that the conditions of the Building Division's March 20, 2015 and May 14, 2015 memos, the Park's
Division's March 16, 2015 and May 19, 2015 memos, the Engineering Division's April 13, 2015
Page 9 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mifigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance
988 Howard Avenue
memo, the Stormwater Division's March 17, 2015 and May 12, 2015 memos, and the Fire Division's
March 26, 2015 and May 14, 2015 memos shall be met;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the
public facilities impact fee in the amount of $101,219.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame
and submitted to the Planning Division;
10. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the
public facilities impact fee in the amount of $101,220.97., made payable to the City of Burlingame
and submitted to the Planning Division;
11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
12. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
13. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around
the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site;
14. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall
be prohibited;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
16. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
The following five (5) conditions shall be met during fhe Building Inspection process prior to the
inspections noted in each condition:
17. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building envelope;
18. that prior to the underFloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the
new structure;
19. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division;
20. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof parapet and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
Page 10 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigafed Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance 988 Howard Avenue
21. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
Mitigafion Measures from Initial Study
Aesthetics
22. The project deve/oper shall install low-profile, low-infensity lighting directed downward to minimize
light and glare. Exterior lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, and shie/ded. In general,
the light footprint shall not extend beyond the periphery of each property. Implementation of
exferior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall a/so comply with the standard California Building Code
(Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to
surrounding uses, consistent with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 that requires that
all new exterior lighting for commercial developments be designed and located so that the cone of
light and/or glare from the light element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any
fence, edge or wall.
Air Quality
23. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other /oose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visib/e mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCRj). C/ear signage shall
be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
Burlingame regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. Bay Area Air Quality Management Disfrict (BAAQMD) phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Page 11 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance
988 Howard Avenue
24. The contractor shall select specific equipment during construction in order to minimize emissions.
The equipment selection wou/d include the regulation that all diesel-powered equipment larger than
50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum,
meet the U. S. EPA particulate matter standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent.
Biological Resources
25. If construction activities wou/d commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season of native bird
species potentially nesting near the site (typically February through August in the project region), a
pre-construction survey for nesting birds wou/d be conducted by a qualified biologist within two
weeks of the commencement of construction activities. The pre-construction survey wou/d
encompass the project site and surrounding area, within 150 feet, so as to account for construction-
related noise.
Cultural Resources
26. In the event archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work will be halted
within 100 feet of the discovered materials and workers will avoid altering the materials and their
context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided
appropriate recommendations.
27. A discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the project shall resu/t in a work
stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. Shou/d
/oss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., resource
removal), as determined by a professiona/ paleonfologist, shall be implemented to mitigate the
impact.
28. In the event that human remains are discovered during project construction, there shall be no
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the nature of the
remains. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Lead Agency shall work
with the Native American Heritage Commission and the applicanf to develop an agreement for
treating or disposing of the human remains.
Geo/ogy and Soils
29. Project design and construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code, and demonstrate adherence to the latest seismic design parameters as required by the
California Building Code inc/uding, but not limited to, anchorage, load combinations, and structure
integrity.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
30. The contractor shall comply with Title 8, Califomia Code of Regulations✓Occupational Safety and
Health (OSHA) requirements that cover construction work where an employee may be exposed to
lead. This includes the proper removal and disposal of peeling paint, and appropriate sampling of
painted building surfaces for lead prior to disturbance of the paint and disposal of the paint or
painted materials.
Page 12 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negafive Declaration,
Condifional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance 988 Howard Avenue
31. The applicant shall contract a Certified Asbestos Consultant to conduct an asbestos survey prior to
disturbing potential asbestos containing building materials and shall implement the Consu/tant's
recommendations for proper handling and disposal.
32. The applicant shall prepare, and submit, a Soi/s Management Plan (SMP) to the San Mateo County
Health Department for approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The SMP will address
the possibility of encountering subsurface contaminants, including groundwater, during construction
activities, and the measures for identifying, handling, and disposing of subsurface contaminanfs.
The SMP shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit.
33. The contractor shall ensure the appropriate handling, storing, and sampling of any soil to be
removed from the subject property, as per the SMP, so as to eliminate potential health and safety
risks to the public, including construction workers.
34. In the event that groundwater, or other subsurface contaminants, are encountered during
excavation, grading, or any other demolition/construction activities at the project site, the contractor
shall ensure that the procedure for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of
contaminated groundwater is implemented, as per the SMP.
35. Workers handling demolition and renovation activities at the project site shall be trained in the safe
handling and disposal of residual chemicals, solvents, heavy metals, motor and transmission oils,
lubes, greases, antifreeze, Freon, solvents, and lead-acid batteries etc. associafed with fhe former
gas station and auto repair maintenance shop.
Noise
36. The contractor shall ensure that the interior noise levels are maintained at or below 50 dBA Leq (1-
hr). Treatments would include, but are nof limited to, sound-rated wall and window constructions,
acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc. The specific determination of what noise
insulation treatments are necessary shall be conducted on a room-by-room basis during final
design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise
control treatments, shall be submitted to the City, along with the building plans and approved
design, prior to issuance of a building permit.
37. The contractor shall install forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local building
official, for all exterior-facing rooms of the office building so that windows can be kept closed at the
occupant's discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards.
Catherine Keylon
Senior Planner
c. Dimitrios Sogas, applicant
Toby Levy of Levy Design Partners, project architect
Robert Lugliani, property owner
Page 13 of 14
Commercial Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit and Rear Setback Variance
988 Howard Avenue
Attachments:
Applicant's Response Letter- dated March 4, 2016
Planning Commission Action Meeting Minutes- January 11, 2016
Planning Commission Design Review Study Minutes - September 14, 2015
Planning Commission Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study Minutes - June 8, 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
Staff Comments
Community Letters of Concern
Proposed Resolution (available at public hearing)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed March 4, 2016
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachment:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated January 7, 2016
Page 14 of 14
90 South Park
San Francisco CA 94io7
DATE:
T0:
FROM:
PROJECT:
03/04/2016
415 777 o56i tel
415 777 5117 fax
CITY OF BURLINGAME
TOBY LEVY,FAIA
988 Howard Avenue
APN # 029•214-220
AR
LEVY DE�I�N PARTNERS
CT
���
CC:
SUBJECT: Summary of Changes
OVERALL SUMMARY:
This is a summary of design changes for the proposed project at 988 Howard Street,
Burlingame CA. The proposed building is a new construction of a 3-story building over
basement level parking; with a lobby, retail, and parking at the ground floor, commercial at the
second and third floors, and a roof deck level at the roof. The following addresses concerns and
comments that were shared when we met last with the Planning Commission.
Summary of Changes:
1. On the Myrtle Elevation, we have reduced the parapet by 42" by reducing the size and
location of the roof deck.
2. This allowed us to bring down the horizontal sun shade projection to the top of the
upper floor windows;
a. These two gestures will make the building feel about 7'shorter.
3. We have changed the scale of the solid material on each side of the building, with a
horizontal module along Myrtle to be 6'; on Howard to be 12", and on East Lane to a
2 ft. module. The 6" on Myrtle will have a more residential scale similar to the
clapboard siding.
a. We have also updated the colors of the cladding to align closer to the current
texture and feel of the area.
4. We have also changed the trees so that their height within 10 years will be between
20-30 feet; their mature height is 40-55' or more, depending on the growing
conditions.
Sincerely,
Toby Levy, FAIA #C-10527
President
Levy Design Partners Inc.
Page 1 of 1
� c�Tv
�r ;'�i �
, ��r'
��' . . r�
0
," o ,
� _
�4.oa.,F
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, January 11, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers
d. 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Rear Setback
Variance and Parking Variance for a new 3-story commercial building (Dimitrios
Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property owner; Toby Levy Design Partners,
architect) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
This item was moved to the end of the agenda at the request of the applicanf.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini had met with the applicant
previously.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no quesfions of staff.
> Can conditions of approval require retail on ground floor to remain retail and not convert to o�ce?
Parking counf is based on assumpfion of retail space on ground f/oor. (Gardiner: If calculafions are
based on refail use and the application is presented with refail use, a condition could be considered.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Toby Levy and Franco Zaragoza, Levy Design Partners, represented the application with applicant
Dimitrios Sogas.
Commission quesfions/comments:
> Design looks almost the same as the previous design, buf wings are missing. Other than swapping
colors what changes were made? (Zaragoza: Square mass as sfarfing point, then the influence of the
sife having the building step back. The louver system was simplified because it had become too busy
and did not feel inviting. Simplified so screen and louver sysfem is more cohesive on all sides of the
building.)
> What glass will be used? (Zaragoza: Storefront will be fully transparent There may be head
transoms for ventilation, and recessed lighting for a well-lit streetscape at night.)
> Have revised plans been shared with the community? (Sogas: Had a site meeting but not with the
most recent design.)
> What is driving the height of the building? Would it not 'pencil" with an extra floor? (Zaragoza: No it
would not.)(Levy: Heighf is driven by the economics but also the desire to have a commercial level.
Didn't want the o�ce to be the presence.)
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
> Does not like what the project does at the ground level. There are hvo drives into hvo different
City ofBurlingame Page 1 Printed on 2/25/201B
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 11, 2016
garages which takes up a lot of the ground floor space. The drive that splifs the lobby from the
undesirable. Retail is on the wrong side. If building was lower would not need as much parking.
be solved with one parking access that did not split the ground floor spaces would be more desirab/e.
> Building has not changed much from earlier versions.
> Thinks retail is in right location. Seeing confluence at comer of Myrtle of retail space and
courtyard space, coupled with commercial spaces across the street as adding urban vibrancy. If
on East Lane loses opportunity for refail to contribute to the neighborhood.
> Likes simpliciry of Myrtle elevation: glass cube as anchor, with band of solid. East Lane
has fin wal/s reintroduced. It is hanging together as a building.
retail is
If could
adjacent
retail is
elevation
> Would prefer to see /ess parkmg on ground floor but building needs to work. Offices have been lifted
up and refail put 6elow to create some life on the street.
> Surrounding buildings are shorter. The market across the street is about 26 feet, as is building to
north. Could drop fop floor, just have parking underground and have the ground floor be retail and/or
o�ce.
> Architectural design is supportable. Has been responsive to design suggestions. Commission has
not provided clear direction to redesign ground floor. There are buildings within a 1- or 2-block radius
that are similar height.
> Sma/l streets and varied commercial/residential of Myrt/e Road area suggests building that
massive and high as this one. Likes architecture but not sure this is the right building for this location.
> If retail was on East Lane it would not be successfu/. Shou/d support neighborhood.
neighbor to walk fhere without crossing railroad tracks.
> Heights are acceptable - needs taller plate heights for o�ce.
> Front e/evation has not changed much. Was expecting to see something different, more
design.
> Wou/d like more landscaping, more trees.
> Issue is not with height it is with trying to solve the ground floor problem.
is not as
Will allow
like first
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application
for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and environmental review. The
mofion failed by the following vote:
Aye: 3- Sargent Terrones, and Bandrapalli
Nay.� 4- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Gaul
Project is deemed Denied �thout Prejudice.
Commission discussion:
> Process has resu/ted in design by committee.
> Concem wifh ground f/oor g/azing, and garage entrances. Has not seen evidence of looking at
a/temafive parking scenarios.
> Commission needs to give guidance for why application was denied. Architecture, layout and flow,
height?
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, fo approve the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Commission discussion:
> What would approval of the environmental review do in absence of a project approval?
> Is concem with the ground floor an environmental issue or design review?
Commissioner Terrones withdrew the motion.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application for Condifional Use Permit for building height.
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 2/25/201 B
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 11, 2016
Aye: 5- Sargent, Terrones, DeMartini, Loftis, and Bandrapalli
Nay: 2- Gum and Gaul
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application
for Rear Setback Variance.
Aye: 7- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
Mifigated Negafive Declaration.
Commission discussion:
> Concem with relafion to tra�c pattems with ground floor parking garage. If design changes would
fhat impact Mitigated Negative Declaration? (Gardiner.� Less producfive to approve a Mitigated Negative
Declaration if there is uncertainty what the form of fhe project will be.)
Commissioner Terrones withdrew the motion.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application for Commercial Design Review. The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: 3- Sargenf, Terrones, and Bandrapalli
Nay: 4- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Gaul
Commissioner discussion:
> Liked East Lane e/evation on first design, didn't like second. Became too blocky. Expecfed street
elevation to be closer to fhe original design.
> Height and mass too big for gateway location. Is on the edge a residential area. If height was
brought down would rectify some of the parking problems. Would like fo see more happening on ground
f/oor other than parking.
> Massing and size not compatib/e wifh neighborhood.
> Likes vibrancy with retail on ground floor.
> Larger trees.
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 2/25/2018
� CITY �
��,�� �
��" .�
.�co' �" -� a :?
9vo
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CIN HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, September 14, 2075 7:00 PM Council Chambers
b. 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - 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 (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property owner;
Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
Attachments: 988 Howard Ave - Staff Report
988 Howard Ave - Attachments
988 Howard Ave - qlans 0824.15
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant There were
no other ex parte communications.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff.�
None.
Chair DeMartini opened fhe public hearing.
Dimitrios Sogas represented the applicant.
> Need for Class A o�ce space near fransit and the airport.
> Had neighborhood meeting in July.
> Adding back more on-street parking on street by c/osing exisfing curb cuts.
> Parking puzzle sfacker parking solufion - infegrated system, does not utilize pits.
> Burlingame has 'eclectic" architecture, not homogeneous.
> Has a presence on the street.
Commissioner questions/comments:
> Why so many colors? (Sogas: Architect will provide more information.)
Toby Levy, Toby Levy Design Partners, represented the architect:
> Refai/ is neighborhood-serving. Three parking spaces would be assigned fo refail by code.
> Parking for day-to-day users, not many visitors.
> Burlingame allows a 10% reduction for car share. Would reduce to 63 spaces.
> Water table is 16 feet, so would be hard to go further be/ow ground. Would be expensive, would
probably make project infeasible.
> Cou/d eliminate parking to provide a/l required parking but considers this less desirable.
> Plaza has been redesigned to be more accessible.
> Wants building to fit in but be distincfive for this era.
> Three co/ors: white, warm champagne, and wooden.
CityofBurlingame Page i Printed on 1!7/201B
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2015
> 13 feet floor-to-floor, 45-foot height total. 9-foof ceiling height for offices, not excessive.
Brian Canepa, NelsonWygaard, represented the parking and transportafion for the application.
Commissioner questons/comments:
> Parking in new submittal has 38 sta/ls in basement including 4 tandem sta/ls, 30 sfalls on the ground
level including the stackers. Are tandem sfal/s allowed? (Barher.• Yes, if they are wifhin the boundaries of
the Downtown Specific Plan.)
> Where does notch on North facade manifest on East Lane facade? (Levy: Will be squared off, was
left over from previous design.)
> My�fle Road comer has wood, but tums comer and is sfucco. Would there be a transifion? (Levy.�
Should wrap around.) Metal paneling shou/d wrap around on East Lane side. Comers should be
anchored in three dimensions.
> Are there fewer plants compared to last design? (Levy: Neighborhood wanted to incorporate more
trees and larger-sca/e planting onto the east elevation.)
> Is carshare being contemplated? (Levy: Being discussed. Would like to build to 63 spaces.)(Canepa:
Van share programs exist as another option.)
> What will retail be? (Sogas: Targeted to be a service for the building such as a sandwich shop or
coffee shop. Also adding parking spaces on the sfreet.)
> Is there a logic to the variation in materia/s? (Levy: Breaks down the scale, then steps it up around
comer, addresses the ofher side of tracks. Didn't want it to be so 'button-down, " wanted to be a bit
"soft-shoe" with inferplay and more friend/y.
Public comments:
Kevin Cullinan spoke on fhis ifem:
> Has a property at 1420 Burlingame Avenue with 30 spaces for 18,000 sq ff o�ce. Works out Many
of the employees ride bikes or take train.
> Based on proximity to train there will be less need for parking here.
Brett Barron, Capital Rea/ty Group:
> Tenants in downtown o�ces ride their bikes from the train station.
> Peop/e are nof getting in their cars as much now.
Alan Durr spoke on this item:
> Has lived in neighborhood since 1953. Lives on Anifa Road.
> Beautiful building.
> Surprised with variances. Believes building be/ongs on fhe other side of Bayshore.
> Sees lots of people driving fo woric.
> Being near transit does not decrease amount of parking, it increases it. At 8:30 am there is no
parking in fronf of his house.
> No time limits to parking. If bringing in more people will need fo address parking in neighborhood,
whether it be 2-hour parking limit, 4-hour, etc.
> Did not get notice for outreach meeting until day later.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
> (Kane: Car share is under the discretion of the Community Development Director. Commission may
provide input.)
> (Gardiner. The car share aspect of the project is a relatively recent addition and the details are still
City of Budingame Page 2 PNnted on 7/7R018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2015
being put together. If it is pursued, then details will be included in the Conditions of Approval.)
> "O/d school" paradigm of driving to work, vs new with trains, bikes and ride share. Feartul of
combining a/l issues together info one project - car share, parking stackers, etc.
> Setback variance can be supported.
> Concemed with height. 35 feet is the standard preferred height Taller requires a Conditional Use
Permit This is 45 feet to parapet, p/us another 10 feet fo mechanical.
> Parlcing is close. 1 space per 300 square feet of o�ce space.
> Height shou/d be a buffer to the residential district to the easf. Could cut back or step down on east
side, soften the building a bit.
> Street parking in neighborhood gets taken up. Lots of auto-related uses.
> Neighborhood is not all 2-story buildings. There is a 4-5 story building nearby, and some others. �ll
not be the tallest in the area.
> Have supported parking variances in other applications when supported by a well-done parking
sfudy.
> Car share seems like a good opportunity, so applicant shou/d put it info the proposal so it can be
formally considered.
> Variance unusual to ask for reduction in parking count only.
> Not convinced refail does not need parking, particularly if use has not been determined.
> Not big enough building for a commuter van program.
> Liked first design 6etter. This still looks boxy, and is busy for a building that is not very big.
> Was hoping to retain the wings on front elevation and instead change blocky mass on back. �ngs
made the bu/k and mass go away a bit.
> Has one too many steps on the East Lane facade. One too many materials. Wanfs to see a building,
not an idea. Needs to resolve change of materials at comers.
> Concem with potenfial noise of parking stackers.
> Carshare supportable.
> Would like more landscaping.
> Retail space would be a benefif.
> O�ce use is good for the location. OK with height - provides a buffer to the railroad tracks.
> There are some elements of fhe new design that work we/l such as wood area on upper floor at
Howard/Myrt/e comer, and roof on thaf section rather than vertical e/emenfs that disappear into fhe sky.
> Vertical fins added some interest, slendemess. However needs a roof or some kind of termination.
> Concem with parking variance within the Downtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan already a/lows
for special parking considerations.
> More continuity around building. Wings and fins could be continued on other sides.
This item will retum on the Regu/ar Action Calendar for action on the environmenfal review and project
applications.
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1!7/2018
� ciTv
�r:�i �
r�
�x��. _
< . 1 p i
e
'ryCe� '.. � 9
'Pvnw�TF
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, June 8, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers
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
Attachments: 988 Howard Ave - Staff Reqort
988 Howard Ave - Attachments
988 Howard Ave - Plans
All Commissioners had visited fhe project site.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
Questions of staff.•
> In the future if the retail space changed fo office, 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. Would likely need to come back to the Planning
Commission at that time. Cou/d not be approved administratively.)
> Is there a variance application for fhe parking reducfion on file? (Barher.� Left out of packet by
mistake. Will obtain.)
> Guidance on analyzing the methodology of the parking study? Are these generally accepted
standards? (Bart�er: The study references the ITE manual, which is genera/ly accepted as a reference
tool. Has been reviewed by staff engineer and determined it is consistent with industry standards. Will 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, represented the applicant:
> Site well connected to downtown and Ca/train, directly across fhe sfreet.
> Entry lobby off of Howard and East Lane to creafe pedestrian-friendly experience.
> Wanted to define front yard on East Lane so that the Myrtle side could have a/arger setback.
Pedestrian plaza next to the refail space.
> Parking tucked behind the lobby. Garage entrances off East Lane and Howard.
> Upper floors with flexib/e layout to accommodate mu/tiple tenants. Every floor wou/d have exterior
decks for connection to outside.
> Roof terrace.
> Height kept within 45-foot building height to parapef.
> Needs 13-foot floor-to-floor for the o�ce floors to have space for mechanical uses. Would get 9 feet
clear typically.
> Wood paneling system on exterior for sunscreens along a/l three elevations. Vertical and horizontal
sunscreen system.
CiryofBuAlnqame Page 1 Printed on 1!1/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2015
> Metal panels with three different colors, and a fourth accent color.
> Concrete and g/ass on ground floor.
> Sun study has been prepared and no shading on adjacent properties excepf 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 only because it is next to
Caltrain, that would apply to all properties in fhis area. Variance findings require unique circumstances .
(Zaragoza: Ground floor elevation is ta/l to accommodafe parking stackers. Could add another stacker
for three additional spaces if uses change.)
> Height concems include how if fits into neighborhood. There are not a lot of buildings that height in
this area - just an apartment building at Myrfle and Burlingame Avenue.
> Suggestion for flipping setbacks makes sense. Better for transition to residential neighborhood.
> �ll there be soil studies? (Zaragoza: Yes. Has not found anyfhing with initial soil borings. Expects it
to be fu/l removal of the tanks. Not expecting much.)(Sogas: Phase I and ll have been completed. No
case will be opened. Some soil needs to be removed.)
> Who anticipafes to be tenants? (Sogas: Has nof marketed it yet until further along. Can be split
mu/tiple ways. Financial services, VC, tech. Lots of tenants want to be in this area in a Class A building.)
> Encourages retail tenant that brings life to street.
> Site and comer is important. Reference other corner buildings in town.
> Will glazing be translucent? (Zaragoza: Yes.)
> What will gesture be for comer? (Zaragoza: Transparent comer.) Encourages stronger comer.
> Three sfories can be made to work if the architecture is right.
> How many occupanfs? (Brett Barron, Capital Realty: O�ce market is very tight. Potential tenants
want to take train, don't want to drive. Vacancy rate downtown is /ess than 3 percent for o�ce. Numbers
of people 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: It would be accessible, but has not
considered if. Physically accessib/e, depends how the building is /eased.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini c/osed the public hearing.
Senior Planner Barber noted letters were received from Mr. Wald (inc/uded in staff report) and Jennifer
Pfaff (received after). Also noted that Phase I and ll site assessments were submitfed and will be
included in the hazardous materials section of the CEQA document.
Commission comments - environmental scoping:
> Potential soi/s contaminants should be reviewed. (Barber. W/l include County letters in the report.)
> Parking needs to be considered, including current use. There is a parking issue in the neighborhood,
wants to know about existing use on the site.
Commission comments - design review:
> Good to see o�ce space, and is a good site for it, but doesn't understand the architecture.
> Design is frenetic when it needs to be calmer. There is a lot going on. Nice examples of sma/l,
e/egant o�ce buildings built in Palo Alfo in recent years.
> Consider going down two stories with parking. Frees up ground floor for other activifies.
> Close to downtown, will be an imporfant building.
> Great location for the use, and replacement of exisfing use. TellApart building next door has been a
good precedent.
> Likes the front facade, but not the MyrtleMoward side.
> Retai/ will be tricky but important.
City o18uAingame Page 2 Printed on 1/7/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2015
> Would be nice to have roof deck accessible to public, but single tenant may want it exclusively.
> Parking is di�cult current/y. Some may be from existing auto use on site. Neighboring TellApart
building had vanance in configurafion but not quantity. Hard to justify parking variance just because it is
next fo Ca/train.
> Te1lApart example inifially did not have many employees in building, but over time has had
subsfaniial increases. Layout of o�ce spaces has changed quite a bit over fhe 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 this neighborhood.
> Wants to see documents to justify plate heights.
> Addition to former garden center building on Chapin Avenue is a good example of contemporary
architecture. Calm, relaxed, not trying to do foo much.
> Pedestrian realm is good but building above is a heavy mass.
> Hard to jusfify a variance with a brand new building. Argument is based on mitigation solutions,
exceptional circumsfances of the project.
> Patio on Myrtle will be a nice space.
> Suggest adding some benches.
> Office hoteling concept - renfable conference rooms.
> Does not seem to provide a buffer behveen busy downtown and ca/m residential. Seems as busy
downtown. Needs something to create a buffer or blend, whether archifectural or sca/e or mass.
> Likes swap of front and rear setbacks.
> Could sfep back upper floor, wou/d reduce parking requirement.
> Likes retail on ground floor, wou/d like more. Cou/d consider putting some parking on upper floor
allow more refail on ground floor.
not
as
to
> Not much g/az�ng on ground floor vs. garage openings and parking walls. Not the right urban design
move. It is a parking garage with planting against it, and two small windows into the building. Not a good
exfension of downtown or transition into the residenfial neighborhood.
> Would like to see an example of a 5-car stacker in fhis 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
C1tyof8urlingame Page 3 Printed on 1!//2018
90 South Park
San Francisco CA 9qio7
DATE:
T0:
FROM:
PROJECT:
415 777 o56i tel
415 777 5117 fax
08/17/2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
TOBY LEVY,FAIA
988 Howard Ave.
APN # 029 214 220
A. R C
LEVY DE�I7G�N YARTNERS
C1
�pE
CC:
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 landscape design has also been
atljusted to encourage the views into these spaces from the street and vice versa.
Planters were re-arranged at the corner 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 desired by any future tenants for this space.
At Myrtle, the landscape was adjusted to have a more visible corner and appearance
from the street, providing a plaza type space with areas for movable chairs/seating as
desired.
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 vernacular 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 accommodate 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 o56i tel
415 777 5117 fax
AR
LEVY DE�I�G�N PARTNERS
C1
�RF
project, eliminating the "two faced° fa�ade, mentioned as a comment from the
Commission Hearing. The entry to the building on the corner of Howard and East Lane
has also been atljusted by opening up the view lines from the street comer, allowing for a
more connected pedestrian plaza entrance. Both at Myrtle Roatl 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
President
Levy Design Partners Inc.
Page 2 of 2
� BU�AME '
�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: D �--G - ,2l � f- -,Z�
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: � � 8 � ��°Wpn2p ��'
APPLICANT project contact person �1 �PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
Payor of DSR deposiUhandling fee �1, 1- Payor of DSR deposit/handling fee ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents t� OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
/
Name: I,,..1,-, R,�� c Soro�s- Name: -�— ,
r
Address: ( 2�c n � o,,,,Q ,,c �3Z Address: G`/� ���
City/State/Zip: R , , r�,� , o ,, ('���c�� � City/State/Zip: � ,, wl� ��_,,,���L��
Phone: o� � '� ( p �( Z Phone:
Fax:
E-maiL• � S
�
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person
Payor of DSR deposiUhandling fee
OK to send electronic copies of documents
Name: 7c�� .� �p .��L ��� � � . �
Address:
Fax:
;� � ! �_,
. E-mail: `� `' ;
�J(,{ r�
�� �,� � Y � L�i'
° �:. : ��� :
�
'�AR -- 9 2015
Ciry/State/Zip: � , f= �G �'Y(Q `�.
Phone: �f l�1 -��� — OS(,�, �
Fax: _ �1�5- � �� -- �! ( �-
E-mail: _
��
r c�v1C0 ��`` ��; �` ��s�ui
�' Burlingame gusines's Licer
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
�� � R�.� �.r ��, �
�' .�,� -- � �.�
,� �:
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certi , nder penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my kn�wledge and�elie# ��;'
. ApplicanYs signat e: � i --�,;./ �
�i .
Date: � l�
I am aware of the propo ���?�'' and her authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission. � /�'�.�', ��
� Property owner's signature:_� I�--�� ` Date:���/,�
Date submitted: 3~�— � s
* 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:�HAnroours�Pc,aPPr,carron.doc
;�I�i r O� ?URLINGAME
CDD-P!_A.�JN(NG DIV.
�IQ �JNINNtfld-aC1^�
�VV1��JNIl�1(1.>a a`J ;.i17
�IOZ G -� �;t1V�I
e�� (J;�..-'�`r ��� � t� �'
�: o� 3
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
flv
Project Description:
Ap,ol;�a-f;o� -�a� G1nV�rDnrr�Gr�-�-�► �2�,,,'t�, �►��,�r�;ol p.�s��,,
r ' U
(� ev � e �,v �' o r �1� -}�'o,.� I (�S� 1°c,-,r. ► �- -br lo� � � �1,�� � � l, -}- ar.. �i
S�� A G K- A+-r c� T'Gt V �L , n� v �l. ✓ i� A/1 u- S -�D r Go n S IY� c.� �,�• o� 'c.._
{'1 ,(ivJ 3-�vvv�, Go v✓� m G U �`A. � � J i � c� � n � W 1�" � Ol� I' o o-� ��.
Key :
Abb'reviation ; . Term -
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declining Height Envelope
DSR Desi n Review
E Existing
N New
SFD Single Family Dwelling
SP Special Permit
:;.
��.
OUR4IVGAM��
r:��
r--
COMhiUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
i
APPLICATiON TQ THE PLANNlNG COMMlSSION
Type of appiication:
❑ pesign Review O Variance ❑ Parcel #:
D Conditional Use Permit O Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: � �� ��X����
APPUCANT
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone;
E-maiL•
Burlingame Business License #:
Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the autharity to reproduce upon request and/or 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 ArchitecUDesignerj
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��`,• ����I? � (� ��' ��lt��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.
Applicant's signature: \ Date: �� 2� �� �
I am aware of the propased applicat' n and � eby authorize e above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: Rate:
Date submitted:
S: �NANDOUTSjPC Applicotian.doc
3/4/2015
...
D'unitrios Sogas
Emporio Group Inc
1290 Howard Ave, Suite 323
Burlingame CA 94010
To whom it may concern
����I Y ��
Iv�AR - 9 2015
��i � `� UF BURLiNGAME
"�-�C� D1 ANNING DIV
Sirs
My company is in the process of acquiring the parcel at 988 Howard Avenue in Burlingame,
currently the Olde English Garage, owned by Robert Lugliani, far 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@�ahoo.com or 650-
703-1042.
x�
Robert Lugliani
Current Owner
�
� � 5���
988 Howard Ave, Burlingame CA
Emporio Group Inc
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 corner 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.
��` �. .: _s :� � 1 1/ 1� i../
MAR � 9 2015
CE'?-Y ;;F BURLINGAME
c;t�D-PLANNING DIV.
i
City ofBurlingama Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(GSQ) 558-7?50 F(G50) 696-3790 wcuw.burlin a� me.qr�
c�Yr
A � � �
�""'•"•�""E ENVTRONMENTAL YNFORMATION F4RM
r �. ;
`��.v� �l (to be completed by applicant when Negative Declaration ar Environmental Impact
Report is ret�uired) .
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Address: 988 Howard Avenue
Applicant Name: Dimitrios Soaas
Address: 1290 Howard Avenue. Suite 323 _
City/State/Zip: Burlin�ame, CA 94d10
Phone:� � 1-650-7d3-1042
Assessor`s P�irceE Number: 029-214-220 � �
Property Ownerllame: Emporio GrouQ Inc.
Address: . 1294 Howard Avenue, Suite 3?3
City/StatelZip: Burlin�ame. CA 94010
Pho�te: i-650-703-1042
Permit apptications reqaired for this project {special permit, variance, � subdivision map, parcel map,
condominium permit, building permit, etc.): Conditionat Use Permit for Build'an�Heik ht & Setback &
Parkin� Variances
Related permits, apptications and approvals required for this project by City, Regional, State and Federal
Agencies: Envimnmental Review and Commetcial Desig�t Review
STTE INFORMATION
Site size: .352 Aeres and 15.352 Square Feet Existing Loning: MMU
Esisting use(s} of property: Auto Gara�e �
Tota! Number of Existing Parki»g Spaces : NA Number of Compact Spacesi: NA
Number af Existing Structures and Total Square �ootage of £ach:� . 1 structure = 4,800 SF +/-
Will any structures be demolished for this praject? X Yes No �
Size and use oistructures to be demolished:,4 800 SF Structure, existing autQmobile �ge �
Number and size of eYistin� trees on site-: (3) 4" trees (2) 5" trees (2) 6" trees, f 1112" tree
Will any of the existing tress be removed? 7C Yes No
If Yes, list number, size and type of trees to be removed:(314" trees, f 2) 5" trees. (2) b" trees : fdeciduous
and species ur►lcown) i1112" tree (Geiiera Parviflora-Australian Wiltow)
Are there any natural or man-made water channels which run titrough or adjacent to the site?
Yes X No If Yes, where?
1 City of Burii�game minimuni standard parkino space size is 9'x?0'. 'fhe minimum size for compact parking spaces is 8'x17'.
Refer to City of Burlingame Zoning Ortiinanca C.S. 25.70 for parl:ing requitemenls tor particular nscs.
2 Refer to the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protrction Urdinance (C.S. l 1.t16) for tree removal permlt
and tree planfmg requirements.
fiNVREV.PItM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P{650) 558-7250 F(G50) 69b-3790 www.burlin aiu ne.org
Describe in �eneral the existing surrounding land uses to the:
North_Auto Repair Shop �
South Auto Dealership Parkin� Lot
�ast Retail Market / Convenience Store �
West Caltrain & Rail Station
PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Description: _Removal of existin�structure and pavement: new construction of a 3-storY building_.
over basement: 2 staries of affice/commercial ahove ground level of lobby, retail/cafe, parkin�
Residential Projects:
Number of .Dwe[ling Units: 0 �
Size of Unit(s): NA � �
Household size {nuinber of persons per unit} expected: NA �
CommerciaV[ndustrial Projects:
Type and square footage of each use: _ Office Use = 22.225sf cafe/retail = l.�25sf
Estimated number of employees per shift: no specitic user detennined
Wiil the project involve the use, disposai or emission of potentially hazardous materials (including
petroieum products)? Yes X No
Tf Yes, ptease describe: NA
Institutional Projects {public facilities, hospitals, schools):
Major functean of facility: NA
Estimated number of employees per shift: NA
Estimated Occupancy: NA
For all Projects: � � � � �
Flood Hazard: Is this site within a specia( flood hazard area? Yes X No
Land Use: If the project involves a canditional usc permit, variance or rezoning application, please
explain why the applications are required'': Coctditionn! Use Permit Form Filed for Buiiding Height &
Variance Anplication for Setback & ParkinRPornts (Attached�. „
' Please fill out and submit the appropriate application form 9variance special permit, etc.}
ENVREV.PRM
City of Burtingame Planning Department SOl Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F{65d) 696-3790 .M�ww�a�riineame.org
Building gross square footage: Existing: 4,800 sf �
Proposed: �Floors 1-3) 32,375sf + baseme�t (14,575) = 46.950sf
Number of floors of construction: Existing: l stor,y Proposed: 3+ basement
TraffidCircnlation: Standard and compact off-street parking spaces provided:
Existing: Standard NA
. Compact
Total
Proposed: Standard 60 commercial
Compaci
. Total 60 commercial
Grading: Amount of dirtlf ll materiai being moved (check one):
0-500 cubic yards 5,04U-20,OOU cubic yards
X 500-5,000 cubic. yards � Over 20,Q00 cubic yai•ds(indicate amount)
Note: lf .fill is being placed over existing bay fill, provide engineerii�g reports which show the effect af
the new fill on the underlying bay mud.
Storm water runoff: Tndicate area of' site tn be covered with imper��ious surfaces {parking lot paving,
etc.): NA- Surfaces will be Permeabie /And/ or plantings / Landscape. Roof run-off treated with bio-
retention planters.
Ts the azea with impervious surfaces less than 20U feet away i'rom a wetland, stream, lagoon or bay?
Yes X No �
Noise: Describe noise sources and timing of activity generated by yoar project during construction: _
General construction duringtvpical construction hau�5. �
Noise sources generated during operation of facility: None by use.
Vibration: Will the proposat cause vibration that may af�'ect adjacent properties? Describe any potential
sources of vibration: NA�
Exterior Lighting: Please describe any proposed exterior lighting of tbe faciiity�: Street level/ sidewalk
�P.VP.� Inw i;a L'i11g or h�i1di aPntrances
Watec: Expected amount of water usage:
Domestic �aVday Peak �ise � � �al/min
Commercial gal/day Peak use �aI/min
Expected fire flow demand gal/min •
As per the C.3 regufations set forth by the Califo�nia Regional Water Quality Contro( Board, please
respond to the following questions: � � �
1. � Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant diseharges to receiving waters? .
. No. . . . .
t2efer to City of Burlingame Exterior Illumination Ordinance (No. i477) re�arding requiremenis which limit exterior
illumination in both residential and commerciai zones.
ENVREV.FRM
City of Surlingame Planning Departmcnt 50l Primrosc Road P(G�0) 558-7250 F(bS0} 696-3790 www.burlinQaine.ore
2. Woulci the proposed project result in signifcant alteration of receiving water quality during or
folIowing construction? No. ,
3. Would the proposed project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased
runoff? There will be a decrease �n impervious area on the praposed projeci thus reducina the runof#'from
the site. � �
4. Would the proposed project create a significant aiiverse environmental impact to drainage patterns
due to changes in ranoff flow rates volumes? No significant adverse environmental iinpact to drainage.
There will be a decreased in runoff flow rates �olumes.
5. Would the proposed praject result in increased erosion in its watershed? The project will not result
an increased in erosion in i�s watershed. �
6. Is the praject tributary to an already impAired water body, as listed on the Clean VVater Action
Section 303(d) list7 !f so will it result in an inerease in aitiy pollutant for which the water body is already
impaired? No.
7. Wou1d the proposed project have a potentiai significant environmental impact on surface water
quality, to marine, fresh, or wetland .
waters? No.
8. Would the proposed project have a potentialty significa�it adverse impact on s�round water qaality?
NO. � �
9. Will tfie proposed project cause or contribute ta an exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality abjeccives �r debradation of beneficial uses? No.
!0. Will the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habilat?
No
Sewer. Expected daily sewer dischar�e
Source of wastewater discharge on site (i.e. restrooms, restaurants, laboratory, material processing, etc;.}
E,VVRL:V.TRbt
� , .
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-725U F(650) C9b-3794 ww�v.burlinganae.o 0
General:
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Provide attachment to explain nature of all
items checked `yes'. .
Change i» existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or
substantial alteration of ground contours. �
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands
or roads.
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
Significant amounts of soiid waste or litter.
Change in dusi, ash, smoke fumes or odors in vicinity.
Change in bay, lagoon, streamt channel or groundtvater quality or quantity, or
alteration of existing drainage patterns.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration 3e��els in the vicinity (durin�
construction andlor during operation).
Site on filled Iand or on slope of 10 % or more. �
Use or disposal of potentiaily hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable materials or exptosives.
Substantia! change in demand for municipal services {police, fire water, sewage)
Sabstantial increase in fossil fuel cansumption (oil, natural gas, etc.).
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits
present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of
my ability, and that the facts, statements, and informatioii presented are true and
conect ta the be t of my knowledge and belief. ?
y_' "� �...1. 1 J .
S $� '. : , .
Date Sign�uref r�'� l ��' �
�_..
Yes No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EI� VRL• V.PRM
City of Burlingame Planning Depart�ment 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.org
,�� i.
Y'Ir �
,i,.,,•
J` ,;�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION�
i �����
�:;� 2015
�: � i `( O'= BUFiLINCAME
-�-� "� _ANrtIiNr nr:'.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make tindings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.52.020). Youc answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in
making the decision as to whether the findings can be made fior your request. Please type or write neatly
in ink. Refer to the back of tllis form for assistance with these questions.
1. Exnlain wlry the proposed irse crt the proposed lucatinn wil/ not he detriment�rl or injurious to
prnperty or im��rovements in the vicinit�� or to pa�blic health, saf'ety, geneNal welfare or
coirveniertce.
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! tl7e propose�! use be locnted and conducted in uccordunce with the Burlingame
The proposed building complies with the MMU zoning, Myrtle 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. Huw will t/1e ps•oposed p�oject be compatibl� witlz t17e aestlzetics, mass, bulk «nd eharactet• of'
tlle existing and potential uses on adjoining pYnperties in tlre genera[ vicirrity?
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
r'�i 1'i��`''�
BURLINGAME
�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • SO'I PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94O'I O
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
` .�� /�� � � V � �-�
���� - 201�
_, LINGAME
� _� !,NNiPJG DI'„
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 nof 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 property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
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 location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safefy,
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.
d. How will fhe proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential 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 Application2008
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to ofher properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are
also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an
exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this
property different from others in the neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial of the application.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having
as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the
exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the
property?
c. Explain why the proposed use at fhe proposed location wi11 not be defrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving,
landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems,
water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage
of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or
sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e.,
noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or
potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and
goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this
site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or
handicapped?
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and
character of the existing and potenfial uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing
architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a
neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and
explain why it fits.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to
the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures
in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the
image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or
less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your
project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why
your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
NELSON
NYGAARD
MEMORANDUM
To: Dimitrios Sogas
From: Brian Canepa & Francesca Napolitan
Date: March 4, 201 5
����IVE�
�,��AR � 9 2015,
��-1T't' �_�� BURLINGAME"
`�'�i � °! ANNiNG DI�
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
6i 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.l The Emporio Group is proposing to
reduce the amount of parking 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 walking distance to
a number of restaurants and other amenities for off'ice 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 41 5-284-1 544 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
ratlius Survey 2006 - 2010
Local serving retail within'/z mile Yes Site observation
radius
Transit service 38 daily buses stop within'/4 mile (existing) Caltrain/Samtrans
58 daily trains stop within �/z mile (existing) maps/schedules
Intersection density (1) within �/z mile 328 valences Street plan
radius
Sidewalk completeness within'h mile 100% have sidewalk on both sides Site observation
ratlius
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 `�alence".
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 i6.2% when compared to standard ITE trip generation (Figure 2). There is
currently 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
ITE trip generation rates, which result in 306 daily vehicle trips.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. � 2
988 Howard Ave. Parking Study � Trip Generation & Parking Demand Analysis
Emporio Group Inc
PARKING DEMAND GENERATION ANALYSIS OF THE
PROG RAM
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, 4th 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 currently 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 parking spaces or
z ITE Land Use Code 701 Office (Urban)
3 ITE Land Use Code 820 Shopping Center
Nelson\Nygaard 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 proximity 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 pro�ry to parking 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,
4th Edition to compare projected parking demand to parking 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
NELSON
NYGAARD
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 walking 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 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.
Figure 1 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 Yz 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 '/< 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'/2 mile (existing) maps/schedules
Intersection density (1) within'/2 mile 328 valences Street plan
radius
Sidewalk completeness within'h mile 100°/a have sidewalk on both sides Site observation
radius
Bike lane completeness within'/z mile 25°/a 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 URBEMIS 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 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
significantly 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 �o�0 306 26 38
Generation�
1. Project Density, Mix of Uses, 7 20�0 284 24 36
Locally Serving Retail
2. Transit Service, including 9'4% 277 24 35
Step 1 (7.2%+2.2%)
3. PedestrianlBicycle 16.2%
Friendliness, including Steps 1 (7.2% + Z.Z�/a 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
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
April 13, 2015
� Engineering Division
(650) 55�7230
� Building Division
(650) 558-7260
X Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
0 Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setbadc and Parking
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof dedc at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214220
Staff Review: April 13, 2015 — 2"d Submittal
1. No Further Comme�ts- Water Consenration checklist and lrrigation Plan will
be submitted for Building permit
Reviewed by: BD
Date: 5/19/15
1
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
March 16, 2015
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-723U
� Building Division
(sso� ssa-72so
X 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 Packing
Variances for construction of a new 3-story commercial building with
a roof deck at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU,
APN: 029-214220
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&733U)
. Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape
Regulations" (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due
for Final.
3. Provide separate imgation (drip or bubbler) to new landscape Street Trees.
Reviewed by: BD
Date: 3/24/15
�
1-�1
�
�M
W �
� r
� �
y
� �^
� ~1
F-�-�1
O
�
;* .
�z
WW
��
zW
��
�� � �b
� �3
( ��Z
O
N
b
N �
x �
O �`
� y
z °�
� � /
,• � . 1=6' MIN. � pyC LiTERAL L1NE
�• � '�,g.� � � 4-PLY 7"x 2'-0' RUBBER
� � � TIES (NSTALLED W/A
„ TINIST & 1W111.ED
� �' -'���, �. Q � �Jyp �N TO THE STAIffS
�, z
' o
v
1"z 4" RWD TREE
RUBBER TIES PIACED 6" MAX
— BELOW MAIN FORK OR BRANCH
INSTALLED WiTH A TWIST AND
NAILED TO STAI�
, I (2) 2" DIA LODCE POLE PINE STAKES
15 GAL.OR SMALLER
� (2) 3" DIA LODCE POLE PINE STAI�S
' -24" BOX OR LARCER
� 1"x 4" ROUCH REDWOOD WITH (2)
— 2" GALV. NAIIS EACH CONNECTION
-" (�OG1TE ON PREVAIUNG
I ' WIND SI�E)
PIACE ROOT CROWN �' -2"
I ABOVE FINISHED GRAD
� ( I-� 2" OF FINE INI�SHED CRADE K
' �,
�
� -F:'.. -
� ��S ~•..�� �_." ^
SGiR1FY StDES
ROOT BALL
� ���� COMPACT NATIVE SOIL
FOR BASE
�M1N.
Z X CONTAINER
4' DIA. x 3'-0' LONC
� PERFORATED . STYRENE PIPE WRH eu►cK
STYREWE DRAIN CRATE COVER AND
NOTES: BUBB�R IRRIGATION
USE 2 PIPES IN CONCRETE CUT-0UT AREAS. PUI' PIPE
ON UPHILL SIDE OF TREE LEVEL SITE NORT}i OF TREE. '
PVC SCH 40 -�
TEE
'�PINE STAKE
1 y4 ' GAI.V.
ROOFINC NAIL
q.EACH END)
COMPACTED TOPSOIL
SCH.80 P'VC NIPPLE
�������,� PERFORATED
� PIPE
BUBBLER
HEAD
GRA7E COVER
�� ��i
�.
�:i
. ;� �
�
: •
. ;
.
�
.
: �
0
��■
,
�J.'�����:�
scH. eo wc NiP�� � v
PIPE SIZE - MA7CFi BASE OF HEAD
PROVIDE A 4" MIN., 6' MAX.
SLOT TO ALLOW FOR SETTLEMENT
WRAP PERFORATED PIPE WITH FILTER
FABRIC.
4" DIA. X 3'-0" PERFORATED
STYRENE DRAIN PIPE
FtLL BOTTOM 6' OF DRA(N .
PIPE ViHTIi 1l21N. DRAIN ROCK
0
a
0
0
��,�w o 0
fv11N.
o p o
o __A o
BUBBLER DEf'AIL
�i
o�
Project Comments
Date: April 13, 2015
To: � Engineering Division � Fire Division
(650) 558-7230 (650J 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:
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
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
1. 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/flversfactsheets/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 COUNTYWIDE
Wdter Pollution
Pr�ve;'n'ronPioSram
C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit {MRP)
Sto�mwater Controls for Development Projects
City of Burlingame
NPDES Coordinator
1103 Airport Blvd
Burlingame, Ca 94011
Office: (650) 342-3727
Fax: (650) 342-3712
Project information
I.A Enter Project Data (For'C.3 Regulafed Pro,�ects,"data will be reported in the municipafitys sformwaterAnnual Report.)
Pro ect Name: Case Number.
i 988 /�b w� ��a ,d.v�Nu�
Rt; ��E�1 rg-s,—c,�Nis-1
Projed Address 8� Cross St: q8� ���r�p � �/EN�/E� ,g �/2�! �1G/}-MF a� C/�j,� M yn �tE 2�;�0 �
Project APN: Q 7r'9 'L�� —?�2� Project Watershed: SQ a Mi� 7''�id
AppficantName: tp1J✓1/ IZ/O SoGA-S
ApplicantPhone: �6So, 703—/b¢�/ App�icantEmailAddress:ds�q,r(� yq�jpa. Coyy
Development type: ❑ Single Family Residential: A stand-alone home that is not part of a targer project.
(check all that apply) � Single Family Residential: Two or more tot residentialdevelopment �
❑ Multi-Family Residential
(� Commerciai
❑ Industrial, Manufa�turing
❑ Mixed-Use
❑ Streets, Roads, eta
❑'RedevelopmenY as defined by MRP: creaiing, adding and/or replacing exierior existing
impervious surface on a site where past development has occurred?
❑'Special land use categories' as defined by MRP: (1) auto service facilities3, (2) retail gasoline
out{ets, (3) restaurants, (4) uncovered parking area (sfand-alone or part of a farger project)
❑ �Institutions: schools, Ibraries, jails, etc.
❑ Parks and trails, camp grounds, other recreational
❑ Agricultural, wineries
❑ Kennels, Ranches
❑ Other, Please specify
Project Description4:
(Also note arry past
orfuture phases ofthe
project.)
p1� Pbs�o 3—S To{2�/ CoMM�i�C CtM. D�1Gl � i6 u!'t Sb !a G
aJl TGl- ,Q�serr,� i P�E-�2 K�1� �� ar 2�46E.
I.A.1 Total Area of Site: D. 3 sV acres �
�.A-2 Toial Area of land disturbed during construction (inc(ude clearing, grading, excavating and stockple area): D. 3S acres.
Certification:
1 certify that the infnrmation provided on this form is correct and acknowledge that, should the project e�cceed the amount of
new and/or replaced impenrlous surface p;ovided in this form, the as-built project may be subject to additional improvements.
❑ Attach Preliminary Catculations ❑ Attach Final Calculations �Attach copy of site pfan showing areas
Name of person co ple6ng e form: 1��/���L • G LlJ Title: ��S/G�1 �EI�G /�£�/j„
Signature: U� ' Date: OS— oS—/S
Phone number �6 S� �;°? 3' g� E o Email address� Vqq�ur+a,[F� Niae ��+�q SS ��»�`u -�C�
� Subdivisions or contiguous, commonfy owned lots, for the construdion af two or more hornes developed within 1 year of each other are
considered common plans of development and are subjed to C.3 requirements.
Z Roadway projeds that replace existing impervious surface are subjed to C.3 requirements on ty ii one or more lanes oitravel are added.
3 See Standard Industrial Class��ation (SIC) codes here
'� Project description examples: 5-story office building, industrial warehouse, residential with five4-story buildings for 200 condominiums, etc.
� Fina! Draft October3l, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Developme^t Revievr Checklisf �
I.Es Is the project a"C.3 Regulated Project" per MRP Provision C.3.b?
1.6.1 Enter the amountof impervious surfacss Retained, Reptaced and/orCreated by the proj�ct:
Table 1 B 1 Impervious and Pervious Surfaces
I.B.1.a I.B.1.b 1.8.1.c 1.8.1.d 1.8.1.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 Retained� Replaced6 Created6 (sq.ft.)
Type of (mpervious Surface is9•n•1 s•tt• '•"�
Roof area(s) S 9 O 4 8
Impenriouss sidewalks, patios, paths, driveways, streets d�j � O 4
Impervious5 uncoveted parking'
Totals of Impervious Surfaces: �S'Y3(p a g9
I.B.1.f -Total Impervious Surface Replaced and Created (sum aftotats forcolumns I.B.1.c andLB.1.�:
Pre-Project
Pervious
Surface
Type of Pervious Surface (sq.ft.) •
Landscaping , ��
Pervious Paving � .
Green Roof � � �
Totals of Pervious Surfaces: //(o
Total Site Area (fotal Impervious+Total Pervious=l.A.1) /$ 3SY
5-� $0 10 57/ �
• o O �
i
s�e !0 57 ,
�
_ /� �7 �
Post-project �
Pervious
Surface
(Sq•�) '
Z83 '
/
d
]�
/S 3 SL
5 Per the MRP, pavement that meets the following definition of peNious pavement is NOT an inpervious surface. Pervious pavement is
defined as pavement that sto2s and infiltrates rainfal! at a rate equal to immediately surrounding unpaved, landscaped areas, or that stores
and infiltrates the rainfati runoft volume descnbed in Provision C.3.
6`Retained' means to leave existing impervious surfaces in place, unchanged; "Replaced' means to instal! new impervious surface where
existing impervious surface is removed anywhere on the same property; and'Created" means the amount of new impervious surface being
p�roposed which exceeds the total existing amount of impervious surface at the property.
Uncovered parking includes the top level of a parking strudura.
2 Finat Draft October 31, 2014
��8�2 RPe laced and Crea d in ceII1.B 1.f from Table 1.B.1rabove andlother(aCtors;Total Impervious Surface �
C.3 2nd C.6 Develapment P,evie�rr CheckGsf
Worksheet A
C6 — Construction Stormwater BMPs
Identify Plan sheet showing the appropriate construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) used on this project:
(Applies to all projecfs with earthwork)
Yes Plan Sheet Best Management Practice (BMP) _
� Confrol and prevent the discharge of all potential ponutanis, including pavement cutting
C,p �'LhNs wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, rinse
water from architecturai copper, and non-stormwaterdischarges to storm drains and
wafercourses.
� �{ Store, hand�e, and dispose of construction materialsfwasfes propedy to prevent contact with
stormwater.
� �� Do not clean, fuel, or maintain vehicies 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 ail storm drain inlets in vianity of site using sediment controls such as berms, fiber
roils or filters.
� �l Limit construction access routes and stabilize desiqnated access points.
� �( Attach the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's construction BMP
plan sheet to project plans and require contractor to implement fhe applicable BMPs on the
lan sheet.
� � � Use temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion
controls are established.
� Delineate with field markers clearing limits, easements, seibacks, sensifive or ai6cal areas,
buffer zones, trees, and draina e courses.
� Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the fo�owing:
• Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sed'unent controls, include
inspection frequency;
■ Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filGng, dearing of vegetation, and storage
and disposal of excavated or deared material;
■ Specifications for vegetative cover & mulch, include methods and schedules for pfanting
and fertifization;
• Provisions for temporary and/or permanent irrigation. �
� Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather.
❑ • Use sediment controis or filtration to remove sedimerit when dewatering and obtain afl
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�iles, ete.
� Divert on-site nmoff around exposed areas; divert off-s�e runoff around th� site (e.g., swales
and dikes) -
�Q G,U PG/fxS Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative
' buffer strips sediment barriers or filters dikes, mulchinq, or ofher measures as appropriate.
Final Draft Ocfober3l, 2014
C.3 and C.5 DevefLp,ment Revie:�✓ Checklist
Worksheet B
C3 - Source Controls
Select appropriate source controis and identify the detail/plan sheet where these e[ements are shown.
DetaiVPlan
Yes SheetNo.
� c� Pt�
� �!
�J N
� �/
❑
❑
❑
❑
.�
❑
❑
❑
❑
� c D pc�
❑
❑
Features that require
source controt measures
Storm Drain
Floor Drains
Parlcing garage
Landscaping
Food Service Equipment
(non-residentia�
Refuse Areas
�Outdoor Process Activi6es 9
Outdoor EquipmenU
Materials Storage
Vehicle/ Equipment
Cleaning
Vehicle/ Equipment Repair
and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire 5prinklers
Miscellaneous Drain or
Wash Water
Architectural Copper Rinse
Water
5ource Control Measures i
{Refer ,o Local Sou�ce Control List for detailed requirements)
Mark on-site inlets with the words'No Dumping! Flows to Bay" or equivaient.
Plumb interior floor dra;ns to sanitar,� sewere [or prohibit].
Plumb interior parking garage floa drains to sanitary sewer.e
■ Retain existing vegeiation as practicable.
• Select di�erse species 2ppropriate to the site. Include plants that are pest-
and/or disease-resistant, droughf-tolerant, andlor attract beneficial insects.
■ Minimize use of pesticides and quick-release fertilizers.
■ Use effiaent irriqation system• desiqn to minimize runoff.
Provide connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining.e
Provide sink or other area for equipment cleaning, which is:
■ Connected to a grease inferceptor prior to sanitary sewer discharge 8
■ Large enough for the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned.
• Indoors or in an outdoor roofed area designed to prevent stormwater run-on
and run-off and siqned to require equipment washinq in this area.
■ Provide a roofed and enclosedarea for dumpsters, recycling containers, etc.,
designed to prevent stormwate; run-on and runoff.
■ Conned any drains in or beneath dumpsters, compaotors� and tallow bin
areas serving food service faciGties to the sanitary sewer.
Perform process activities either mdoors or in roofed outdoor area, designed to
prevent stormwater run-ori and runoff, and to drain to the sanitary sewer.e
■ Cover the area or design to awid pollutant contact with stortnwater runoff.
■ Locate area only on paved and contained�areas.
■ Roof storage areas thatwill contain non-hazardous liquids, drain to sanitary
sewere and contain by bermsor similar.
• Roofed, pave and berm wash area to prevent stormwater run-on and n.inoff,
plumb to the sanitary sewer°, and sign as a designated wash area.
• Commercial car wash facilities shall discha e to the sanita sewer.°
■ Designate repair/maintenance area indoors, or an outdoo�s area designed to
prevent stormwater run-on and runofi and provide secondary containment.
Do not install drains in the secondary containmentareas.
■ No floor drains unless pretreated prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer,e
■ Connect containers or sinks used for arts deanin to the sanita sewer.°
■ Fuefing areas shall have impermeable 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 direetion from each pump and
drain awa from fuetin area.
• Cover and/or grade to min'imize run-on to and runofF from the loading area.
• Position downspouts to directstormwater away from the loading area.
• Drain water from loading dock areas to the sanftary sewer.°
■ Install d�or skirts between the trailers and the buildin .
Design for discharge of fire sprinkler test water to landscape or sanitary sewer.°
■ Drain condensate of air conditi�ning units to landscaping. Large air
conditioning units may conned to the sanitary sewer.°
• 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 wate� to landscaping, discharge to sanitary sewere, or collect and
disoose �ro�erlv offsite. See flver "Requirements for Architectural Copper.'
$ Any connection to the sanitary sewer system is subject to sanitary district approval.
9 Businesses that may have outdoor process activ�ies/equipment include machine shops, auto repair, industries with pretreatment faalities.
4 Finaf Draft October 31, 2014
C. 3 and C.6 Development Re��iev✓ Checklist
Worksheet C
Low impact Development — Site Design Measures
Select Appropriaie Site Design Measures (Required for C.3 Regulafed Projects; all other projects ar� encouraged fo
implement sife design measures, which may be r�quired at municipality discretion.) Projecfs thaf creafe and/or replace 2,500 —
10,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface, and sfand-alone single family homes that create/replace 2,500 sq.ft. or more of impervious
surface, must inc/ude one of Site Design Measures a fhrough f(Provision C.3.i requ�rements).'0 Larger projects must also
include applicable Sife Design Measures g through i. Consulf wrth municipal staff a6out requirements for your project.
Regulated Projects can also consider the foflowtng site design measures to reduce treatment system sizing:
Yes Pian Sheet Number
� G-f � L2.�
❑
❑
j. Self-treating area (see Section 4.2 of the C.3 Technical Guidance)
k. Seif-retaining area (see Section 4.3 of the C.3 Techniql Guidance)
I. Piant or preserve interceptor trees (Section 4.1, C.3 Technical Guidance)
lo See MRP Provision C.3.a.i.(6) for non-C.3 Regulated Projects, C.3.c.i.(2)(a) for Regulated Projects, C.3.f for projects that create/replace
2,500 to 10,000 sq.ft. of impervious surEace and stand-alone single fa5iy homes that createlreplaca 2,500 sq. Fr'rra! Draft OCtober31,u2014
Select appropriate site design measures and ldentify the Plan Sheet where these elements are shown.
C.3 and C.6 Developmenf Review Check!isf
Worksheet D
C3 Regulated Project - Stormwater Treatment Measures
Check all applicable boxes and indicate the treatment measure(s) inciuded in the proj°ct.
Attach W� sheet F
and Calculations
Attach Worksheet D-1
and Calculations
❑
Attach Plans showing
' system, connection to
' Recycled Water Line
� andlor Connection
' Approval Letter from
Sanitary District
❑
Attach worksheet D-2
and Calcuiations
Is the project a Special Project?"
If yes, consultwith municipal staff about the need to evzluate the feasibility and infeasibilit� of 100°/fl LID
treatment. Indicate the type of non-LID treatment to be used, the hydrauiic sizing method , 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 wit�ti Worksheet D-1)
% of C.3.d amount
Non-LID Treatment Measures: Hvdraulic sizinq meihod'Z of runoff treated
%
❑ Media filter � ❑2.a �2.b �2.c
❑ Tree well filter ❑2.a . ❑2.b �2.c
It is feasible to treat the C.3.d amount of runoff using infiltration?
lndicate the infi(tration measures to be used, and hydraulic sizing method:
infiltration Measures: �draulic sizina method�Z
❑ Bioinfiltration13 � ❑1.a ❑1.b �2.c❑3
❑ fnfiltration trench ❑1.a ❑1.b
`� Other(specify): /NF/G%2�%"/b%�
' �[,.4,r�T,�/L �C3 o x
Is the project insfaqing and using a recycled water plumbing system for non-potable wafer use and the
installation of a second non-potabie water system for harvested rainwater is impracfical, and considered
infeasible due to cost considerations? If yes, check the box below and skip ahead to worksheet D-3
(fhere is no need for further evafuation of Rainwater harvesting/use.)
Recvcled Water Measure:
❑ Recycled Water System for non-potabie water use will be installed and used.
It is feasible to treat the C.3.d amount of runoff using rainwater harvesting/use?
Rainwater Harvestinq/Use Measures: Hydraulic sizinv method12
❑ Rainwater Harvesting for indoor non-potable water use ❑1.a ❑1.b
❑ Rainwater Harvesting for landscape irrigation use
.a ❑1.b
❑
Attach
Worksheets D-1 and
D-2 and Calcutations
It is infeasible to treat the C.3.d amount of runoff using either infiltra6on or rainwater harvesfing/use?
Indicate the biotreatment measures to be used, and the hydraulic si2ing method:
Biotreatment Measures:
❑ Bioretention area
❑ Flow-through planter
�draulic sizinq method�Z
❑2.c ❑3
❑2.c ❑3
❑ Other (specify):
q copy of the long term Operations and Maintenance (O�M) Agreement and Plan for this project wilt be required. Please
contact the NPDES Representative of the appiicable municipality for an agreement ternplate and consult the C.3 Technical
Guidance at www.flowsfobay.orq for maintenance plan tempfates for specific facility types.
�� Speciai Projects are smad growth, high density, or transit-oriented developmenfs with the criteria defined in Provision C.3.e.ii.(2), (3) or (4)
�see Warksheet �.
Z lndicate which of the following Provision C.3.d.i hydrauiic sizing methods were used. Volurne based approaches; 1(a) Urban Runoff
Quafity Management approach, or 1(b) 80% capturN approach (recommended volume-based approach). Ffow-based approaches: 2(a)10%
of 50-year peak fiow approach, 2(b) 2 times the 85 percentile rainfall intensity approach, or2(c) 0.2-lnch-per-hour intens'rty approach
Srecommended flow-based approach). Combination flow and wlume-based aaproach: 3.
j See Section 6.1 of the C.3 Technical Guidance for conditions in which bioretention areas provide bioinfittration.
6 FinalDraft October3l, 2014
C_3 and C.6 Development Revieri Checklisf
Worksheet D-1
Feasibility of Infiltration
D-1.0 Infiltration Potential. Based on site-specific soil report14, do site soils eiiher:
a. Have a saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) less then 1.6 inchesmour}, OR, if the Ksat
rate is not available:
b. Consist of Type C or D soils?
➢!f Yes, infilfra6on is nof feasible — skip to D-1.9 below.
➢!t No, complete fhe lnfiltrafion Feasibili[y checklisf 6elow.•
Evatuate infiltration feasibility:
D-1.1 Would infiltration facifities�s at this site conflict with the location of existing or proposed
underground utiliGes or easements, or would the siting of infiltration facilities at this site resuli
in ttieir piacement on top of underground uti�ities, or otherwise oriented to underground
ufilfties, such that they would discharge to the utility trench, restrict access, or cause stabifity
concems? (If yes, attach evidence documenting this condition.) �
D-1.2
D-1.3
D-1.4
Is there a documented concem that there is a potentfal on the site for soil or groundwaier
poltutants to be mobil'¢ed? {If yes, attach documentation of mobilization concerns.)
Are geotechnical hazards present, such as steep slo�es, areas with landstide potential, soiis
subject to liquefaction, or would an infiltration facility ° need to be built 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 local�water district or other agenc�s policies or guidelines regarding the IocaUons where
infiltration may occur, the separation from seasonai high �roundwater, orsstbadcs from
potential sources of poilution, prevent infiltration devices' from being implernented at this
site? (If yes, attach evidence documenting this condition.)
D-1.5 Would construction of an infiltretion device10 require that it be located less 6�an 100 feet
away ftom a septic tank, underground storage tank with hazardous materials, or other
potential urtderground source of pollution? (If yes, attach evidence documen6ng this claim.)
D-1.6 Is there a seasonal high groundwater table or mounded groundwater thai would be within 10
feet of the base of an infiltration device10 constructed on the site? (If yes, attach
documentation of high groundwater.) .
D-1.7 Are there land uses that pose a high threat to water qualit}r — induding but not limited to
industrial and light industrial activities, high vehicular traffic (.e., 25,000 or greater average
daily traffic on a main roadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic on any intersecting
roadway), automotive repair shops, car washes, fleet storage areas, or nu rseries? (lf yes,
attach evidence documenting fhis claim.)
�-1 •8 Is there a groundwater production wetl within 100 feet of the location where an infiltraiion
device10 would be constructed? Qf yes, attach map showing the well.)
Results of Feasibility Determtnation
D-1,9 lnfiltration is Infeasible?
(If any answer to questions D-1.1 thru D-1.8 is °Yes° then Infiftration is Infeasible.)
Continue to Worksheet D-2.
Infilirafion is Feasible?
Do notfill outworksheet D-2.
Con6nue to Worksheet D-3.
Yes No
� o
� �
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
� ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
� �
��'■I
14 If no site-specfic soil report is available, refer to soil hydraulic conductiviry maps in C.3 Technical Guidance Appendix I.
ls For mote infortnation on infi{tration fadlities and devices, see Appe � ix E of the SMCWPPP C3TG HandbooFiRaf Dfaft OCfober3l, 2094
�.3 and C.5 Ce�elopment Review Checklisf
Worksheet D-2
Feasibility of Rainwater Harvesting and Use
D-2.1 Potential Rainwater Capture Area
a. Enter the total square footage of impervious surface for this site from Table I.B.t
(Total Created and Replaced Impervious Surface from I.B.1.fl
b
c.
If the existing impervious surface to be replaced (total from Column 1.6.1.c in Table I.B.1)
is 50% or more of the pre-project impervious surface (tofal from Column I.B.1.a in Table
�.g,1), then enter the post-project impervious surface (total from Cotumn l.8.1.e in Table
I,B,1) in D-2.'I.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 io acres
(divide by 43,560}.
This is the projed's Potential Rainwater Capture Area, in acres.
p_2.2 Feasibility of Landscape lrrigation:
a. Enter area of posf-project onsife landscaping (see Column I.B.1.e in Table I.B.1)
b. Multipty the Potenfiai Rainwater Capture Area above (D-2.1.c) by times 3.2.
� D S 'Sq. ft.
� Sq. ft.
!i _ 2 Acres
D - d �o Acres
� Acres
c. Is the amount in D-2,2.a (onsite landscaping) LESS than the amount in D-22.b (the producf
of 3.2 times the size of the Potential Rainwater Capture Area)t6�
➢ If Yes, confinue fo D-2.3.
➢!f No, there are two opGons:
' 1. !f may be possib/e to meet the freafinent requirements by �rec6ng runoff
from impervious areas fo self-rvtaining areas (see Sec6on 4.3 offhe C.3
Technical Guidance).
2. It may be possible use fhe C.3. d amounf of rvnoff for rrriga6on. Refer to Table
11 and the curoes in Appendix F of the LfD Feasibifify Report fo evaluafe
feasibDity of harves6ng and using fhe C.3.d amount of runotf for irriga6on.
Compfefe tlte calculafions and atfach fo fhis worksheet !f feasib/e fhaf
completes Woricsheet D-2 and you may move on to Worlcsheet D-3.
� Yes ❑ No
D-2.3 Feasibility Indoor Non-Potable Uses7 (check fhe box forthe applica6le projectfype, then fr!! in Bre requesfed
informa6on and answerthe quesfion}:
❑ a. Residential Project
Number of dwelling units (total post-project):
Divide the amount in () by Potential Rainwater Capture Area (D-2.1.c):
Is the amount in (i) LESS than 1247
❑ b. Commercial Project
Floor area (total interior post-project square footage):
Divide u�e amount in (� by Potential Rainwater Capture Area (D-2.'I.c):
Is the amount in �i) LESS than 84,000?
p c. School Project
Floor area (total interior post-project square footage):
Divide the amount in (i) by Potential Rainwater Capture Area (D-2.1.c):
Is the amount in (ii) LESS than 27,000?
Units
Du/ac
❑ Yes ❑ No
v3, S6 o sq.�.
� Sq.ftJac
❑ Yes '� No
Sq.ft.
Sq.ftJac
❑ Yes ❑ No
�s Landscape areas must be contiguous and within the same Drainage Management Area to iRigate with harvested rainwater vla gravity flow.
�� Ralnwater harvested for indoor use is typically used for toilet/urinal�ushing, industrial processes, or other n Final Draft OCto6er 31, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Develcpmen"r Revie;v Checklist
❑ d. Industrial Project
i. Estimated demand �or nor-potable water (galions/day):
ii. Is the amount in (ij LESS than 2,900?
❑ e. Mir.ed-Use Residential/Commerciai Project18
i. Number of residenkial dwelling units and commercial floor
area:
ii. Percentage of total interior pcst-project Floor area serving
each activity:
iii. Prorated Potential Rainwafer Capture Area per activity
(multiply amount in D-2.1.c by the percentages in [i]):
iv. Prorated project demand per impervious area (divide the
amounts in [] by the amounts in [iiJ): �
Gal./day
❑ Yes ❑ No
Residenfiel Commercial
Units SQ•�-
o�a
Acres
Du1ac
%
Acres
v. is the amount in (iv) in the residential column (ess than 124, AND is the amount
in the commercial column less than 84,000? ❑ Yes ❑ No
D Jf you checked "Yes" forthe above question forthe applicable projecf fype, rainwaterharvesting forindooruse is
considered infeasible for that buildinq. lf there is only one building on fhe sife you are done with this worksheef. If fhere
is more than one building on the site, for each fhaf has an individuaf roo/' area of 10,000 sq. ff. ormora, complefe
Sec6ons D-2.2 and D-2.3 of fhis form for each buildrng, Con6nue fo D-2.4 if a 7Vo' is checked for any 6uilding.
➢!f you checked "No' for the quesfion appiica6le to the type of project rainwater harvesting forindoor use may be
feasible. Confinue to D-2.4:
Sq.fUac
D-2.4 Project Information �
"- See definitions in Glossary (Attachment 1)
4.1
42
4.3
ProjedType: G�M�F���- If residential or mixed use, enter# of dwe[ling units:
Enter square footage of non-residential interior floor area:
Total area being evaluated (entire project or indvidual roof with an area > 10,000 sq.ft.}:
4.4 If it is a spectal Project•, indicate the percentage of uo treatment• reduction: percent
(ltem 4.4 app�es only to enfire pro%eci evaluaSons, not ind'nriduaf rvof area evaluafians.)
4.5 Total area being evaluated, adjusted for Special Project LID treatment reductioncr�t: /S�� 3S"Y sq.ft.
(This fs the fofa! area being eva/uafed that requir�s UD treatment.)
D-2.5 Calculate Area of Self-Treating Areas, Self-Retaining Areas, and Areas Confributing io Self-Retaining Areas.
�.� Enter square footage of any self-treat�ng areas• in the area that is being evaluated: f 9-¢� sq.ft.
52
rv3, 56�
T
5.3
5.4
Enter square footage of any seit retatntng areas• in the area that is being evaluated:
Enter the square footage of areas contributing runoff to se�!-�etaining area•:
TOTAL of Items 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3:
�S 3S'Y_sq.ft.
sq.ft
sq.ft.
'��' sq.ft.
D•2.6 Subtract credit for self•treatinglself-retaining areas from area requiring treatrnen�
s � Subtract the TOTAL in Item 5.4 ftom the area being evaivated (Item 4.5). This is th e potenttal
ratnwater capture area'.
6.2 Convert the potential rainwater capture area (item 6.1) from square feet to acres,
D-2.7 Determine feasibility of use for toilet flushing based on demand
� 3 g o � SQ.�.
O • 3 � acres
18 For a mixed-use project involving activities other than residential and commercial activities, follow the steps for residenGaUcommerclat
mixed-use projects. Prorate the Potential Rainwater Capture Area for each activity based onthe percentage oi the project senring each
arl'vitv_
9
Final Draft October3l, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist
ProjecYs dwelling �nits per acre of po!ential rzinµ�ater capture 2rea (Divide the n�r�ber in 4.1 by
��� the number in 6.2).
7.2 Non-residential interior floor area per acre of potertial rain capture area (Divide the number in 4.2
by the number in 6.2).
Note: formulas in /tems 7.1 and 7.2 are set up, respective!y, for a residenfia! or a non-residenfial project. Do
nof use fhese p�e-sei formulas tormixed use projeds. For mixed use projecfs', evaluate the residenfia!
toi/ei flushing demand based on the dwelling units per acre `or the residential portion ot the project (use a
prorated acreage, 6ased on the peroentage of fhe project dedicated to residentral use). Then evaluate the
commer�ial toi/et flushing demand per acre for the commercial portion of the project (use a prorated acreage,
based on the percenfage of the projecf dediceted to commercia! useJ.
Refer to the applicable countywide table in Attachment 2. Identify the number of dweiling units
� 3 per impervious acre needed in your Rain Gauge Area to provide the toilet flushing demand
required for rairnvater harvest feasibility.
Refer to the applicable countywide iable in Attachment 2. Identify the square feetof non-
� 4 residential interior floor area per impervious acre needed in your Rain Gauge Area to provide the
toilet flushing demand required for rainwater harvest feasibility.
dwelling
uni',s/acre
Int. non-
res. floor
(0 0 O a arealacre
dwelling
% 3 0 0 ti units/acre
int. non-
res. floor
arealacre
Check "Yes° or7Vo"fo indicafe whetherthe foiJowing condrtions apply. !f'Yes'is checkedforany quesBon, then rainwaterharves6ng and
use is infeasible. As soon as you answer "Yes ; you can skip to Item D-2.9. If No" is checked for al! ifems, fhen rainwaferharves6ng and
use is feasible and you must harvesf and use fhe C.3.d amount of stormwafer, unless you infilfrate the C.3.d amourtt of sformwater'.
7.5
�
Is the projecYs number of dweliing units per acre of potential rainwater capture area (listed in Item
7.1) LESS than the number identified in Item 7.3?
Is the projecYs square footage of non-residential interior floor area per acre of potential rainwater
capture area (listed in Item 7.2) LESS than the number identified in Item 7.4?
D-2.8 Determine feasibitity of rainwater harvesting and use based on factors other than demand.
a•� D�es the requirement for rainwater harvesting and use at the project conflict with local, state, or
federal ordinances or building codes?
❑ �
❑ Y�
❑ tt+
���
❑ �
❑ Yes
Would the technical requirements cause the harvesting system to exceed 2% of the Totat Project
Cost•, or has the appiicant documented economic hardship in relation to maintenance costs? (If so,
8.2 attach an explanation.)
❑ 1Ces
8.3 Do constraints, such as a slope above 10% or lack of available space at the site, make it infeasible ❑ Yg
to locate on the site a cistem of adequate size to harvest and use the C.3.d amount of wate�t (If so,
attach an explanation.)
❑ Yrs
8.4 Are there geotechnicaUstability concems related to the surface (roof or groun� where a cistern
would be located that make the use of rainwater harvesting infeasibie? (If so, attach an
• explanation.)
8.5 Does the location of utilities, a septic system and/or Heritage Trees* limil the placement of a cistem
on the site to the extent that rainwater harvesting is infeasible7 (if so, attach an explanaiion.)
❑ �
❑ �
❑ �
❑ �
❑ �
Nofe: /f is assumed thaf projecfs with signfficant amounts of landscaping will either treat runoff with landscape dispersal(se/f-treafing and
seff-reiaining areas) orwilf evaluate the feasibility of harvesting and usrng rainwater for irriga6on using the curves in Append'nc F of fhe LID
Feasibili(y Reporf.
•- See definitions in Glossary (Attachment 1)
10 Final Draff Ocfober3l, 2014
C_ 3 and C.6 Gevelopment Revie�v Checklist �
D-2.9 Results of Feasibility Determination
a
Based on the results of the feasibility analysis in Items 7.5, 7.6 and Section D•2.8, rainw2ter
harvesting/use is (check one):
Infeasible
�
Feasible
�❑
-� If "FEASlBLE"is indicafed forlfem D-2.9.a fhe amount o(sformwaterrequiring freafinent must 6e freated with harvesfing/use, unless
it is infiltrafed info the soil.
-� If "INFEASlBLE"is checked forltem D-2.9.a, then the applicantmay use appropriafety designed bforefention'facilifies ('see
definitions in Glossary—Atfachment 1) forcompliance wifh C.3 treatment requiremenis. (f Ksat> 1.6 infir., and infrlfration is
unimpeded by subsurface condifions, then fhe bioretenfion facilifies are predicfed fo tnfiftrafe 80% ormore average annual runoff. If
Ksat < 1.6, maximrze infiltration of stormwafer by using biorefeniion if sife condifions a(low, and remarning runoff wilf 6e discharged fo
storm drains via facility underdrains. !f site conditions preclude infiffration, a lined bioreten6on area or flow-fhrough planter may be
used.
�
11
Final Draft Ocfo6er31, 2014
G 3 ard C.6 Devefcpment Review Checklist
Worksheet E
Hydromodification Management
E-1
E-1.1
E-1.2
E-1.3
Is the project a Hydromodifica:ion Managementt9 (HM) Project?
Is the total impervious area increased over the pre-projzct condition?
❑ Yes. Continue to E-1.2
❑ No. The proiect is NOT reQuired to incorqorate HM Measur2s.
Go to ltem E-1.4 and check'No."
Is the site located in an HM Cont�ol Area per the HM Control Areas map (Appendix H of the C.3 Technical Guidance)?
❑ Yes. C�ntinue to E-1.3
❑ No. Attach map, indicating project location: The ro'ect is NOT re uired to incor orate HM Measures.
Skip to Item E-1.4 and check "tJo.'
Has an engineer or qualified environmental professional determined that runoff from the project flows only through a
hardened channel or enclosed pipe along its entire length before emptying inta a watenrray in the exempt area?
❑ Yes. Attach map of facifity. Go to Item E-1.4 and check °Yes ° �
❑ No. Atfach map, indicating project location. The proiect is NOT reauired to incorporate HM Measures.
Skip to Item E-1.4 and check "No.'
E-1.4 Is the project a Hydromodification Management Project?
,❑ Yes. The project is subject fo HM requi�ements in Provision C.3.g of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.
❑ No. The project is EXEMPT from HM requirements.
D If the project is subject to the HM requirements, incorporate in the projectflow duration control measures designed
such that post-project discharge rates and durations match pre-project discharge rates and durations.
�
E-2
D The Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) has been developed to help sizeflow duration controls. See
www baYareahvdroloavmodel.ora. Guidance is provided in Chapter7 ofthe C.3 Technical Guidance.
Incorporate HM Controis (if required)
Are the appficable items provided with the Plans?
'es No NA
❑ ❑ ❑
Site pians with pre- and post-project impervious surface areas, surFace now airec�ions or
enfire site, loca6ons of flow duration controis and site design measures per HM site
design requirement '
� Soils report or other site-specific document showing soil
on site
■ ■
/drology Model (BAHM), a list of model inputs and outputs.
� � ❑ If project uses custom modeling, a summary of the modeling caicu[ations with
corresponding graph showing curve matching (exisGng, post-project, and post-project
with HM controls curves), goodness of fif, and (afiowable)1ow flow rate.
❑ � � If project uses the Bay Area
� � ❑ If project uses the lmpracficability Provisian, a listing oi a11 applicadie costs ana a one�
description of the alternative HM project (name, location, date of start up, entity
responsible for maintenance}.
� ❑ ❑ tf the project uses altematives to the default BAHM approach or senings, a wnaen
description and rationale.
79 Hydromodification is the change in a site's runoff hydrograph, induding inaeases in flows and durations that results when land is developed
(made more impervious). The effects of hydranodification indude, but are not limited to, inaeased bed and bank erosion of rece'�ving streams,
loss of habitat, increased sediment transport andlor deposition, and increased flooding. Hydrornod�cation contro! measures are designed to
reduce these effeds. 12 Final Draft October3l, 2014
C.3 and C.6 De�ielopmenf ,4eview Check!isf
Worksheet F
Special Projects
Complete fhis worksheet for projects thaf appear to meet the definition of °Special Project'; per Provision C.3.e.ii cf the Municipal
Regional Sformwater Permit (MRP). The form assisfs rn determining whether a project meefs Special Projecf criteria, and fhe
percenfage of !ow impact developmenf (LID) treatment reducfion credif. Specia/ Piojects that implemenf Iess than 100% LID
treatment must provide a narrative discussion of fhe feasibility or infeasibility of t OC% L!D treatmenf. See Appendix J of tAe C.3
Technical Guidance Nandbook (download at w�nnv.flowstobay.orq) for more information.
F.1 "Special ProjecY' Determination (Check tf�e boxes to determine if fhe pro%ecf ineets any of the fol(owing categories.)
Special Proiect Cateqory "A"
Does the project have ALL of the following characteristics?
❑ Located in a municipality's designated central business district, downtown core area or downtown core zoning district,
neighborhood business district or comparable pedestrian-oriented commercial district, or historic preserva6on site
and/or district20;
❑ Creates and/or replaces 0.5 acres or less of impervious surface;
❑ lncludes no surface parking, except for incidental parking for emergentyvehicle access, ADA access, and passenger
or freight loading zones;
❑ Has at least 85% coverage of the entire site by permanent structures. The remaining 15% po�ion of the site may be
used for safety access, parking sfructure entrances, trash and recycling service, uGlity access, pedestrian connections,
public uses, landscaping and stormwater treatment.
❑ No (confinue)
❑ Yes — Complete SecBon F.2 below
Special Proiect Cateqory °B"
Does fhe project have ALl of the following characteristics?
❑ Located in a muniapality's designated central business district, dowr�fown core area or downtown core zoning district,
neighborhood business district or comparable pedestrian-oriented comrnercial district, or historic preservation site
and/or district2D;
❑ Creates and/or replaces an area of impervious surface that is greater than 0.5 acxes, and no more than 2.0 acres;
❑ Inolndes no surface parking, except for incidental parking for emergency access, ADA access, and passenger or
freight loading zones;
O Has at least 85% coverage of the entire site by permanent structurea The remaining 15% portion of the site may be
used for safety access, parking structure entrances, trash and recyding service, utility access, pedestrian connections,
pubfic uses, landscaping and stormwater treatmenh,
❑ Minimum density of either 50 dwelling units per acre (for residential projects) or a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2;1 (for
commeraai or mixed use projecfs)
❑ No (continue)
❑ Yes — Complete Section F-2 below
Soeaal Proiect Category °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 transii hub� or 100%within a planned
Priority Development Area�; •
❑ The project is characterized as a non-auto-retated use23; and
❑ Minimum density of either 25 dwelfing units per acre (for residential proJects) or a Ffoor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2:1 (for
commercial or mixed use projects)
❑ No (coniinue)
❑ Yes — Complete Section F-2 below
20 And built as pad of a municipality's stated objective to preserve/enhance a pedestrian-oriented type of urban design.
Z� "Transit hub' is defined as a rail, light rail, or commuter reiI station, ferry terminal, or 6us tran sier station served by three or more bus routes. (A
bus stop with no suppotting services does not qualify.)
� A"planned Priority Development Area" is an Infill development area formally designated by the Association oi Bay Area GovernmenYs /
Metropolitan Ttansportation Commission's FOCUS regional pfanning program.
� Category C specificalty excludes stand-alone surface parking lots; car dealerships; auto and truck rental faafities with onsite surface storage; fast-
food restaurants, banks or phartnacies with drive-through lanes; gas stations; car washes; a¢to repair and service facilities; or other auto-related
project unrelated to the concept of transit oriented development
• 13 Final Dra(f October 31, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Developmeni Re�fiew Checklisf
F.2 LID Treatment Reduction Credit Calculation
(If more fhan one category applies, choose or,ly one of the applica6!e categories ard fill o��t !he fa6le for fhat cate�ory.)
Category Impervious Area Site Project DensitylCriteria Allowable Applied
Created/Repiaced Coverage Density or Credit Credit
(sq, ft.) (%) FAR (%) (°/a)
A NA. N.A. 100%
B Res 2 50 DU/ac or FAR >_ 2:1 �0%
Res z 75 DU/ac a FAR Z 3:1 75%
Res Z 1 �0 DU/ac or FAR >_ 4:1 100%.
C Location credit (select one)20:
Wtthin %. mile of transit hub 50%
• Within Y: m1e of hansithub 25%�_ �
. Within a planned PDA 25% �'
Densitycredit(selectone): •
Res z 30 DU/ac or FAR Z 2:l . 10%
Res z 60 DU/ac a FAR Z 4:1 20%
� Res Z 104 DU/acor FAR ? 6:1 30%
Park3ng credit (seiect one):
510% at-grade surface parking25 1 D%
. . No surface parking Z�°�o
. TOTAL TOD CREDIT =
F.3 Narrative Discussion of the Feasi6ility/lnfeasibility of 100% LID Treatment:
if project will implement less than 100% LID, prepare a discussion of the feasibilityor infeasibility of 1Q0% LID treatment, as
described in Appendix K of the C.3 Technical Guidance.
F.4 Select Certified Non-UD Treatment Measures:
lf the project will inciude non-LID treatment measures, select a treatment measure certified for'Basic' General Use Level
Designa6�n (GULD) by the Washington State Department of Ecolog�s Technical Assessment Protocol — Ecology (fAP�.
Guidance is provided in Appendix K of the C.3 Technical Guidance (download at w�nrw.flowstobay.orQ)26
24 To quafify for the location credit, at least 50% of the projecPs site must be located within 1he % mile or'/: mile radius of an exis!ing or planned
transt hub, as defined on page 1, footnote 2 A planned transit hub is a station on the MTC's Regional Transit Fxpansion Program list, per MTC's
Resolution 3434 (revised April 2006), which is a regional priority funding plan for future transit statiorts in the San Frandsco Bay Area. To qualify for
the PDA locafron credit,100% of the projed site must be located within a PDA, as defined on page 1, footnote 3.
ZS The at�rade surface parking must be treated wfth lID treatment measures.
Z6 TAPE certification is used in order to satisfy 5pecial ProjecPs repo;�g requirements in the MRP. Final Dra(t OCtobef 31, 2014
C. 3 and C.6 Gevelopmenf Re✓ietiv Checklisf
Worksheet G
(For municipal staff use only)
G-1 Alternative Certification: Were the freatment andfor HPA control sizing and design revie:red by a quaiified third-party
professional that is not a member of the project team or agency staff?
❑ Yes ❑ No Name of Reviewer
G-2 High Priority Site: High Priority Sites can include those tocated in or within 100 feet of a sensitive habifat, Area of Special
Biological Significance (ASBS}, body of water, or on sites with slopes (subject to rnonthly inspections from Oct 1 to April
30.)
❑ Yes ❑ No tf yes, then add site io Staff's Monthly Rainy Season Construction Site lnspection List
Operations and Maintenance {O&M) Submittals
G-3 Stormwater Treatment Measure andlHM Control Owner or Operators Information:
Name:
Phone: Email:
➢ Applicant must ca11 for rnspecfion and recenre inspec6on within 45 days of installafion of treafinent measur�s and/or
hydromodification managemenf controls, .
The foJlowing ques6ons apply to C.3 Regu/ated Projecfs and Hydromodi�cation Management Projecfs.
- . Yes No N/A
- G-3.1 Was maintenance plan submitted? ❑ ❑ ❑
_ .. G-3.2 Was maintenance plan approved? ❑ ❑ ❑
G-3.3 Was maintenance agreement submifted? (Date executed: 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
;. ➢ Affach the executed mainfenance agreemenf as an appendix to this checkGsf.
G-4 Annual Operations and Maintenance (0&M) Submittals (for municipal staif use only):
ForC.3 Regufafed Projects and Hydromodi6caSon Managemenf Projecfs, in�cafe fhe dates on which the Applicanf
submitted annual reporfs forprojecf O&M:
G-5 Comments (for municipal staff use only):
G-fi NOTES (for municipal staff use only):
Section i Notes:
WorksheetA Notes:
Worksheet B Notes:
Woricsheet C Notes:
Worksheet D-1 Notes:
Worksheet D-2 Notes:
15 Finaf Draff Ocfo6er31, 2014
C.3 and C.6 Ge•✓elopmenf Revie:v Checklist
Worksheet E Notes:
Worksheet F Notes:
�
G-7 Project Close-Out (for municipal staff use only):
7.1 Were fnal Conditions of Approval met?
7.2 Was initiai inspection of the completed trea4ment/HM measure(s) conducted?
(Date of inspection: 1
7.3 Was maintenance plan submitted?
(Date executed: )
7.4 Was project informafion provided to staff responsible for 0&M verification inspections7
•(Date provided to inspection staff: )
Yes No NA
❑ �
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ - ❑
a ❑� ❑
G-8 Project Close-Out (Continued --formunicipal staff use only}:
Name of staff confirming p�oject is closed out:
Signa2ure: Date: '
Name of 0&M staff receiving information: +
Signature: Date: �
� .
i6
FinalDraftOcfo6er31, 2094
i
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
March 16, 2015
'�Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
� Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 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. On the survey or site plan, please show where the stormwater runoff is currently being
�� 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
��� % Myrtle Road.
3. 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.
'4. Will the 5-car stacker be designated for public use or be assigned parking spaces for the
�- commercial or retail tenants?
5. 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.
�J6,� 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
�a��C��D a�o Q��OOC�� °.�f��9 ��]C�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
cunently directed. It is all sheet flow from the site and ultirnately collected at the
northerly corner of the property on Myrt1e. The connection of the existing catch basin is
unlrnown.
2. Per our discussion you would like us to submit a total fixture units calculations for the
proposed project to determine if a sewer analysis report will be required. Please see
enclosed calculations.
3. I understand that there is no public parldng 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-l. The 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. Sidewa.lk 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,
• � �
VergeI P. Ga1
965 CENTER STREET • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 •(650) 593-8580 • FAX (650) 593-8675
Project Comments
Date:
To:
March 16, 2015
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
� Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 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
Staff 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
,�:� ��
��
�'�� Date:3-26-15
�
Project Comments
Date: April 13, 2015
To: � Engineering Division � Fire Division
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600
X Building Division 0 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
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
\
�� Project Comments
�
Date:
To:
From:
March 16, 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
0 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 httq://www.enerqv.ca.gov/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 to
weekdays and non-City Holidays between 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 specifically 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 leqend 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 �
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 line 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 construction 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, temporary 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 protecrion of life and property during construcrion 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 Safetv 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
minimum 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 provided
39)Provide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms
40)Provide complete, dimensioned details for accessible 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 —
Interpretive Regu/ation 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
Ip ans•
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
page 1 of 4
Burlingame Planning Commission
Burlingame City Hall
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
June 6, 2015
; COMrL1UNICATIONRECEIVED
N AFTE� PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
��CE�V�D
�� �
Honorable Chair DeMartini and fellow Planning Commissioners: '�_: `�'��' ;` ;���`�,~;��'-
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 defnes
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 understanding that a traffic .rtudy svill be conducted on thi.r
project, .ro I �von't rva.rte time or .rpace addre.r.cing thi.r topic.
SCALE:
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
06.08.15 PC Meeting
Item 9d
988 Howard Avenue
page 2 of 4
_ �., .� � : � ���.� ��;t.� �,�i t;U
AFTFR PRI�P-iR_97'ION
:T
����� V ��
Avenue end of Myrtle that is approximately 47 ft. tall and built with huge frant -_ -,_;;�`_,,., _.,..
and side setbacks containing extensive landscaping and an enarmous terrace-- ��,��, -
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
�
Received After
06.08.15 PC Meeting
Item 9d
988 Howard Avenue
page 3 of 4
- --_ _-- - - - _
� � U.tllllv'�VIC,�TION I21:C��:/��L)
�' AFTER PREPARfl "110N
nF ST.4FF REPORT
..�_-___,..._�.�_
����� � ��
�uN — � zo15
happening there: because of the deck construction, the setback on Howard�' �^ gURLINGr�ME
��� �� �: r.,i >,i � r,�� �`= ; �.; �, �
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 offce 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 killing 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
artificially 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 (Page 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
3
Received Aiter
06.08.15 PC Meeting
Item 9d
988 Howard Avenue
page 4 of 4
�.'Ulll��l U.� 1 C'�I Ti UN KL'C'L�1 VED
AFTF_R PREP.ARA7ION
� M � OI' STM�FF R�PORT �_4
��CEIVED
JUN - 8 2015
the only structure on this block of Howard and certainly cannot be confused
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 stril�ng 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 comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Avenue
(proud Eastsider since 1988)
cc: Catherine Barber, Kevin Gardiner
4
BURLINGr�MF
�J:.._�.- i:��.
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 yuantify 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. [ 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
'�J
CITY OF Bi:RLi�,��;s�,"~
� DD-P�ANNIi�;G Di'.r:
. . „� t�.�iO'���
��� �' �
.//�
•�+� ��
�" � - —
� r, ;
.. �,,:x
. .._��i
:..�,� . • , ' �
� .j �'-jL.y'I�. ..M�-y� .
. ��' , i , �' .
�:� , �� �%+ I `, � t T .
� �.K� �l�y- .a� � i�. '�
� f.
:��'.. v.�/ ''i1V .'�,• •
�a • , �'A`-
, :,..� ;r�•.,.•.
' � N. "
� . ,
. �
':.:
- � �T' .
.. . �...� .. . �•i•• .. _.
... - � � .. ,'� ,
�d
-\�,� / �\ ' �'
s� _— �� ` . _ �
`" - - `��If ` 5 � f
��-�_ , � ` i� .,l�'� _
���•/��
, -�� t :;r
/ � ,� :� � �:
�� �.� i �. , _ � �. �
-- - ,���: _ � � . I'
� . I: - ?�, I :��I
i� - - •
� ��� ��:
�
�
�
� � �� �
��a�. � � ,���
� �a e�
.�. �, . ��� ,
_ ,.,
.
�-�
.
�
�
� f ' �, ,
`r
��� }
.+
�l
+� ' '
��V..�., •��
�p�: +�; .a�
r��. � .
��
' , �� � �� '�
� ' �s
+ _ � t.
• ,� �. ~��
j:;.� ) �
s :i' �' ,� � � _r::_
�� � ;�, . .8"" �
�:., V.....'
- �4 .
• : :� ..
\ e�.l _
. ♦ ,Iti
�:
f �, �,r� 3 ��� � �
�: �
� � '
y' f{ ' :
_ =+� t�— —� �
���. �}
. .. .: � ft'� -. . . . .. � . .
0
..� .� .
f'
f �
i ' �. ,
� _- � e
r. _
t..�i. �. ��
i
, f .y
4 :.
}A -fR� . .yr{ _� � J':
-' 4 s\
,
� + t� �� . . :<da �
� � - �� � o
� ! f��� ' �
r� 'r�t � �`�'"� �_
V *' `
� { , �� ,�: ,�
I - _ __ : �S: — -
� ���� ��:` - ,
T _ 1 �'� $_ -_._..�:w- �
_.. . - . _.. = .,� -.-�i _
� � � � �'".,� � ,'�,:� ' ' :� ; . = - s
� . _ �.�-
`�
� ` 4 �� ��
� '� 1 � �
`� �
��, ��
�� �� ^ �
,ti�`F `j ��� � t �t .
e .1� � �.� ��� • .
: ., ' '{�r:: �' "���\ j � ;.+[, ` y
� .i ^' ;', `y�.� �.y �i1,'f�i.i.. �•1 �I
' �'; ��:3i : • •� '.�, my
�'\', � J � � N + �
�fl.� ' ��iF•'• �.�''�.v�`. :.
Y��.����'��� � �fa"s�
� Su.•.i ��. (: ,.{ 3'
.�
11,r:. ' • i ��4 4 �
y� ;.��� •
�"-.
3 �" � ��
C . , � �` :
� '
r�' i
! �
' '� t� - .
�
r
��
1-.
--�_
c , ���,�F1��t !
905
Sunnyval�
� � 7
� _. _�
� ,, _ 7
, _ _
_ ,
------ ----- �_ - - - - �---- '�=� -- � ---`-"
�`:.
�
��',:
i�
.�
�
�� r - -- -
--,
. _ . �
��
r
4; �•. \
r��1 ' ._
� -'.�, '���
�. ,
��
�-:
! .;'�
� j , `�.�_��
r, � �_
� �1,� f,<{ ,; r„�� � �, ,
� ` � ,_
' ]6 ��/fF ,�iar ;•
>Oi d�"�4,4 # ��lYJI "r l� � : I .. .
"�. k � � °l� ei�Zi� �� i .,�'
'Sy��" $' i91 �� '�' .� .
��t"�.1�� � a
R�:'! � �d� �'�°� %t 5���/ �
ya p^ '� �� IOK,
ti � �� ,
��- t� �{v,
.I'/J�„1W�5 RR�». ;
' ���I� � �� / ' 'W. �!i
4 � . � . 1., I $ �r
� a -� $.• �
J 1 �y � Y ,�..�,�+
'�; 1} , , �� ,.,
y�f
f' '�� � i;�- 1„� -.
��l
- Y w,.
B -
] �� �4 �
�� "� . �'� ��
'+� ;._tl,.3
-i
�
4 , W
�` ' � . WI
�R L�
..' `
� �
�. 4�,,.�'"�.
� Y�� �
,�, -.� `
�-�
: ��
�� �
� ��/yl
A '_
� �'
��!
��.
3 � �
+a� J
;� .. <: .
01.11.16 PC Meeting
Item #8d
988 Howard Avenue
Page 1 of 1
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Pfaff �mailto:--------------------]
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 4:33 PM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners
Cc: CD/PLG-Keylon, Catherine; CD/PLG-Gardiner, Kevin
Subject: 988 Howard
Dear honorable Planning Commissioners:
COI�I�II�����ICATIC)11�" RECEIT�ED
:-1FTER PREPARATIOIV
C�F STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
JAN 11 2016
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD - PLANNING DIV.
I think the revisions to this proposal made over the past several months have helped the
disparate materials, shapes (and colors) become more cohesive looking, seen as a unit from all
three sides. This includes the decision to break up the huge plates of glass into smaller units,
that may work to better integrate the massing of this large building with the smaller-scaled,
largely residential structures that typify the residential neighborhood immediately to the east. I
worry, however, about what kind of materials will make up the portions that were previously
clear glass. Will this material be etched glass, or yet another opaque composite? There needs
to be enough clear glass included, particularly at ground level, to engage the pedestrians, rather
than more of the obscured look that now prevails in many offices (including former retail spaces)
in our downtowns. Also, it appears from the revisions that more wood-like siding material has
been added to the whole structure, rather than just token striping here, and there; I think this
helps the structure to blend better with its charming, wood-siding flanked, corner grocery store
across the street. On a related issue, I wonder if any information is available on the historical
longevity (weathering) of manufactured wood and other composites outdoors, since this design
concept is largely dependent on their use. Being a resident of the area, I can attest to the
extreme temperatures and weather that will effect the East lane and Howard Avenue sides.
Regarding the landscape plans, the renderings and actual drawings of the East Lane facing side
do not appear to match (or perhaps I am not interpreting them properly). I've mentioned this in
other correspondence, but I think there is still a discrepancy that hasn't been explained: On
Pages A 0.0 and page A 3.3, the color renderings show three gingkos along the East Lane side.
However, the actual landscape plan on Page L.2.1 shows only 1 gingko and three smaller type
trees. One solo planted gingko on East Lane will end up looking like the lone tree survivor on
that block, since there is not one single tree planted on the west- facing side of East Lane for
1000 feet or so, until the corner of Burlingame Avenue, where the eucalyptus grove begins. I
think it will look more "complete" to at least try to incorporate a second gingko, either on the
property or the sidewalk, even if replaces one or two of the small trees that are shown. As
mentioned before, this is a very large project that I think would benefit from larger scaled trees
adorning it (like the gingko) to be in proper scale and to help integrate it with its neighbors.
Thank you for your kind consideration-
Jennifer Pfaff
01.11.16 PC Meeting
Item #8d
988 Howard Avenue
Page 1 of 2
Cathy Baylock
Newlands Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
January 9, 2016
Burlingame Planning Commission
c/o The City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
SUBJECT : 988 Howard Avenue, Environmental Scoping and Design Review
Dear Commissioners,
C���i�IMUNICATION RECEIVED
.�FTER PREPARATIO.��'
OF ST �FF REPORT
RECEIVED
JAN 11 2016
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
I have reviewed the plans for the proposed commercial building at 988 Howard Avenue replacing the existing
service station and have several grave concerns about the architecture of the proposed design. Since this project
falls within the parameters of the DSAP, it is subjected to its strong design criteria. In my opinion, the design
scheme shown in the staff report faiis to meet the design criteria for the Downtown as well as the criteria for the
transitional zone leading in the residential area of Burlingables/Lyon Hoag subdivisions.
A little history: At the outset of the Downtown General Plan process, then commissioner, Tim Auran, had
suggested that we enlarge the study area to include a triangular shaped swath which included the east side of the
railroad tracks bordered by Burlingame Avenue to the north, Anita Road to the east and Peninsula Avenue to the
south. The argument he used was that this area was in transition from auto/industrial use to offce/residential and it
was a key "transition zone" to the adjacent R-2 and R-1 neighborhoods and the gateway to both the Burlingables and
Lyon Hoag residential subdivisions. The City Council subsequently ageed.
Heights were limited in this zone and the emphasis was on building structures with a pedestrian and residential feel.
The new multi-family development at the corner of Bayswater and Anita (Bo Thorenfeldt's project) was subjected
to intense design scrutiny by the Planning Commission and, after a complete schematic redesign from condo
building to townhouses, a beautiful design was proposed which was embraced by the direct neighbors and the
neighborhood as a whole. This particular project is an excellent example of a project that engages the street in a
pedestrian friendly, residential design language while still allowing adequate density.
988 Howard is particularly important for a number of reasons: 1) It is the gateway to the R-2 and R-1 areas of
Burlingables/Lyon Hoag 2) It directly faces and interacts with our 1894 Mission Revival Train Station which is a
National Register listed building. 3) It anchors the southern corner of East Lane while the northern anchar is the
Candy Store building, a beautiful 1920's brick structure designed by Burlingame's most prolific architect, Colonel
Norberg (designer of the Burlingame Public Library, Washington School, the Lions Club and Candy Store
buildings among many others). 4) It is one of the four corners of Burlingame Square and it is vital that the building
balance the buildings on the other side of the square located between Howard Avenue and Burlingame Avenue i.e.
The Candy Store, the Bank of Burlingame building and the Salma building.
I request that the Planning Commission use its design authority as delineated in the Burlingame Downtown Specific
Plan and direct the applicant to re-design the architecture of the proj ect that reflects the prominent historic structures
surrounding Burlingame Square. Design direction should be given from these structures: The Mission Revival Train
Station, the brick Candy Store building (AKA the Packard Dealership building), the Sullivanesque Bank of
Burlingame building (currently the Straits Restaurant), The Salma Family Building (housing Kabul restaurant), the
former Photo Play theatre building (today's Basecamp Fitness) or the former Greyhound Bus station (cunently
Sam's Sandwiches).
I will leave it up to your fine expertise to decide which sort of architectural direction to guide the applicants and trust
that you will provide strong correction to a building that will be on this corner for the next 50 to 100 years and will
surely be the touchstone for other buildings to come.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.
Sincerely,
Cathy Baylock
Cc: Burlingame City Council
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING
THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST
FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING
HEIGHT AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE A 3-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING
LOCATED AT 988 HOWARD AVENUE WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as
follows:
Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and
reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that
there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-
587-P, is hereby approved.
Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in
the official records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
�, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of
the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th dav of March. 2016
by the following vote:
Secretary
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW THREE-
STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 988 HOWARD AVENUE, ON PROPERT SITUATED
WITHIN THE MYRTLE MIXED USE (MMU) ZONE
RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT:
WHEREAS, an application has been made for Commercial Desian Review, Conditional
Use Permit for Buildin4 Heiqht, and Rear Setback Variance for construction of a new 3-story
commercial buildinq at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU. Robert Luqliani 988 Howard Avenue
Burlinqame. CA, 94010 propertv owner, APN: 029-214-220;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame on March 14. 2016, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all
other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THIS PLANNING
COMMISSION THAT:
Section 1. Said Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Building
Height, and Rear Setback Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. Findings for such Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for
Building Height, and Rear Setback Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and
recording of said meeting.
Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in
the official records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
�, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of
the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th dav of March. 2016
by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Building Height, and
Rear Setback Variance.
988 Howard Avenue
Effective March 25, 2016
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped February 23, 2016, sheets A0.0 through A4.1, C-1, L-1.1 through L-2.2;
2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions
of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without
the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning
Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning
staf�;
5. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof parapet shall not exceed elevation 141.56'
for a maximum height of 45'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be
surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final
framing and roofing inspections. The ground floor finished floor shall be elevation 97.78';
second floor finished floor shall be elevation 111.78'; third floor finished floor shall be
elevation 124.78', and the roof level shall be elevation 137.78'. Should any framing exceed
the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the
structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans;
6. that the project shall include at least one dedicated off-street, car share parking space with
the following requirements:
a. the car share space shall be maintained in perpetuity and cannot be modified without the
City's consent;
b. the car share space shall be clearly labeled both with painted in-ground signage as well
as eye-level signage;
c. the car share space shall be accessible to tenants of the building and at the discretion of
the building owner may also be available to non-tenant subscribers from outside the
building;
d. the dimensions of the car share space shall be in accordance with requirements set forth
in the Zoning Code for off-street parking spaces.
7. that the 66 on-site parking spaces (excluding the car share space) shall be used only for the
tenants and visitors of the commercial/retail and office facilities on this site and shall not be
leased or rented for storage of automobiles or goods either by individuals or businesses not
on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Building Height, and
Rear Setback Variance.
988 Howard Avenue
Effective March 25, 2016
8. that the conditions of the Building Division's March 20, 2015 and May 14, 2015 memos, the
Park's Division's March 16, 2015 and May 19, 2015 memos, the Engineering Division's April
13, 2015 memo, the Stormwater Division's March 17, 2015 and May 12, 2015 memos, and
the Fire Division's March 26, 2015 and May 14, 2015 memos shall be met;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of
the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $101,219.00, made payable to the City of
Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
10. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of
the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $101,220.97., made payable to the City of
Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
12. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
13. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh)
around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept
on site;
14. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way
shall be prohibited;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
16. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
The following five (5) conditions shall be met during fhe Building Inspecfion process prior to the
inspections noted in each condition:
17. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building envelope;
18. that prior to the underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of
the new structure;
19. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such
as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no
licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide
the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Building Height, and
Rear Setback Variance.
988 Howard Avenue
Effective March 25, 2016
Division;
20. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof parapet and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
21. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
Mitigation Measures from Initial Study
Aesthetics
22. The project developer shall install low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward to
minimize light and glare. Exterior lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, and
shielded. In general, the light footprint shall not extend beyond the periphery of each
property. Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply with the
standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce
the lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses, consistent with Burlingame Municipal Code
Section 18.16.030 that requires that all new exterior lighting for commercial developments be
designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the light element is kept
entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge or wall.
Air Quality
23. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Building Height, and
Rear Setback Variance.
988 Howard Avenue
Effective March 25, 2016
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
Burlingame regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 48 hours. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
24. The contractor shall select specific equipment during construction in order to minimize
emissions. The equipment selection would include the regulation that all diesel-powered
equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days
continuously shall, at a minimum, meet the U.S. EPA particulate matter standards for Tier 2
engines or equivalent.
Biological Resources
25. If construction activities would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season of
native bird species potentially nesting near the site (typically February through August in the
project region), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds would be conducted by a qualified
biologist within two weeks of the commencement of construction activities. The pre-
construction survey would encompass the project site and surrounding area, within 150 feet,
so as to account for construction-related noise.
Cultural Resources
26. In the event archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work will be
halted within 100 feet of the discovered materials and workers will avoid altering the materials
and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and
provided appropriate recommendations.
27. A discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the project shall result in a
work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional
paleontologist. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further
action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by a professional paleontologist, shall be
implemented to mitigate the impact.
28. In the event that human remains are discovered during project construction, there shall be no
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the nature
of the remains. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Lead
Agency shall work with the Native American Heritage Commission and the applicant to
develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains.
Geology and Soils
29. Project design and construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code, and demonstrate adherence to the latest seismic design parameters as
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Building Height, and
Rear Setback Variance.
988 Howard Avenue
Effective March 25, 2016
required by the California Building Code including, but not limited to, anchorage, load
combinations, and structure integrity.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
30. The contractor shall comply with Title 8, California Code of Regulations/Occupational Safety
and Health (OSHA) requirements that cover construction work where an employee may be
exposed to lead. This includes the proper removal and disposal of peeling paint, and
appropriate sampling of painted building surfaces for lead prior to disturbance of the paint and
disposal of the paint or painted materials.
31. The applicant shall contract a Certified Asbestos Consultant to conduct an asbestos survey
prior to disturbing potential asbestos containing building materials and shall implement the
Consultant's recommendations for proper handling and disposal.
32. The applicant shall prepare, and submit, a Soils Management Plan (SMP) to the San Mateo
County Health Department for approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The SMP
will address the possibility of encountering subsurface contaminants, including groundwater,
during construction activities, and the measures for identifying, handling, and disposing of
subsurface contaminants. The SMP shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a
building permit.
33. The contractor shall ensure the appropriate handling, storing, and sampling of any soil to be
removed from the subject property, as per the SMP, so as to eliminate potential health and
safety risks to the public, including construction workers.
34. In the event that groundwater, or other subsurface contaminants, are encountered during
excavation, grading, or any other demolition/construction activities at the project site, the
contractor shall ensure that the procedure for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and
disposing of contaminated groundwater is implemented, as per the SMP.
35. Workers handling demolition and renovation activities at the project site shall be trained in the
safe handling and disposal of residual chemicals, solvents, heavy metals, motor and
transmission oils, lubes, greases, antifreeze, Freon, solvents, and lead-acid batteries etc.
associated with the former gas station and auto repair maintenance shop.
Noise
36. The contractor shall ensure that the interior noise levels are maintained at or below 50 dBA
Leq (1-hr). Treatments would include, but are not limited to, sound-rated wall and window
constructions, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc. The specific
determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary shall be conducted on a
room-by-room basis during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the
description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City, along
with the building plans and approved design, prior to issuance of a building permit.
37. The contractor shall install forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local
building official, for all exterior-facing rooms of the office building so that windows can be kept
closed at the occupant's discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise
standards.
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�y�.�` ;1 — BURLINGAME, CA 94010
?�' PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 988 HOWARD AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cammercial
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height,
and Rear Setback Variance for a new 3-story commercial
building at 988 HOWARD AVENUE zoned MMU.
APN 029-214-220
Mailed: March 4, 2016
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlinpame
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, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
_
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in:written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice `are responsible for informing their
tenants about this nofice.
For additional information, please call'(650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director -
` PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
03.14.16 PC Meeting C0ILIMUNICATION RECEIVED
Item #8g AFTER PREPARATIOIV
988 Howard Avenue OF ST.=�FF REPORT
Page 1 of 3
RECEIVED
MAR 14 2016
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: Jennifer Pfaff [mailto:jjpfCa�pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 2:27 PM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners; CD/PLG-Meeker, William; CD/PLG-Gardiner, Kevin
Subject: 988 Howard submittal for Action 8g
Pardon me! I meant "cement " panels (not concrete) ...
On Mar 12, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Jennifer Pfaff <jjpf(a�_pacbell.net> wrote:
Honorable Chair DeMartini and Planning Commissioners. I want to express my gratitude to
Dimitrios Sogas for reaching out to me over the past several months on a project that has
generated a good deal of lively debate on your Commission; now it is best to leave the ultimate
design verdict to you experts.
Design aside, however, I am concerned about the change in, and choice of materials in the latest
submittal, involving the extensive use of pre-colored concrete paneling. Unfortunately, one of
the recent Burlingame examples with extensive use of concrete panels is the structure on the
corner of Primrose and Howard Ave.,(now Union Bank, Keller Williams tower and Ike's
Sandwiches).Though the building is new, the use of cheap materials have aged and dated it.
At the other end of the spectrum, I am attaching a photo of the recently completed "Ehiphany"
hotel in Palo Alto. There is a lot of visual interest, and subtle articulation that (I find) make this
an enduring design. But more to the point, the materials used on the "envelope" structure, that I
believe are laminate, look so rich and provide such visual depth and texture that the building
stands solidly on its own and in its own right, regardless of its style. I chose this example,
because of the resemblance to the neo-brutalist style that is not entirely different than the
proposal you are considering for 988— but the materials are worlds away. Imagine the Epiphany
structure cloaked in monochromatic, concrete panels; it would be hard to argue that the resulting
project would exude the same richness, warmth and street presence as that which was built.
In the case of 988, the change from metal panels and wood-like laminates, to pre-colored and
cast cement paneling is likely more economical, but I fear may produce a flat-looking, visually
inferior project located in another very prominent location. Please make sure 988 is a
"Burlingame-worthy" project, not only with an enduring design, but also in materials.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Jennifer Pfaff
'�
g i
w q i' � _ V �
!!� I
.. � � p� 1. .�
�"�'� ��� � a 9+�L s��f � ... �...w�yw �.
�+ � . . . .... p xdl, .,f� -�u. . g `'�
..__ - � . n � � � . .
� � .��;: . . . ��.+r, ,��i . ... - r. �i : ,.,.. �
� ���
�' � �� ��� � b �"�, .. ..... . . . . .
M! ['.7l1�� 7 �.4l� li�' � .iti18M��#1�A�'
Y;�
6���,`:
.. �� Y
�"",;.
'!r�� . , '.,�
d
�* � ;
�` ";.
?
��� A
'!� t"� �
�
� w
u: �
�i�
. ��.'��.:�e+
: ..' �
�, . �
� � �'
�3
� � �. m. �'.��:
�
'�fP 4� ;
rv�
'"� R' � 'C� F� � �M�II � �Cd ��
i
� 1�� ^ f �. .` Y: ,.;,
,,
1�`
03.14e� � P� I1�ee#ing
tt�rn $�
988 No�++�rd A�re.
Pa�e 3 of 3
RECEIVED
MAR 14 zo�s
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD—PLANNING DIV.
CO:iL.�� L%.A�ic'_; 77UN XECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
s
:1 � ;i:
, -. ,_ <F �` � , e
I
��� ,,
����
� � � k - .. � =y -
• 4 �.�� �
� � �:01 �.�' N' .S� �
d i �1 � � � � F � y
.
_ 4�, j .,.�u
, '
. �, �
w��� . � � �' iurw ,C��i�"�:. �,r�� �k� � � � � � ��;.
�.. ��y "� e��: � b ' " �j,,.� �`�� i
� ' �
I 1
. � �
��' , .�; „� .. .. ����, ,�. . ,�,�,r� s
_� .---� ,�+�"'�' � : . �#i
E�
�; ,.
�s
. r"-�.Y if^:'^� �:<'`� r ,, ' � . .. .. =�a�C�SW9{P���'Ri�:��.i-yk.�w+-�:- ..
� � +�t�Yt � a� ��r�+w+oKr � k+�rr.t+�
�
�
��,.�_ � � 4�r �
�Y 3.�
� ',��_�
� r r �i
'°�a1 a g��
• � - .-
.'� j�,�-
;��
����
■ 4
� �
�'
� ,.
,;
A
i r� �_,
F � *
� �� � � I
��� �. . .. �:
�'� w. 4
�
�� � �" �.
.. , ,� ' �
�_ �-.
��_
� ��..�ti._ �
�..�,.�
�y �,,.�
� f i
..� —
'��T � '�
��� �
�."+,, � �. ,
.� �: � �� r � � �y �
� ��
� ������
� � ,�
� � �,
, � � �i
� � -
�: �. ��
�F' � ,�
�', ��: � � �
�
� � ` "` � �,,
F� � - ��� �`' } �
��� ,�
y,: ., .
�
� ti ., � �, 4 �.:
: ;,. ,� . '�"� �
.
� , �, �
, � � �� �
;1 �► ; .� � , .
;�� p �,� �� -
,,_.:, ' — ��' ,�
� � � ��
�
i �� , ,� �'�' , 1�� 1� � �r� , �ff� � - . ; � �
y ��
� '� � � . ��� �
� �
�r. ,� w
— , � —
���, G �
� •� �! I r
9� . � '� �1i �' � ' i � �
ua �.
� �
�'� � ..��_�i ��4��, �I :�.fr d '
� a , f ���`�f �_ �j
�'
� '� -
�. +! r� �ar � � �= p , ����,
r.,
+� F ;� .,.�•�,>��r� i: • „ p ��_� .
,�� �� � � . ..
�� _ - �� ��" ; �"
4 �1� � � ... � -���
_
"- . . ei . �.7u
.. �e��.._,_ ,. � ti� �
�, �1�� _. R 4 _ �
� �
_. .— . ,�����, � t __..
��.
��.—
03.14.16 PC Meeting C(�I�II�IUNICATION RECEIVED
Item #8g AFTER PREPARATION
988 Howard Avenue OF STAFF REPORT
Page 1 of 3
RECEIVED
MAR 14 2016
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: Jennifer Pfaff [mailto:-------------]
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 2:27 PM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners; CD/PLG-Meeker, William; CD/PLG-Gardiner, Kevin
Subject: 988 Howard submittal for Action 8g
Pardon me! I meant "cement" panels (not concrete)
On Mar 12, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Jennifer Pfaff <----------------> wrote:
Honorable Chair DeMartini and Planning Commissioners. I want to express my gratitude to
Dimitrios Sogas for reaching out to me over the past several months on a project that has
generated a good deal of lively debate on your Commission; now it is best to leave the ultimate
design verdict to you experts.
Design aside, however, I am concerned about the change in, and choice of materials in the latest
submittal, involving the extensive use of pre-colored concrete paneling. Unfortunately, one of
the recent Burlingame examples with extensive use of concrete panels is the structure on the
corner of Primrose and Howard Ave.,(now Union Bank, Keller Williams tower and Ike's
Sandwiches).Though the building is new, the use of cheap materials have aged and dated it.
At the other end of the spectrum, I am attaching a photo of the recently completed "Ehiphany"
hotel in Palo Alto. There is a lot of visual interest, and subtle articulation that (I iind) make this
an enduring design. But more to the point, the materials used on the "envelope" structure, that I
believe are laminate, look so rich and provide such visual depth and texture that the building
stands solidly on its own and in its own right, regardless of its style. I chose this example,
because of the resemblance to the neo-brutalist style that is not entirely different than the
proposal you are considering for 988— but the materials are worlds away. Imagine the Epiphany
structure cloaked in monochromatic, concrete panels; it would be hard to argue that the resulting
project would exude the same richness, warmth and street presence as that which was built.
In the case of 988, the change from metal panels and wood-like laminates, to pre-colored and
cast cement paneling is likely more economical, but I fear may produce a flat-looking, visually
inferior project located in another very prominent location. Please make sure 988 is a
"Burlingame-worthy" project, not only with an enduring design, but also in materials.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Jennifer Pfaff
1'.�, � � � ��' � �
M
C 00 j `+-
I *, Q O
d d � �
� �
C� o a
a =
� �
r �
. C�
r
O
QW
W � ��
/ �
�e � � Z
� ''' m g
U � �- °-
w � ��
�
� VU
Y
�.',.
��r �
+F � isii Ilf
�
� II
, ��
� �
= 5�
1 r„
-7r ..H
1 �
��
�
C�
� vJ
� �.
.�o
�
�
� �i`� �6��e���TdR�
�
n� �: ` ��'
y
5���� ' . . . . . .r e . r ��" � � ,. ��.,
- _ � �� , �.�_.
� „ , a
� m .m y� � �.
I � �. ��I� 3 �I �.'�1' � '4 ,� 1.
i, i
� �
� �. � f
� � T ,ii +yy�1 P ,
� f Fp ��I� I' 'l5f�,�� �1! rtli .. bl
' � Ia� � � � . n 5 .+9
.
,
� �
�..i . � w-. . � _ .� o. �.. �w . ��A� � �
' �� a ,. �,,;, �` '�y�„���,
1s .; �� �
1��� ' 3''e;� ��7_'�.. _'d� � , y� '
__ _ -� ,,.�"�"' , , :;. �il
: °° �: , _
9 �
' ���� '� Y .. .
.. s'a,a . � .R�� �.�>�,�> �. , -.
� �C' �I ��! � �� �'d.�! i� �•»J �0
�,� �
�
sr
��e * � q�
��� �I,'
�, � � . .
� a�'
� .' ._.7'al�R'y
��,�" u.�,..,,. .
�„ �i�.Yi1 � .
�.!YAy
� s'r „
- •�... �� � i:.
�� . �� . .
�
�� � _ � �� ,
�.� - �
�';F
'�'� a�
V�
� 1.
��
„7 p�.
I�
�
�'
I
��
w. ,
�
�� �
��- .
_. . �
��
.��y ,�C�`,?�;, .,,rl� , ,�
�...-inia . u ;i��i�`
� ! ` i l`+
� i
�� �
4� h � �
�' � '�il �� ����
��
� ;;
���
:�' �
I `r �, � ,� � �"' ri, _ , ��
� � �� � ` , .
I �'' +�
�� �$
� � � �, �
r �
�''; � � � 5
� � � �.
,�
� �
' � � x, a' � � �
��' ,f ��: + r!
a''� � 1 �� Y �1�.��..
�. ' � � ' ' . � � � ..
J � � �. . I. � x
y� _ u'
•� �' , �: a p�.
�.I ' . � . �I�:��a.� , .
. -�y.:i,i� �� .I �
n
I � � � •I �� .� ~ �, � � � I'�� � � .I�.
v.... � � �i �r �. n �. _..�i.. �� i �
?� � �1 . ' ` 1
F ` � �� � � i
, '�' _ � ' � � ,� .
�� � _
_�� � � � � � _ _
,� r � � j � ' I1
� � � - �����'� , - ��A�: � �
�� ...' . . . — i I �7��" �py ���� Y`M{: _
� �,= . ... !�r � � „'�
, � a ,� .,} .j. ,� ^a� � ,.,,�'
,� , . ".J�'.�,���..�N1 �c • „ � �y
�,.�� � �: � � s u.
.. • ' " '
�,, : ,� z;
y _ . . - ' � . . .- .
'� . . ,.:� ' '�y n�
�-� ...
�1 ' . �
,�- "..' .- i -7� ,�,� -�,
� ..—
'4 ,; �� �; �,. � � . r. � 1 ----
�
.... _.
,
� �
� ,er .. _