HomeMy WebLinkAbout821 Cowan Road - Staff Report��-� �
�� -� - City of Burlingame Item # q
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Action Item
Setback T�ariances
Address: 821 Cowan Road Meeting Date: 02/28/OS
Request: Mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits, parking and side setback variances for a
first floor remodel and second floor addition to an existing office/warehouse building.
Property Owner : Konstantinos Dokos
Applicant & Designer: Greg Ward, One Stop Design, Inc.
General Plan: Office Use
APN: 024-401-560
`, Zoning: O-M
Lot Area: 42,300 SF (0.97 Acres)
CEQA Status: Refer to attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND 536-P and Addendum
Adjacent Development:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Allowable Use:
Office, office/warehouse and auto rental parking
One-story office/warehouse building
Two-story office/warehouse building
Off ce/warehouse use with adequate on-site parking.
Summary of Changes: After receiving additional comments regarding this project at the January 24, 2005,
study meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans date stamped February 4, 2005, to address the concerns
expressed by the Planning Commission. Please refer to the Study Meeting section on page 8 for a summary of
the responses to the Commissions' concerns. Based on the revised plans, the following variances have been
eliminated:
► Parking variance for number ofparking spaces (51 parking spaces previouslyproposed, where 53 parking
spaces are required) (CS 25.70.040); and
► Parking variance for number of compact parking spaces (11 compact spaces previouslyproposed, where 8
compacts spaces are allowed) (CS 25.70.044).
With the relocation of the disabled-accessible parking spaces to the rear of the building, the applicant was able to
increase the number of on-site parking spaces, from 51 to 53 on-site parking spaces where 53 spaces are required.
In addition, the number of compact spaces was reduced from 11 to 8, where a maximum of 8 are allowed. A
parking variance for aisle width at the north and south ends of the parking lot is still required.
Project Summary: The applicant, Greg Ward of One Stop Design, Inc., is proposing a first floor remodel and
second floor addition to an existing office/warehouse building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned O-M. The following
applications are required for this project:
■ Mitigated negative declaration (required for this project because the proposed addition to the existing
office/warehouse building exceeds 10,000 SF [11,825 SF proposed] and therefore does not qualify for an
exemption); �
• Conditional use permits to exceed the Specific Area Plan land use density (0.6 FAR for warehouse where
0.5 is allowed) and to vary from the design guidelines for Bayfront Development (CS 25.43.030,.1);
� Parking variance for the aisle width at the north and south ends of the parking lot (12'-0" and 13'-6"
proposed where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two directions) (CS 25.70.025,1, fl;
and : .
• Side setback variance along the left side property line (as measured to new architectural column features
on first and second floors) (9'-3 existing, 8'-3" proposed, where 10'-0" is the minimum required) (CS
25.43.055, 3).
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Variances 821 Cowan Road
Currently, the re is an existing one-story, concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building (13,522 SF) on the site. The
site is bordered by one and two-story office/warehouse buildings to the north and one-story office/warehouse
buildings to the south. One-story and three-story office buildings and an auto rental parking lot are located to the
west, and one-story office/warehouse buildings exist east of the subj ect property. The proposed project includes
remodeling the existing first floor (no new floor area added) and adding a new second story (11,825 SF). O-M
Code Sections 25.43.020 (9 and 11), state that office uses and warehousing, storage, distribution of goods, and
wholesale of materials, liquids and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building, are permitted uses
in this district. Therefore, the proposed office/warehouse building is a permitted use in this zoning district.
The proposed 25,377 SF office/warehouse building will contain 13,552 SF of warehouse space on the first floor
and 11,825 SF of office space on the second floor. With the proposed remodel and addition, the applicant is
proposing to make improvements to the exterior of the building. The proposed exterior will include stucco walls,
new vinyl windows throughout the building, and a new pitched s-tile roof. In addition, uncovered decks (141 SF
to 302 SF each) with wrought iron railing are proposed on the second floor at the front and rear of the building.
The uncovered decks are set into the building and do not cantilever over the first floor. The existing roll-up doors
will be retained and painted to match the trim color on the building. The proposed building, as measured to the
roof ridge, is 32'-4" above average top of curb (35'-0" height allowed without a conditional use permit).
Currently, the existing building covers 33.8% of the lot (includes the canopy at the front of the building). With
this project, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing canopy and add architectural features (one-foot
proj ections) to the exterior of the building. With these proposed changes, the lot coverage will decrease to 32.5%
where 60% is the maximum allowed.
The existing building is nonconforming with regard to the left side setback (9'-3" existing where 10'-0" is the
minimum required). The second floor wall at the corner towers along the left side property line are set back to
comply with the minimum 10'-0" side setback (see proposed floor plan on sheet A.4 and section #3 on sheet A.7).
However, the proposed architectural column features (one-foot projections) added to the ends of the corner
towers will decrease the left side setback on the first and second floors to 8'-3". Because the side setback is
measured to the closest portion of the building, in this case to the new architectural column features, a side
setback variance is required (8'-3" proposed where 10'-0" is the minimum required). A belly-band on the
northwest elevation helps to tie the additional setback on the second floor wall with the first floor wall.
The existing on-site parking configuration provides 54 parking spaces, but is nonconforming because a 24'-0"
clear back-up space does not exist for all parking spaces (22'-8" existing) and disabled-accessible parking is not
provided. In addition, the driveway aisles at the north and south ends of the parking lot are also nonconforming
(12'-0" and 15'-6" aisle widths existing, where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two
directions). The proposed parking configuration will provide a 24'-0" clear back-up space for all parking spaces.
However, because the use is being intensified on the site with the addition of more office/warehouse space, a
variance is required for the aisle width at the north and south ends of the parking lot (12'-0" and 13'-6" provided
where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two directions). The proposed plan will require
traffic to travel in a counter clockwise direction through the parking area. The City's traffic engineer reviewed
the proposed on-site traffic circulation and accepted the design. As part of the proj ect, the applicant is proposing
to install one-way directional signage throughout the parking area to clearly define the vehicular direction for
employees and visitors to the site. The City's traffic engineer noted that prior to submitting for a building permit,
the applicant should work with the Ciry's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and markings on the
pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction.
2
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Yariances 821 Cowan Road
A total of 53 parking on-site parking spaces are required for the proposed office/warehouse building (1:300 SF
for office and 1:1000 SF for warehouse). With the proposed project, the parking area will be re-striped to comply
with current code requirements, including providing disabled-accessible parking. The applicant is proposing 53
on-site parking spaces (43 standard, 8 compact and 2 disabled-accessible spaces) where 53 are required. The
applicant proj ects that a m�imum of 30 people is expected on-site at any one time. A clear back-up space of 24'-
0" is provided for all on-site parking spaces. A shared access driveway exists between this property and 837
Cowan Road (property to the south). A copy of the deed provided by the applicant indicates that there is a 12-
foot wide non-exclusive easement on both properties for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, drainage,
and construction and maintenance of underground utility lines (see survey sheet).
The project complies with landscaping requirements byproviding 15.9% (6,750 SF) on-site landscaping where
15% (6,345 SF) is required (includes walkways at the front of the site). Although the O-M District does not
require front setback landscaping, Planning staff would note that 90% (3,300 SF) of the front setback is
landscaped (including walkways). The applicant indicates that the proposed landscaping includes ornamental
shrubs and hedges, including Viburnum arrowwood, Horizontal plumosa, Japanese barberry and Rhododendron
maximum planted along the front, left side and rear of the property and throughout the parking area. The
Landscape Plan (sheet L.1) provides details on the proposed plantings throughout the site. The three existing
sycamore trees (10 to 12 inches in diameter) at the front of the site will remain. The applicant notes the vines to
grow on the walls of the building will be incorporated in the final landscape design, but this landscape feature is
not shown on the landscape plan.
Table 1 on the following page provides a comparison of the proposed project to the O-M District development
standards. Table 2 on page 5 shows how the proposed project meets the Design Guidelines of the recently
adopted Bayfront Specific Plan.
This area intentionally left blank.
3
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Yariances 821 Cowan Road
Table 1- 821 Cowan Road
Lot Area: 42,300 SF Com liance with O-M Re ulations
E�sting Previous � Proposed � Allowed/Required
(1/19/OS plans) � (2/4/05 plans) �
SetbacksFront: 15'-0" to canopy ' 19'-4" � 19'-4" �' 15'-0"
Side (Left): 9'-3 "1 ; 8'-3 "2 ; 8'-3 °2 � 10'-0"
.......:� _....._..._.._�__..�.._._�. g .�......... ...�.__�_...�...�....:...._�........_ ................................................... .......................�............_._._....�.._��___ _.._��m........_......_ ...:.:.:: ........ �-------
Lot Covera e: 33.8% 32.5% 32.5% �u 60%
14,3Z2 SF 13,788 SF 13,788 SF ( 25,380 SF
_�........_.___.___._..._ ....................................�.....� ��.._.._.��....�....�...__----__-__....__....__ .. ..... ._...�...�.�................�._.........�...................................................,.......................�._... ._...................�_..
Parking: 54 spaces 51 spaces 53 spaces 53 spaces
(no disabled , (38 standard) (43 standard) (8 compact)
accessible space (11 compact) (8 compact) � 1:300 SF office
provided) (2 disabled- (2 disabled- 1:1000 SF warehouse
(24' clear back-up accessible) accessible)
.__ ...................�....�..............�___._.___.�_._� __space...not.provided).........�.........�. �_ '
.. __... �_-_ __..__.._..........� .................................�.....,
; ,
Aisle Width 12' and 15' 6"3 � 12'-0" 12' 0" and 13' 6"4 18'-0"
�.:....�. .....:::. .....�_:...�._ ............:..............�.........._W.__..__r.�_�M� �,.�..�..._�......�..........................�...................��_...:.. ,:..._.......__._._��:._ �,� .:....:: .......::
Building Height: 17'-0" 32'-4" � 32'-4" ; 35'-0"
_ _�.. , ..............._.......__..�........�........................................................,......�_ _. ...�...___�_ � ___��� �..�. __--___..___�_..�......�._...
�
Site Landscaping: 7.8% (3,300 SF) 16.5% (7,000 SF) i 15.9% (6,750 SF) ' 15% (6,345 SF)
1 Existing nonconforming left side setback (9'-3" existing where 10'-0" is required).
2 Side setback variance required (8'-3" proposed where 10'-0" is required). _
3 Existing nonconforming aisle width at the north and south ends of the parking lot (12'-0" and 15'-6" existing
where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two directions).
4 Parking variance for the aisle width at the north and south ends of the parking lot (12'-0" and 13'-6" proposed
where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two directions).
Table 2 on the following page indicates whether the proposed project complies, partially complies or does not
comply with the intent of the recently adopted Bayfront Design Guidelines. A copy of the design guidelines for
this area of the Burlingame Bayfront is included in the staff report. This project is required to comply with the
guidelines set for the Inner Bayshore A'rea. The goal is to create a mixed district of industry and business with
pedestrian-oriented buildings and streetscape and focused nodes of activity. Design guidelines which have been
partially met or not met are identified with italics in Table 2 and are also listed below.
• Businesses fronting on all other streets should have at least a 6 foot wide sidewalk (no changes proposed
to the existing S foot wide sidewalk, city right-of-way is 8 feet wide).
� Seating areas should be encouraged within the front setback (none provided).
• Parking should be screened with landscaping andlor low screen walls (partially screened with shrubs).
• Encourage pervious surfaces in all site paving, particularly pedestrian traffic areas such as entry
courtyards, etc. (information on surfaces not provided).
• Landscape features should not just be visually appealing, but also should function as open space
amenities to be used and enjoyed (no open spaces amenities provided).
• Pedestrian plazas should be incorporated in the design of view corridors (none provided).
• Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the pedestrian / bicyclist (no changes to streets
design proposed).
n
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Yariances 821 Cowan Road
A variety of lighting features should be used to accommodate both the driver and pedestrian. Lighting
should also help increase visibility of businesses, but not flood their facades (no changes to street lighting
proposed).
The design of the sidewalk and setback area should create an urban character and should feature
amenities such as street trees with tree grates, planters, benches and removable cafe furniture.
Table 2 Com liance with Ba front Desi n Guidelines — Inner Ba shore Area
Design Guidelines Compliance
Floor Area Ratio:
0.9 FAR for Office office: complies (0.6 FAR for office)
0.5 FAR for Warehouse warehouse: does hot comply (0.6 FAR for warehouse)
Building/Street Relationships:
Building entries should face the street, and should be easily complies
identifiable.
Businesses at important intersections should locate their not applicable
entrances at the building corner. -
Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular complies
conflict.
Businesses fronting on Bayshore Highway should have an not applicable
attractive 15' landscaped front setback and a 8'-10' wide
sidewalk.
Businesses fronting on all other streets should have an landscaping: complies (15' landscaped front setback)
attractive 10' landscaped front setback and at least a 6' sidewalk: does not comply, no changes proposed,
sidewalk. existing sidewalk width on this block is 8'-0"
Seating areas should be encouraged within the front does not comply, no seating area proposed
setback.
' Conditional use pernut to exceed the Specific Area Plan land use density (0.6 FAR for warehouse where 0.5 is
allowed).
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Variances 821 Cowan Road
Table 2 cont'd Com liance with Ba front Desi n Guidelines — Inner Ba shore Area
Design Guidelines Compliance
Parking:
Parking is not allowed in front setback. complies
Parking should be screened with landscaping and/or low partially complies
screen walls.
Truck loading areas should be located to the rear of complies
buildings, and screened from view.
Parking entry drives should be encouraged to be shared with complies, share access easement existing with adj acent
adjacent businesses to minimize multiple curbcuts. properiy
Parking areas should be broken up with landscape fingers complies
with no more than 6-7 spaces between the fingers.
Encourage pervious surfaces in all site paving, particularly information notprovided
pedestrian traffic areas such as entry couriyards etc.
Landscaping:
Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors. complies
Landscaping can be used as a visual buffer to shield parking complies
and loading areas.
Landscape features should not just be visually appealing, does not comply
but also should function as open space amenities to be used
and enj oyed.
Landscaping should enhance the site, but not obscure complies
building signage and entrance areas.
Building signage should be incorporated into the not applicable
landscaping.
15% of the site area shall be landscaped, with 5% of the site area: complies, 15.9% of site
parking area and 60% of the front setback devoted to parking area: complies, 11% ofparking area
landscaping (front setback landscaping may include front setback: complies, 90% of front setback �
hardscape features such as walkways and seating areas).
Parking isn't allowed in front setbacks, only driveways and complies
accent avin .
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Variances 821 Cowan Road
Table 2 cont'd) Com liance with Ba front Desi n Guidelines — Inner Ba shore Area
Design Guidelines Compliance
View Corridors:
Views may be framed by buildings. complies .
View corridors may terxninate with a landmark building. not applicable
Pedestrian plazas should be incorporated in the design of does not comply, site is adjacent to Cowan Road view
view corridors. corridor
Any new development should respect existing view complies
corridors.
View corridors at the ends of streets shall tie into visual complies
o enin s to the bay across Bayshore Highway.
Street Design:
Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the no changes proposed to street
pedestrian / bicyclist.
A variety of lighting features should be used to no changes proposed to street lighting
accommodate both the driver and pedestrian. Lighting
should also help increase visibility of businesses, but not
flood their facades.
The design of the sidewalk and setback area should create does not comply
an urban character and should feature amenities such as
street trees with tree grates, planters, benches and
removable cafe furniture.
Bayshore Highway should receive priority in any not applicable
streetscape program. The street should be designed as a
"Grand Boulevard" with landscaping, lighting and sidewalk
standards the same on both sides.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Variances 821 Cowan Road
Table 2 cont'd Com liance with Ba front Desi n Guidelines — Inner Ba shore Area
Design Guidelines Compliance
Building Design:
Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible complies
from the street.
Entries should be marked by architectural features such as complies
projecting overhangs, special lighting, awnings and signage
that emphasize their importance.
Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm and complies
pattern and should be articulated as an expression of the
building use.
The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be complies
discouraged, especially at ground level, because it creates
an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window
openings.
Building facades should be articulated with a building base, complies
body and roof or parapet edge.
All visible sides of buildings should be designed with the complies
same level of detail.
Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a complies
sense of integrity, permanence and durability, rather than
applique.
Building should be no more than two stories, 35 feet in complies (32'-4" proposed)
hei ht.
Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that the applicant has been working with the various
city departments to address their comments. Many of the comments have been addressed on the proposed plans.
The applicant submitted letters in support of the proposed proj ect from five businesses in the area including 839
Cowan Road (adjacent property), 840 Cowan Road, 849 Cowan Road, 895 Mitten Road and 1815 Bayshore
Highway. These letters are included in the staff report.
Study Meeting (January 24, 2005): At the January 24, 2005, Planning Commission study meeting, the
Commission had several questions for the applicant (January 24, 2005, P.C. Minutes). The Commission noted
that this use is a great idea and consistent with the newly adopted Bayfront plan. With regard to parking, it was
noted that the parking allocation needs to be considered in the light of whether all the employees will ever be
there at the same time. The Commission also commented that it is not encouraging the building to be reduced to
meet on-site parking; however, they noted that this project is intensifying the use significantly without adding
any parking, so parking should be provided to code since the use in increasing. In this case the Commission
supports adding landscaping within parking areas as promoted in the specif c plan as long as it does not unduly
restrict parking and access.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Variances 821 Cowan Road
The applicant submitted a response letter date Bebruary 2, 2005, and revised plans and a detail of the proposed
window trim, date stamped February 4, 2005. Below is a list of those questions and the applicant's response:
1. Can the disabled accessible parking spaces share the "dismount" area or does each space require a S foot
loading area? There is no clear way to access the front of the building from the disabled accessible
parking spaces at the rear, is there a building code requirement which has not been met?
The applicant met with the project planner and chief building official to discuss the disabled-accessible
parking requirements for this proj ect. The building official verified that the required disabled-accessible
parking spaces can share the dismount area. In addition, the building official noted that the location of
the disabled-accessible parking spaces as previously proposed did not comply with ADA requirements.
After working with the building official, the applicant relocated the disabled-accessible parking spaces
from the right side of the parking lot to the left side of the site directly behind the building. This new
location provides a safe, clear access to the front of the building which complies with ADA requirements.
The path now runs along the left side of the building rather than along the driveway. A condition of
approval was added requiring the paved area adjacent to parking space #15 shall be painted "No Parking"
to provide a clear, unobstructed back-up area for the disabled-accessible parking spaces.
2. Re-study the notion of two driveways with one-way access and egress; can an 18 foot driveway beprovided
the length of the site for two way access so that the parking can be better laid out and the parking variance
eliminated; need to make the access to the parking work can it be done with eacpansion of the joint access
easement.
Planning staff would note that a 24'-0" wide (12'-0" wide on subject and adj acent property) shared access
driveway along the right side of the building provides two way access to the parking lot at the rear of the
site. The driveway aisles at the north and south ends of the parking lots narrow to 12' and 13'-6" and
therefore allows one vehicle to pass through at a time. A parking variance is required for the aisle width
at the north and south ends of the parking lot (12'-0" and 13'-6" provided where 18'-0" is the minimum
required for traffic moving in two directions). The proposed plan will require traffic to travel in a counter
clockwise direction through the parking area. The City's traffic engineer reviewed the proposed on-s'ite
traffic circulation and accepted the design. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to install
one-way directional signage throughout the parking area to clearly define the vehicular direction for
employees and visitors to the site.
Staff would also note that the Bayfront Specific Area Plan encourages parking entry drives to be shared to
minimum multiple curb-cuts.
3. Can two parking spaces be added on site to eliminate the parking variance? How much landscaping
would be lost in order to reduce the number of compact parking spaces and reduce or eliminate the
variance request?
With the relocation of the disabled-accessible parking spaces to the rear of the building, the applicant was
able to increase the number of on-site parking spaces, from 51 to 53 on-site parking spaces where 53
spaces are required. In addition, the number of compact spaces was reduced from 11 to 8, where a
m�imum of 8 are allowed. With these changes, parking variances for total on-site parking and number
of compact parking spaces were eliminated. The changes to the parking area reduced landscaping by 250
SF. The landscaping provided still complies with total on-site required and parking area landscape
requirements.
�
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Variances 821 Cowan Road
4. Does the newly adopted specific plan have a different on-site parking requirement for this use?
■ No, the standard parking requirement must be met based on the proposed uses (1:300 SF for office and
1:1000 SF for warehouse).
5. Provide rational for the side setback variance, and the conditional usepermits for first floor remodel and
second floor addition to an existing warehouse%ffice building, applicant did notprovide with submittal.
- The applicant provided his rationale for the side setback variance, parking variance and conditional use
permits (attached to staff report).
6. The detail on the two towers is not consistent, they should match, prefer the northeast and northwest faces
to the others because they are better articulated, should be addressed. Revise the articulation at the
corners of the structure to reduce or eliminate the side setback variance, do something different from what
is shown. At the front of the building on Cowan, add arches, articulation and window detail to increase
the human scale and create a base piece for the building.
The applicant made minor revisions to the exterior of the building. Raised square quoins were added to
the northwest, southwest and southeast elevations to match the northeast elevation (see sheet A.6). Other
than adding quoins to the smaller tower elements, there were no changes made to the front elevation.
However, the applicant submitted a window/door trim detail (8%a"xl l" sheet, date stamped February 4,
2005) specifying raised foam with stucco overlay.
The second floor wall at the corner towers along the left side property line was set back to comply with
the minimum 10'-0" side setback (see proposed floor plan on sheet A.4 and section #3 on sheet A.7).
However, the proposed architectural column features (one-foot projections) added to the ends of the
corner towers will decrease the left side setback on the first and second floors to 8'-3". Because the side
setback is measured to the closest portion of the building, a side setback variance is required (8'-3"
proposed where 10'-0" is the minimum required). A belly-band on the northwest elevation helps to tie the
additional setback on the second floor with the first floor.
Scoping Session Meeting (December 13, 2004): On December 13, 2004, the Planning Commission held an
environmental scoping session to identify any environmental concerns they may have with the proposed proj ect
(December 13, 2004, P.C. Minutes). Planning staff identified several items to be included in the environmental
document, including potential impact of noise during construction on the adjacent office and warehouse
buildings, on-site circulation and aesthetics (impact on the existing visual character of the site and its
surroundings). In addition, the Planning Commission identified the following items to be considered in the
environmental document. These items have been addressed in the attached mitigated negative declaration. The
responses to the Commission's comments are summarized and found in italics below each of the Commission's
comments (see also applicant's letter dated January 18, 2005). �
1. What is the role of the barrier areas at the rear of the building, how are they desig�ed?
• The barriers at the rear of the building are designed to prevent parking at these locations. The barriers are
raised curbs with landscaping within the curb to create a softer look.
10
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Yariances 821 Cowan Road
2. Should call out the materials, what will the columns at the front be made of?
The coluxnns at the front entry will be 12 inches square and will have a stucco exterior to match the rest
of the building.
3. There is an arch at the front which looks blank, what is going on there?
The arch at the front of the building is part of the covered portico element at the main entrance to the
building.
4. Is the location of the disabled parking correct? Is the number of disabled accessible spaces appropriate?
� The applicant discussed the disabled-accessible parking requirements with the Building Department
before submitting the project and confirmed that two disabled-accessible parking spaces are required for
this project. At that time is was determined that this was the closest location to the building entrance.
S. Is the elevator access at the front or the rear of the building?
� The elevator access is at the front of the building in the lobby.
6. How closely will theproject be required to comply with the Inner Bayshore design guidelines, don't think
will get perfection, this looks like a good place to start? Check list is good.
� As was pointed out by a commissioner at the scoping session on this project, the design guidelines for this
area are suggestive of the design objective. All of the guidelines may not be applicable to this project.
What is important is that the proj ect is consistent with the intent and obj ectives of the guidelines as they
apply to this subarea of the plan.
7. More landscaping integrated into parking is positive given the design guidelines. Not looking for fl'owers
but more massive screening plants, vines on building effective, automatic irrigation on all.
The Landscape Plan was revised to included an additiona1400 SF of landscaping within the parking area.
Landscape 'fingers' were added to the parking area which meets the intent of the Bayfront Design
Guidelines (parking areas should be broken up with landscape fingers with no more than 6-7 spaces
between the fingers). Three, five-gallon Viburnum arrowwood shrubs were added in the landscape area
between the parking spaces facing each other. The applicant notes that vines will be incorporated into the
landscaping.
Negative Declaration and Findings: The initial study and addendum prepared for this project identified
potential impacts of noise during construction on the adj acent office and warehouse buildings, on-site circulation
and aesthetics. Based upon the initial study and addendum prepared for the proj ect, and the mitigation measures
identified in the initial study, it has been determined that the proposed proj ect including the revisions made after
the study meeting is eligible for a mitigated negative declaration. The initial study and addendum did not identify
any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to levels acceptable to the community by mitigation (see
attached negative declaration No. ND-536-P). The mitigation measures in the initial study have been incorporated
into the recommended conditions of approval (in italics).
11
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Yariances 821 Cowan Road
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a conditional use permits to exceed the Specific Area
Plan land use density (0.6 FAR for warehouse where 0.5 is allowed) and to vary from the design guidelines for
Bayfront Development, 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 variances for parking aisle width and side setback, the
Planning Commission must find that the following conditioris 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 properly 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), the conditional use permits, parking variance and side 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 mitigated negative declaration (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. At the public hearing the following mitigation measures/conditions should be
considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Depariment date stamped
February 4, 2005, sheets T.1, L.1, T.2, A.1 through A.7 and Plat of Survey;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's June 1, 2004, memos, the Chief Building
Official's February 9, 2005, and June 4, 2004, memos, the Recycling Specialist's June 2, 2004, memo
and the NPDES Coordinator's January 31, 2005, memo shall be met;
12
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Yariances 821 Cowan Road
3. that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for tra�c impacts in the Inner
Bayshore and Shoreline areas shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts ofthis and otherprojects
on area circulation, one-half of the fee is due at the time ofplanning application and one-half due before
the final framing inspection;
4. that one-way directional signage shall be installed andpainted throughout thepaYking area to clearly
define the vehicular direction for employees and visitors to the site; prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant/property owner shall work with the City's tra�c engineer to detetmine the required
signage and markings on the pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction;
5. that the driveway aisles in front of the roll-up doors at the rear of the building and in the parking area
shall be maintained clear and trucks shall not be stored or parked in the driveway aisles;
6. that the paved area adjacent to parking space #15 shall be painted "No Parking" to provide a clear,
� unobstructed back-up area for the disabled-accessible parking spaces;
7. that the 53 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the customers and employees of the businesses at
this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on this site or by
other businesses for off-site parking;
8. that the landscaping noted on sheet L.1 shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an
automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced
with an equivalent species;
9. that the property owner shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan
together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application;
10. that the office/warehouse building shall be built so that the interior noise level in all areas used as off ce
does not exceed 45 dBa;
11. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame
Municipal Code, and shall occur only bet►veen the hours of 7: 00 a.m. and 7:OOp.m. on weekdays, 9:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10: 00 a.m. and 6: 00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays;
12. that on-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City's
exterior illumination ordinance;
13. that all parking areas should be lit for safety at night, such lighting should comply with the requirements
of the City's exterior illumination ordinance,-
14. that the remodel/addition shall not be built with a reflective exterior finish;
1 S. that the project shall obtain necessary permits to. meet the standards of the required permitting agencies
including: Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
13
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Variances 821 Cowan Road
16. that the project design shall conform to all seismic related requirements of the latest edition of the
California Building Code as amended by the City ofBurlingame in effect at the time a buildingpermit is
issued and any additional seismic requirements established by the State Architect's o�ce;
17. that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code
requirements, 2001 edition, as amended by the City ofBurlingame, and in addition to the limitations of
hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18. 08. 035);
18. that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be
installed to meet current code standards and diameter; existing sewer laterals shall be checked and
replaced if necessary; �
19. that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections with the
degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his approval and inspection;
20. that in the event that there is subsidence as the Yesult of an earthquake, the site shall be repaired as
approved by the City Engineer;
21. that all site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage;
22. that Zow flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met
at all times, including special additional eniergency requirements;
23. that the gradingplan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
All applicable requirements of the NPDESpermit for the site shall be adhe�ed to in the design and during
construction;
24. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through Apri115), that prior to October 15
the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted
runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and
immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent
seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto
public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals;
25. that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management
Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas denuded
due to construction prior to the wet season; erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to
protect San Francisco Bay waters;
26. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system;
the plan shall include a site plan showing the properiy lines, existing and proposed topography and slope;
areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to
be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-
site or immediately downstream of a proj ect; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and
washout areas;
14
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Variances - 821 Cowan Road
27. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments
describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures,
including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of
vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and
provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation;
28. that all t•unoff created during construction and future discharge froric the site shall be required to meet
the applicable San Mateo County StormwaterPollution Prevention Program BestManagementPractices
for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance;
29. that all runoff in the parking lot, including runofffi-om the landscaped areas, shall be filtered to remove
oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be
installed and maintained by the property owner, failuYe to maintain such filters and facilities in working
conditions shall cause this conditional usepermit to be called up for review, all costs for the annual or
more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall bepaid for by thisproject'sproperty
owner;
30. that the phrase "No Dumping-Drains To Bay" shall be labeled on new storm drain inlets by stenciling,
branding, plaguing or casting;
31. that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and rzcnoff into the storm drain will be minimal;
32. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil
separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of
heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site and
maintenance shall be as directed by the City;
33. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driv.eways and roofs shall be routed to storm
water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged
into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning
(vacuuming out) sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately
prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October I S— April 1) and as directed by the City;
34. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site t•unoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas;
35. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage
and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided
that discharges to an interceptor;
36. that no vehicles or equipment shall be washed, cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site;
3 7. that methods andprocedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw
bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stockpiles to
stabilize denuded areas shall be installed during construction to maintain temporary erosion controls
and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established;
15
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permits, Parking and Side Setback Yariances 821 Cowan Road
38. that the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction
equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the BayArea Air QualityManagement
District;
39. that a construction fence, including a impermeable fabric/material, shall be required around the site
during construction to keep all construction debris on site;
40. that if any trenching is proposed on the site, the applicant shall contact the San Mateo County Health
Department; if any contaminated soil is encountered, the applicant shall follow County protocol for its
disposal; and
41. that if anyprehistoric or historic archeological relics a�e discovered during grading and construction,
all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated andproperprotection measures, as
determined by qualified experts, can be implemented.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c. Greg Ward, One Stop Design, Inc.
Konstantinos Dokos, property owner
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING CONIMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
January 24, 2005
Council Chambers
L CALL TO�RDER Chair Osterling called th�anuary 24, 200�, regular meeting of the
II.
CALL
�ommission to order 7:02 p.m.
Present: Co �ssioners Auran, jues, Brownrigg,
Vistica
Commissioners✓None
III.
IV. APPROV.
V.
F AGENDA
FLOOR
VI. STUDY ITEMS
�'taff Present: City lanner, Margaret
Strohmeier; City ttorney, Larry Ande�
The minute of the January 10, 209
Commiss' n were approved as mai�,
no changes to the
Osterling and
�; Zoning Technician, ,Erica
emor Engineer; Phil Mon�han
regular meeting of
�iere were no public co ents. CP Monroe intro ced staff inember E� a
Strohmeier, Zoning Te 'cian, who will be i he staff rotation co ring
Planning Commissio meetings from now on he also noted that ere was
a sign up sheet for ose who may be observ' g tonight's meetin s a part of
applying for the lanning Commission. addition there is a packet in a
binder for can dates to use to follow along with the meeting.
1. 821 COWAN ROAD, ZONED O-M — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST
FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUIL,DING (GREG WARD, ONESTOP DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
KONSTANTINOS DOKOS PROPERTY OWNER� PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIlv
CP Monroe presented a sununary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Can the disabled accessible parking spaces share the "dismount" area or does each spacerequire a 5 foot
loading area?
• Restudy the notion of two driveways with one-way access and egress; can an 18 foot driveway be
provided the length of the site for two way access so that the parking can be better laid out and the
parking variance eliminated; need to make the access to the parking work can it be done with expansion
of the joint access easement?
• Can two parking spaces be added on site to eliminate the parking variance?
• Does the newly adopted specific plan have a different on-site parking requirement for this use?
• On building design: the detail on the two towers is not consistent, they should match, prefer the
northeast and north-west faces to the others because they are better articulated, should be addressed;
• Provide rational for the side setback vaxiance, and the conditional use permits for first floor remodel and
second floor addition to an existing warehouse/office building, applicant did not provide with submittal;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
January 24, 2005
• How much landscaping would be lost inorder to reduce the number of compact parking spaces and
reduce or eliminate the variance request;
• Revise the articulation at the corners of the structure to reduce or eliminate the side setback variance, do
something different from what is shown;
• At the front of the building on Cowan, add arches, articulation and window detail to increase the human
scale and create a base piece for the building;
• There is no clear way to access the front of the building from the disabled accessible parking spaces at
the rear, is there a building code requirement which has not been met?
• Traffc Engineer should comment on any changes to parking proposed.
Commissioners commented: Feel that the direction given regarding parking may seem contradictory,
applicant needs to study and present the alternatives, including the impact on landscaping; it was noted that
this use is a great idea and consistent with the newly adopted Bayfront plan; discussed putting disabled
parking on the public street, staff noted that the requirement is that disable accessible parking be on the site it
serves; parking allocation needs to be considered in the light of whether all the employees will ever be there
at the same time; not encouraging building to be reduced to meet on-site parking, but they are intensifying
the use significantly without adding any parking, like to see parking provided to code since they are
increasing the use; support adding landscaping within parking areas as promoted in the specific plan as long
as it does not unduly restrict parking and access.
Chair Osterling moved to set this item on the action calendar when the long list of questions have been
answered, the Planning Department has had time to review the responses, and there is space on an agenda.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Motion was approved on a 6-0 voice vote. This action is not
appealable. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
VII. ACTIOP� ITEMS
2A.
2B.
2D.
nsent Calen r- Items on the consent c endar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discus 'on and/or action is requeste y the applicant, a member of the p lic or a commissionerprior to t ime the
commission tes on the motion to adopt.
1600 ILLOW AVENUE ONED R-1 - APPLICATI FOR DESIGN REVIE AND SPECIAL
��TS FOR A BASE NT AND FOR BUII.,DING EIGHT FOR A FIRST
DITION AND NE BASEMENT (JIM KEIG , APPLICANT
JERRY DEAL, JD ASSOCIATES, DESIG )(104 NOTICED) PR
�5 SECOND STORY
.OPERTY OWNER;
PLANNER: ERICA
2101 ADE NE DRIVE, ZONED R- - APPLICATION FOR D IGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
SECO STORY ADDITION (MA HEW MEFFORD, S ARCHITECTS, APPLIC AND
ARC TECT; DEAN AND URS A WII..LIAMS, PROPE Y OWNERS) (65 NOTICE ROJECT
PL R: ERICA STROH R
1812 C MAGNOLIA A NUE, ZONED C-RF� LICATION FOR CONDI NAL USE PERMIT
FOR ART CLASSES ANCY CALL TO , APPLICANT; WJ BRI ON, INC. PROPERTY
C. Keighran no�d that she would abstair�rom voting on items 2a, 1
Willow Avenue because the
2
�,///�ONESTOPDESIGN
From: OneStopDesign, Inc.
Design and Engineering Services
3566 Beard Road
To: City of Burlingame Planning Department
Address: SQ1 Primrose Road
City/State: Burlingame, CA
Fremont, Ca. 94555 Zip: 94010
510-794-7993 (voice), 510-794-4178 (fax) Phone: 650-558-7250
www.onestopdesi�n.biz FAX: 650-696-3790
Date: February 2, 2005
Response to Planning Commission questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
ADA parking has been moved, and access distance shortened.
Required number of standard and compact parking spaces has been achieved. No
requirement necessary for variances.
Bathrooms at second floor have been redesigned to reflect ADA requirements.
Elevator has been resized to be emergency capable (size).
Please see enhanced landscape/parking plan. Vines will be incorporated into the final plan.
Renderings and floorplan/elevations have been coordinated to match each other.
Belly band on left elevation is for the purpose of concealing 9" articulation required of second
floor walls to comply with setback requirements. Faux columns still project into setback area,
so Staff will determine if Variance is still necessary
Barriers at rear of building are to prevent parking at those specific locations. Landscaping
elements have been added to these areas to soften the look.
Columns at front entry will be 12" square, and will be stuccoed to match exterior of the
building.
10. The arch at the entry is the beginning of a covered portico.
11. Elevator access is in the front entry/lobby area.
12. Please see revised landscaping plan.
RECEIVED
' ����
�%� .//`!==��
� � � � � 1
FEB - 4 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
SECTON DETAIL
..
�
WINDOW SURROUND
RECEIVED
FEB - 4 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
`�' SILL
N
TYPICAL WINDOW/DOOR TRIM DETAIL
DETAIL TO BE RAISED FOAM WITF� STUCCO OVERLAY
WITH WHITE CONTRASTING COLOR.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2004
was troubled b e increase from 2 to 4 bedxooms without additional parking, which could cause a
significant 'ng pressure on thi orner lot. Applic noted that there were two street frontages, serving
this hou , one of which was re than 100 feet lo without curb cut. Th e were no further comments
fro e floor and the publ' comment was clos .
�C. Auran noted he
no curb cut on t�l '
action. C. Ke ,
�Id find for a var
�ng side, like the
seconded the n�b
:cause of the two stree ontages, narrow curb/�ut on one and
so would move to ut this item on the co��ent calendar for
Comme on the motion: the itigation here is the st et parking, what is the ardship? It is an existing
cond' on, today typically ve only 20 feet in front a house; to get the ad ' ional on site parking would
� ne to remove the bac f the house; so hardshi 's created by the orienta 'on of the house. CA note at
commission could ad a condition that the vari ce is based on the locat' n of the house and that the is any
significant change o the property beyond t's application or to the use, the variance would void.
The maker o e motion and the
the varian for parking granted
si�nific tiv in the future.
r}$agreed to the amendm�,iit to the motion to add a ndition to have
this project voided sho�Id the house ever be de lished or changed
C ir Osterling called for a oice vote on the amende motion to refer this pr 'ect to the consent cale ar
when the plans had bee revised as directed and ith the condition that e parking variance w ld be
voided if the house we demolished or further c nged in the future. The motion.passed on a 5 -2 (Cers.
Bojues, Vistica abs t) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not ap alable. This
item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
11. 821 COWAN ROAD, ZONED O-M — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR A FIRST FLOOR
REMODEL AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUII,DING
(GREG WARD, ONESTOP DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KONSTANTINOS DOKOS,
PROPERTY OWNERZ(16 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIl�t
CP Monroe presented the project description. Commissioners asked staff: table on parking does not
indicate number or location of disabled accessible parking spaces, are the bath rooms in the office spaces
disabled accessible, would like to see a landscape plan which enriches the landscaped areas provided; why is
CEQA applicable? CEQA requires initial study and environmental document when 10,000 SF or more been
added to this type of use; why concerned with design guidelines, for CEQA project must comply with
General Plan. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Greg Ward, One Stop Design, Inc., Fremont. Understand that
this is the first project under the newly adopted design guidelines and this is a time of transition.
Chair Osterling called for a five minute break at 9:20 p.m. to allow the applicant to fix his power point
presentation. The Commission reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
Applicant continued: have added a landscape plan sheet L.1; added articulation to the building, tried to
make the building look smaller and screen the flat roof; there are five warehouses each with an office area
above, each has its own fire exiting. Commissioner noted that the rendering does not include windows
which are shown on the elevation in the plans, in the future they should match. Learned of the setback
problem late, after a detailed survey was completed.
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2004
Commissioners asked :
• What is the role of the barrier areas at the rear of the building, how are they designed?;
• Should call out the materials, what will the columns at the front be made of?;
• There is an arch at the front which looks blank, what is going on there?;
• Is the location of the disabled parking correct? Is the number of disabled accessible spaces
appropriate?;
• Is the elevator access at the front or the rear of the building;
• How closely will the proj ect be required to comply with the Inner Bayshore design guidelines, don't
think will get perfection, this looks like a good place to start? Check list is good; and
• More landscaping integrated into parking is positive given the design guidelines. Not looking for
flowers but more massive screening plants, vines on building effective, automatic irrigation on all.
There were no further comments from the floor or commission and the public comment was closed.
Chair Osterling noted that this completed the scoping for this project. When the initial study is completed
and the type of environmental document determined, this item will be back to the Commission for study.
This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
_�
REPORTS
eview of City Coun ' regular meeting of De mber 6, 2004.
CP Monroe review the actions of the Cou il meeting of December 6, 200 . Commission asked for a
copy of the staf eport on the update of t e recent changes to the Fire re lations.
- Planning mmission Assignment 005.
CP note that she would e-mail e ch subcommittee group this w and begin the process of se ting a
singl ay each month for the to meet. By January the sch ule should be complete.
- air Memo to City
eeting with the Ci
Mayor Galligan not
the Council and a
Planning Co issi�
XI. ADJO
Regarding 2005 Planning �5mmission Working Groups�id Coordinating
at the council meeting that t e Planning Commission had quested to meet with
they would set a date la r. Planner will e-mail a co y of the memo to each
Chair Ost�'rling adjourned the
ectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
S:�IINUTES\unapproved 12.13.04. doc
9:56 p.m.
13
/,//%�ONESTOPDESIGN
From: OneStopDesign, Inc.
Design and Engineering Services
3566 Beard Road
Fremont, Ca. 94555
510-794-7993 (voice), 510-794-4178 (fax)
wwd�.onestopdesf �n.biz
Date: January 18, 2005
To: City of Burlingame Planning Department
Address: 501 Primrose Road
City/State: Burlingame, CA
Zip:94010
Phone: 650-558-7250
FAX: 650-696-3790
Response to Plannin� Commission questions
From December 13, 2004 meetin�
1. Total of 2 disabled parking spaces indicated on sitemap/landscape plan.
2. Bathrooms at second floor have been redesigned to reflect ADA requirements.
3. Please see enhanced landscape/parking plan. Vines will be incorporated into the final plan.
4. Renderings and floorplans/elevations have been coordinated to match each other.
5. Barriers at rear of building are to prevent parking at those speci�c locations. Landscaping
elements have been added to these areas to soften the look.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Columns at front entry will be 12" square, and will be stuccoed to match exterior of the
building.
The arch at the entry is the beginning of a covered portico.
Disabled parking was discussed at the meeting. We determined that the location was the
closest to the front entry, assuming no Disabled parking on the street.
Elevator access is in the front entry/lobby area.
Please see revised landscaping plan.
��
�
�iI , L���i-,.�
- .•.►� - -
., �.. � i � 1 �
RECEIVED
JAN 1.9 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAIb►E
PLANNING pEp�;
0
�,____--�'
� �
Inner Bayshore Area
�-
irehause
Hotels 65 rms/acre
Offices 0.9 FAR
Retail < 5000 Sf
Warehouse 0.5 FAR
Light Industrial 0.5 FAR
,�� Restaurant Overlay -0.15 FAR
?��'�" Properties with
Bayshore Highway Frontage
1
N
w��
s
Burlingame Bayfront
Specific Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Figure III-2 - Inner Bayshore Area Land Use Map
Burlingame Bayfront
Specific Plan
�
Anza Point Area
Land Use Plan -
Waterfront Commercial
�Oifices 0.6FAR
Fbtel�
IndudingExtended5tay SS�ms/aae
Commercial Recreadon 0.5 FAR
Offices U6FAR
Manu(atturkig USFAR
ReaeatiorrrelatedRetail S,OOOSForless
Fisherman'sPark
San Francisco Bay
� - -
� ,,`��'�,`�i�:�«����i� ,liiii�=,� , �► � '� �
� �� I ��
, ♦ � �-�, �, •�,� �, ,/
N
�
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Figure III-6 — Anza Point Land Use Plan
Inner Bayshore Area
.
Goal: To create a mixed district of industry
and business with pedestrian-oriented
buildings and streetscape and focused
nodes of activity.
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Design Guidelines
Building / Street Relationships
To create a consistent and attractive
streetscape, buildings should be located rela-
tively close to the street, with attractively
landscape front setbacks. In addition:
• Building entries should face the street, and should be
easily identifiable
• Businesses at important intersections should locate their
entrances at the building comer
• Curb cuts should be iimited to ease pedestrian/vehicular
conflict.
• Businesses fronting on Bayshore Highway should have
an attractive 15' landscaped front setback and a 8'-10'
wide sidewallc.
• Businesses fronting on all other streets should have an
attractive 10' landscaped front setback and at least a 6'
sidewalk.
• Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set-
back.
City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-6 General Plan
0
Burlingame_ Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Design Guidelines
Bayshore Highway Interface �P/
�
To create a consistent design conce on both
�
sides of Bayshore Highway, buil �ng, land-
scaping, signage and streetsca standards
should be the same for prop ies in both the
Shoreline and Inner Bays ore areas that front
on Bayshore Highway. Additionally:
• An average of I S' 1 dscaped front setback is appropri-
ate
Lighting sho d emphasize pedestrian users, not build-
ing facade .
• 8'-10' idewalk width is appropriate.
• ere should be a consistent pattem of street trees and
street lights.
Bayshore Highway should receive priority in and
streetscape program.
Parking
Attractive, landscaped parking areas should
be located to the rear and sides of the build-
ing to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street
edge. Additionally:
• Parking is not allowed in front setback.
• Parking should be screened with landscaping and/or low
screen walls ,
• Truck loading areas should be located to the rear of
buildings, and screened &om view.
• Pazking entry drives should be encouraged to be shared
with adjacent businesses to minimize multiple curb-
cuts.
• Parking areas should be broken up with landscape fin-
gers with no more than 6-7 spaces between the fingers.
• Encourage pervious surfaces in all site paving, particu-
larly pedestrian traffic areas such as entry courtyards
etc.
Landscaping
A consistent, formal landscaping treatment
should be developed throughout the Inner
Bayshore Area. Additionally:
City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-7 General Plan
6uilding to encourage a pedestrian-friendly sUeet edge.
fandscape front setbacks.
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Design Guidelines
landmark 6uilding.
;
in the DistricG
• Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors.
• Landscaping can be used as a visual buffer to shield
parking and loading areas.
• Landscape features should not just be visually appeal-
ing, but also should function as open space amenities to
be used and enjoyed.
• Landscaping should enhance the site, but noi obscure
building signage and entrance azeas.
• Building signage should be incorporated into the land-
scaping.
• 15% of the site azea shall be landscaped, with 5% of the
parking area and 60% of the front setback devoted to
landscaping. �
• Front setback landscaping may include hardscape fea-
tures such as walkways and seating azeas.
• Parking isn't allowed in front setbacks, only driveways
and accent paving.
View Corridors
View Corridors are defined as important
views from, between or towards buildings
and natural features. View Corridors should .
be maintained and enhanced. Additionally:
• Views may be framed by buildings.
• View corridors may terminate with a landxnazk building.
• Pedestrian plazas should be incorporated in the design
of view corridors. �
• Any new development shoald respect existing view cor-
ridors.
• View corridors at the ends of streets shall tie into visual
openings to the bay across Bayshore Highway.
Signage `P
�
Visible, attractive signage should evel
oped throughout the Inner B ore Area.
Additionally:
• Signs shoutd b esigned as an integral part of the
building a should not cover or obscure architectural
�Projecting signs should be amactive and eye-catching_
City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-8 General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Speci�c Area Plan
Design Guidelines
�\�
• Projecting signs attached to a building can be used a
secondary sign for use as a pedestrian-scaled si
Struchual supports should be hidden or desi to be a
decorative element.
• Monument and wall signs should fe e individually
formed lettering as opposed to b signs.
• Monument signs should b ow-profile, with a maxi-
mum height of 4'.
• Monument sign ould have architectural features con-
sistent with building, and be integrated into the site
A tive signage directories should be encouraged to
elp provide wayfmding within the Inner Bayshore
District.
Gateways `Q�.
�
Gateway features should be located on p�
vate land at prominent locations alon e
edges of the Tnner Bayshore Area
Additionally:
• Any gateway feature on B hore Highway at the
Burlingame / Millbrae der should be a landscape
treahnent or pocket rk with a monumental bridge
design. Coordin on with the City of Millbrae would
be required.
• Gatew s should maintain a consistent design motif
thr ghout the Inner Bayshore Area.
U.S. 101 Frontage
���
U.S. 101 Froritage treatment should be att c-
tive and consistent. Additionally:
• A consistent pattern of landscaping shoul e encour-
aged, which provides visibility for bus' ess facing U.S.
101.
Trees and shrubs should have ps beriveen them in
order to allow for business visibility.
• Trees should be locat at the end of streets with lower
bushes in between allow building signage visibility.
• Buildings sh d have attractive facades facing towards
U.S. 101.
• Tree es and landscape patterns along U.S. 101
s d be consistent with the North Burlingame /
ollins Road Specif c Plan.
e��� n..�
AtoacG.e
FaodeToward•
Hiyhway
aaa a
o �4�� � Qp4�oa0�G
.�`��� �' ' ��, ° � �,
` \ a�''�'."?+., t 1�
.s. t�,�w
.:c�. � • � �
�o� � x'��` � - a
T es � `
T inatv ``� � . �'aI
vkw c«.�aa� �..,L; e
�
�
wr. Wmorx,s ��'.e`�. 4
�o�8us.�aied� s��
��O�n«.
v�x,arewaw,ys � �:�y,Y:
ane SipruYe �e�
I r.om u.s. ioi
L--- - ---- -- �
�
6;
AttractAe
..�.�,:�.
Withfn F�ont
�� .
Consistent landscaping should be encouraged, but shouldn'i conceal busr-
nesses that refy on 6eing seen 6y U.S. ! 01 tra�j'ic.
CirY oF Buxr,uvcn� Bayfront SAP V-9 General Plan
border should 6e a landscope treourtent with a monumental bridge
design. •
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan
� Design Guidelines
��a-u• � e•-io � ra � w.n'-�:' � r-s � e�-�o �� ia-�s {
hwrt sidewalk kiig vavellanes pa�L4g s�dewa�k (ront
seiback bM lane u�back
Bayshore Highway is envisioned as a major street or "Grand Boulevard"
Shipping�\ ����
Uses to �
Rear
Element
QVS- �G / � L�
�s� SQ�G/ �SQP
o�F�c
i
��� aaD a
i'\`a. �Ll 1 ) �li W f �fY
. � / � Projecting
\ Overhang
w�a�.5 ac
Visable, Streec Level
Attradive
Eno-y
• Signage located along U.S. 101 should be designed to
encourage better wayfinding in the district.
Street Design
The streetscape in the Inner Bayshore area
should be consistent, attractive and well-
defined. Additionally:
• Streets should be designed for both the automobile and
the pedestrian / bicyclist.
• A variety of lighting features should be used to accom-
modate both the driver and pedestrian. Lighting should
also help increase visibi(ity of businesses, but not flood
their facades.
• The design of the sidewalk and setback area should cre-
ate an urban character and should feature amenities
such as street trees with tree grates, planters, benches
and removable cafe fumihue.
• Bayshore Highway should receive priority in any
streetscape program. The street should be designed as a
"Grand Boulevazd" with landscaping, lighting and
sidewalks standards the same on both sides.
Building Design
Building facades should animate the street,
providing visual interest to passers-by.
Additionally:
• Buildings should have entries directly accessible and
visible from the street.
• Entries should be marked by azchitectural features such
as projecting overhangs, special lighting, awnings and
signage that emphasize their importance.
• Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm
and pattem and should be articulated as an expression
of the building use. •
• The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis-
couraged, especially at ground level, because it creates
an ef�'ect which lacks the visual interest of cleaz window
openings.
• Building facades should be articulated with a building
base, body and roof or parapet edge.
• All visible sides of buildings should be designed with
the same level of detail.
Buildrng design should animate die stree� providing visual interest to .
passers-6y. • Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a
City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-10 - General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Design Guidelines
sense of integrity, permanence and durability, rather
than applique.
3�
Building should be no more than two stories, 3� feet in
height. �
City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-11 General Plan
n'^'.'.'Y"' K'✓ST�+.ry'Y` ayrwiv - vT�y±�' ..3_'
� Project Comments
�
Date:
To:
05/25/2004
� City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From:
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for conditional use permit for an addition to an existing
officelwarehouse building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned M-1,
APN:024-401-560
Staff Review: 06/01 /2004
�� � %� it.�C �'1 �- . ♦ i� ( f►1 ��/ �ct` .�i
�i�'�^'ct�iy'�.
C� f���.-a� r.� �t����gr, ����n rs�.r�„�-, r�-ti.v�„�r.r ,�,.r� �
�t� A� ���
�x�.s� ,
� �' �.=.�:.. y::. �. _ � . ,�. � i ► .�� ,:�. �
�4�_ �c� �. . ��rli, o... :�! C�. f�
!' " sLct.G. ...�a # �uC I?b s � ...5
� .�e �IL+ i!.` � �1 ..�/ X i! . i� i�':// ��ls. ► /\aVu .0 � �
�Zr�..f iTiwwf rnssil��l2_,
�
Reviewed by: ��
9%�%�.
Date: ��i `_�
ti�
.,.;. _,.,,�..�.. r... .�.:�.�.� .�..r-,�. .,r.,..ro,�-,
� Pro�ect Comments
Date:
To:
From:
05/25/2004
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
� Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for conditional use permit for an addition to an existing
office/warehouse building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned M-1,
APN:024-401-560
Staff Review: 06/01 /2004
�.-�
r�.��.� �
0
�
>� �F� �a ��sh1��..t � � <-.,.^�v:�'� �- �,J���.��..��
` -'�_
��� � •-
Reviewed by: �� � ����� Date: � ��_ ���
Project Comments
Date: 05/25/2004
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
�Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for conditional use permit for an addition to an existing
office/warehouse building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned M-1,
APN:024-401-560
Staff Review: 06/01/2004
G
I
0
L�
!6
�
by:
Date:
Date:
Project Comments
February 9, 2005
To: ❑ City Engineer
�chief Building Official
/
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
f�
��
�J
n�.� �w f r� C� r�rP�� w� oZ ��� ( c�6c r
�.�o c.7 �i/J � �CGC�.f'�� G G c���a/f�-C9- �
A��- �G' af°C j C/{a.s.f —�.i Go Pi �.�jv'�
�°,�� oc �����- �J- ca��• �� c� j
C(�k�4-P��� �'�
Revi
Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Request for remodel and addition to an existing office/warehouse
building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned O-M, APN: 024-401-560
0
�
�.. ,^L'1^.""^" ..�T -., vYT! ^':�^=„^ •:5"r' __
� Project Comments
Date: 05/25/2004
To: ❑ City Engineer
�Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for conditional use permit for an addition to an existing
office/warehouse building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned M-1,
APN:024-401-560
Staff Review: 06/01 /2004
__%�—J'��,O���rr � �- �'-��7`ir�'��i /�C�� c^�.�fc�r�-�rt.�� .
� .� �`1E' f,��� �'� l���i -L4 �,�i� �C� ,
'� � �,�..,�r�61r� f�! /,�„i-� l-� I S i fiI ad%!Yi �s a�f`� �''�! �' �
" ' �► I� �� ♦ � !i 1 /Il
_ .
C
� f/1 4`� �jG� f.Je`'k't� �i�U.SP Z%a`G�:S �' %��SE� S� /�"S xt vf��
'�I�'�� _ Y' YVt / i9 ' _>'�1 ��/ �f�' 6�-!�l GC f� lJ Y�'S �iG��`�`t I' i�l �
�'v T �?cf l��io'" G��O �'`l.
�1�1 -: ...��> .J • �-
�G-'- ��yc�r c�l�' ��"�'�Ss1 � �E' �
Revi wed by: Date:
�� � ���!
�
Project Comments
Date:
To:
� City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
� City Arborist
� City Attorney
� Recycling Specialist
� Fire Marshal
✓ NPDES Coordinator
From:
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits,
side setback and parking variances for a first floor remodel and
second floor addition to an existing office/warehouse building at 821
Cowan Road, zoned O-M, APN: 024-401-560
Staff Review:
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited
to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the
construction project (including demolition).
Additional stormwater requirements may be issued as conditions of approval for this
project. See attached.
Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available
for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project
proponents.
For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
Reviewed by: �� ��� Date: p � I 31 ��s
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org
��`, CITY 04
����E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
'� ; • .
�,.
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit ✓ Variance ✓�
Special Permit Other Parcel Number: o z 4- 4� t- S�o 0
Project address:_(go� ( [��{-�L.��}-�
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
( CevS)
Name: ' � �ame:__�in5�o.v��no5 ��S
�
Address: l S 1, � Lq Address: �•�7 . Q�o� �25
City/State/Zip: � City/State/Zip: i��\\bcc�.�, Cl� °�`tq3�
Phone (w):_ �U -3Le��-�� � Phone (w):. (�050) `1�3- o"�$�
(h):
(fl�1�� - 3Le�--���
ARCHITECT/DE
�ame;�
Address:
City/State/Zip:-�ly��=; /��
Phone (w): l� s"o -� 6 � =
th)�
(fl�_C-��� `� 52.. 5`t8a
_ `
, � �
� Please indicate with an asterisk
the contact person for this project.
(h):
�fl�
ON:
RECEIVED
APR .� p 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
r
) z���iif%/,�
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under
given herein is true and correct to� bes�my�
Applicant's
of perjury that the information
�d belief.
Date: �
I know about the propos'�d application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
Property owner's signature: Date: v�-/� o`-'\
Date submitted: q'` 3�' • o�
PCAPP.FRM
�; .. .. �. �
, �l,
Goryc��"�`pna� V S-L- � v Vvi 1-,' -� C�P� o�cl d�'�'�U-�. � Cv� -�C t�STli�
. ✓
�-t�t� ce..1w�,rG�+o� S-� �v;l d��
�
City of Burlingame Planning Department
��� CITY ��
BURLINQAME
��'w.,o..,.••'•'
�EIVED
N Y.9 2005
c�nr oF euRutvc�,vwE
PLANNING DEP7:
The Planning Commission is required by law to make fmdings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.52.020). 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.
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
proper.ty or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or
convenienc�
r�,-e d'vt�S�,� jr�c�'v�"eG-7`--G��✓1-/�l'1�', 2S � /���7'�I�
�
��Z � /��� l�f�� � � ��'!2l��v� �� �i.-t/GS L, 2Li � ��1 ����%'/L�
` / . j4-��.� ,�•c.�� rJs� �s �� -�'��e ��' T��
e� z.�-���� �� �
EJ�r,�Ti'� '/�L��, Ct/,�� ,�i��i4� �
�
2.
conducted in accordance with the Burlingame
g •ID' / �^
��f� �Gi� �rs �Li��'p (� G'%GL/ ti �7 " _ _ f�f'l% �--r'�/T D � 7� � �x/� %�
� ��,��� o ���°���ti� �������.��
� U �l-G���� • � f� Is
�cJ . � US� /'�s �� � ' �L-��/`Ge � G�%��G� �.��2�
� �' , ��,��s:
� � �'� �r� 7� � c-��1� ti
How will the proposed use be located and
General Plan and Zonin Ordinance�
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesihetics, mass, bulk and character of
the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general viciniry?
�%S�`/(� �. 7`�- �v,✓G��%1/�-�CL��S" !��%�1 �i`+�.0 � FS ��/
`� ��������i� 7�-�����4, � �� � �'�`e�� � 7�e ���J �SjG�
� �pr�a��° s �;�� rs �� ��2�sS�� � ��r��c�1�-rD�.( .
�-viD��ii��'S � /Y'9� �s �� �/v,�-e,�ZoU ,4/r-L���-�'c��
� �� ���.z1�4 `�'�1�i"l.�rR� i `7���� 7'.�f-G �-- �fi���
�������s ✓.�� �' ��° � ��� c�,r? � ���.�-
�� �cl �cGL ���f�7' �
- �,� .-,-,�,,� ,� �s6� �'�/ r , �
B,�'�'� .�}-d��e�-G� ��� �� ������i��U�--��.� � ��or��,�
��G���l.��s�-. �,�2�:G�--��0 7���� ��rvL� ¢e-��-�%t� i7-����
501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.or�
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org
1.� �; Explain why the proposed use at theproposed location will not be detrimental or injurious
� to property or imp�ovements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or
- - convenience.
How, will the proposed shucture 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 sunlightlshade, 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 welfaze?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety,
and thing which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations wtrich 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 wel are 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 handicapped7
2. How will theproposed use be located a�d conducted in accordance with the Burlingame
General Plan and Zoning Ordinanae?
Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also, ask for an explanation
of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated use and zoning, then explain why this
proposal would fit accordingly.
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
. of the existing and potential uses on adjoining prop�ties 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, pattem 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.
.. CUP.FRM
02/23/2005 10:13
0212212665 17:15
15107944178
650-696-3790
�SD INC
BL�2LINGAME PLANNING
PAGE 62
' �,C 5 �
GITY (jF BURL[NOAMS P[.AI,IVN�N�'s D'�PAR.7'MENT 50l 4K1MRpgE ROAD P(fiS4) SS8•7254, F(f,.SO) b9G-97� E C E I V E D �
.+r-1ti� fi'�.
��Il.ii�L� �r�
� �1f,11+� .
�11� V� �N�■.111�I��
VAR��iNCT ���.,�CATIUN
�r►�lc t� � �-�'G�
FEB 2 3 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
���,! +al.�.o1 l3� (m" �ra�o'S��l v��� ��r L S flq,tll.�GcL,�
r
�'l.ac �tarining C+m�missia�a as zec�uirsd by Iaw to rrxake �,ndin�s a� flefincd by t�� City's Ortlit'tancc
(Calc Scc�ion 25.54.020 a-d). �out' an�weers ta the fallowing c�ueqtioz►s c� assist t�.e� �'lanning
Carnrnission xx� making the d�Cision as to whether th�e £�di�s aan be xnade for your zec�uest.
Plv�,se t�p+� �or wri.te neatiy in in1c. Rc£ez to t11e baa�C of Chis fornc� �'qs' asai�tanc� vvith tb.ese
qucskions.
a. Dese�b� the c�acceptia�al o� e,xtt�aordinary circumstatt��s or� Goredittons app�icrxble hr
your pra�pe�xy whieh d� r�nt apply ta o�er pr,op�zrtie,c i� thi.e rrrea.
��D��`4- h �-s � -' I� � �°�SS, CSGc �-RE,� ��� �ieJ�1�
c�Ra�R ?-� Pr� c+� �� *9 ��r'�% •�s '�Q�v� �P .ra '7� e
�� �' P ��
���.y, �-�-- r� �����5�-�y� �--� �-��� ��� �.���
��-rtr � � a� ��v� � �v �. c�.�-- c���� 1�
�.�CfTC/�f�� �� SI�T�a
b. �'xplai� why �h� variu�,��e r�ques� is r�ecessary f'orthe pres�ervation and enjnym�nt ofa
subsi�nrial property right artd what unreasanable pr�perty lass ar unneca:�vary
ha�'afsl�r;p rnigl►�t result fnrm the d.�nia! of the �piicut`ian.
�'.��1i�1�- �r� �c°G�`.�T�'.L� ��/ 7��e �'�'�s��►�- ��c�1�r �....
?�c e ���:�r� �r�� C�J�,.r� � � ��� � ���.� �
��. � � �� �?t� ��, S �4,.,�c� �.�'c
�� c..[� !S G'���c.� A��i� �� �'T
� �� � � � � . �
�r f��� � f,vG- �'e� i �" 7'�f� /0 F��� � r� L�ir e7�.�
� �c. �5��.�,x.�a
��2c f� -�jvr4-7� �� Drcl�--L¢�Ac�' `7f�4
�, ,F,.x,�lain w�y �he propa�ed r�se �xt t,he proposc+� lnca�tan wilt nat be d�[rit�ental or
i�cj�t�'�'ous to pno,�erty nr improvernettts i.tt t`�he viGtn�ty �pr� to puhltc J�eulth, saf�ty,
�ereeral �elfact�e ar conv�rrf+¢r�c�. ,.
8
Ac�ess Co� `�.o�b �S ��r;� C� r`�z`�,u C� S7�
� c��cL �e.��IPS �'U����"sP-� ��. � FE�- �c�r;S ��
���.� f�6 ��°� ��RiS � S � N7�R����'..L) r7'd �-f� �Le� c��
�����
�
d� �i1'aw will the pmpnsed pmject 6g cvmpatible wixl� k`h� a.�st.��lics, rn�ss, 8retk and
c�iarnct�r of the ex�a�tin�► a�d pot.ential r�ses a� adjo�rting prope�ties itt xh�general
viCirtity? f n /� �Q�-A %��iL T¢ f C7�
'�^�� Q'7i:'�/� ���1' f rC S ! r� �� / 1 �' "'� `i ` " � ,
ft� S�.�' �� G'���v.� �.7'%A�/S r t� �P��S�A ���ci�r S
Cr.'�t1��'"'�t�G� G�r`T�.. C���"���d"7��� ��t/ ]�E' �d2"-� !.L/�sf•7'-.
"T'f7'� �'SrC�.`hC.�/,/.!? t�5�-�/�St�� �r� �D�+�S��7`Ge�1' �`v'�,,f
r c- �JT/Tlt��~i�/�`i � ii�+�."�—'"� ���7'!�
-�}� �.erQl�c•�-�� �✓� t�r� -�' .,�
City of Burlingaxne Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.or�
�� CITY �
� � .
BURtJNC3AME
qF o°
�� o
RECEIVED
JAN 1 9 2005
cirr oF suRUNcahne
PI.ANNING DEPT.
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 fmdings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
��'Ze S'�r���� � ��ISC�/C%� � E�%.�1.�� �� � �t .� �GD� U ��
� CT �Gt�`r%L .��GL��QZ`L�U� C� �`�Gc� G�viLt�,/ �L� �l.i`�Tf�� t 5 a9'`T� I O
D�(�- (,+..� �`o �,v� �S, �-��� .�9�� �4�D1T���� � '�/ `�d /�I� �s�l�,�Z �a
-f(�,is 1�s l`,�ec� 5s� Fv� i� e�j..es`..�� ��-e��r��.e�v�ec�--
�
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 form the denial of the application. �
�o G v�Q��7- �'�� �'� i i��rc,r� > rS.fU�= v,� sC'�5'7� ���!'--
�o rJL.d � j� %s� ��� ��c�f�T �,�d � 7�1� f�tJf� ��?--
S �dJc v� i`zz �"��Sr l��avl.�1� :�� G� � �`c ���v� ��.
�}� -��j�e�crs�`de ��,����-� o�.( Fo�'- � � e � ��'���1��c�c�
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to properly or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general
wetfare or convenience. ,'r � .�....- �
�� -S'�J 1'dY� �J rtl� i ���� ��G`'� �S � sgh/� / �F � � S �S
dv�cd o�Ca7` �e ���e�� p�� �Gr�P �1�
�v �'J^�Gc..cTL.� lt� ��
r ,7�� ��„��� y ���� �7� �� ��
-t!� s �i�-` .,g-,�o 7
������ �-.s ��.��.
c� How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity? �/,,
�G�. �'��, �i� c�3'G,'�.✓�%j `�`'t�% �J U K� �.f��. �'��j� r �' S' ` I ' /�i`�)_, ��� r �s� /Q'�
� GCJ rt
� ,� p �ve�t��"o,� `�`t� �,�� � ��.� ���t.�� �,,� ��
' j r/�%sa--� 1 S 6�'2P��� � /�� r�G Z L/�7`7 �
�5 cy� �. tl �•v�S � S f� �--r,�'.�. ��� ��-� �r'jrt�e� iz�
o�� � �=�� >� ���
t,)� � � 1 �-�- LGZU�I �f1Y�L ��'9'li�� ' % ���G� � � � ARFRM
C c, i`U GLt �(1��.� (,C� t'�`"� �1�•.� 1'/'"c�fc���� �����/''f'�C�S�
City of Burlingame Planniug Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame.or�
a. Describe the exceptional or e.xtraordinary circumstances or"conditions applicable to yourproperty
which do not apply to other propeMies in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other altematives 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 exceprional tree
specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of e�usting structures? How is this properiy 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 loss 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 the proposed location will not be detrimental 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 traffc, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlighUshade,
views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the siructure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfaze?
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 chexnicals, 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 fue protection? Will alann 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 iue services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potenrially 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 segxnents of the public such as the elderly or handicapped?
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the
existing and potential 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 struchues in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the siructure,
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 shucture or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? T'hink 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 compahble 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.
VAR.FRM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 69Cr3790 www.burlin�ame.o�g,
„��`•� COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS
PLANNING COMMIS5ION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL ��C E I V E D
�1%��i`%MIE
��'. �iw ov .
1. Proposed use of the site �����'GZ' �� %'_�'����.,�i'S/1 ��l ,l�� JAN 1 3 2005
2. Days and hours of operation %GL'� %/� `��� �,/� CfFY OF BURLINGAME
c> P�ANNING DEPT.
3. Nt� ber of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type) �o�'c�,; ����!—
r�'��f' LS-vr4,0i��--- CJ�II /_c��i`/!/��-�
4. Ci�rrent and ro'ected maximum number of em loyees includin owner at this location:
E�usting In 2 Years In 5 Years
��' /�� � � � "�
Hours of AM to After 5:00 AM to After 5:00 AM to After 5:00
Operation PM PM PM PM PM PM
Weekdays
Full-time 1� �- `�-O � . � --3Z7 �
P�rt-time � � 3 � v � �
Weekends ,,,,��
Ful�time � � � �' � �
Part time � � �
� �v `" �
S. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who
E�cisting In 2 Yeazs
-B— 2-z>
Hours of AM to After 5:00 AM to After 5:00
Operation PM PM PM PM
Weekdays � �
eekends
6. VVk�at is the maximum number of people e:
employees and visitors/customers): ``"
come to the site:
� � ��
a�t to
PM
�6
After 5:00
PM
�
-�"" � .� � `-�—
on site at any one time (include owner,
7. Where dv/will the owner and employees park? �� ��f���v�.,� (���li ���'
8. Where do/will the customers/visitors park?�(`� o� �� ���//L��-���.s�
9. Present or most recent use of site !r � /P � �
lU. List of other tenants on
necessary) �iC�� ,�
employees, haurs of operation (attach list if
co�m�xcrAt..�
�,�� .�[��1#.
��� �
�. �. ._._._....-,� - - -
Decemb�r 3, 2004
Tr�: The Planr�ing Commissioh
City af Bur(ingame, Cafiforrcia
Hanorab{e Cornmissioners'
RECEIVED
DEC 1 3 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
INVe have reviewed th� plans for the proposed sccand floor addiiionlremodel o�
i'�r. Dokos's building at 821 Gowan Road.
Vlle find fihe ProjecC #o be wefl �lesigned, and in design accor�da�ce v��fih �he
buildings in the sutround�ng area.
We ask that you ��prav� Mr, pakos �r�ject as submitted
Sicrcern[y,
� - r�/�R io�
�
Date
• Qa�e
339 Cowan Raad, �urfingame, Ca 9�4Q10 Tel: (650) 652-0588 �ax: (65Q) 662-0586
RECEIVED
December 7, 2004
To: Cxty of Burlingazxie
Reference: Planning Subzxiission
Hoxzorable Cornmissioners'
D E C 1 3 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
After seein�g ihe plans for the 2�� story floor Additaon and Rennodel af 821
Cawan, I believe that the addition and changes proposed will be good for
the area, and the building will match the resi of the neighborhood.
I am for the project,
Sincerely,
'`� �%C�l z��zp
1
��U�2�
f ���
���U �tJ�Je�"' /���
llecembex 8, 2004
T'.he Planning Comznission
City of Burlingame, California
Reference: $19-821 Co��an Rd., Burlingamc, CA; Planning
To Whom It May Concern:
RECEIVED
D E C 1 3 2004
CiTY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
We find the plans submitted for our review to agree to the styIe of arclvitecttue in the
area, and will in fact enhance the �values of suxrounding pzoperties; we therefore, feel
these pIax�s should be approved..
Sincerely,
;, � �������
�� ,� � .� .
�'� LI � CJkJ✓Y� d�G
�; l�i V�• � �
RECEIVED
December 8, 20Q4
To: The Planning Commission
City of Bur�ingame, California
Dear Sir:
D E C 1 3 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Havzng xeviewed the plans at 82Z Cowan Road, we have no
ob�ection to approval of the plans in �act we believe the
project will be an imp�ovemen� to the area.
Sincerely,
`�� j � t ,,
�....� _�.:�- �� . .. � l,v�...�.-�l
�
�e� -� _� � �''( �j�'�'✓� �1 � d ��J
� �
e� 'iJ� �;��en ��
0 W�� �
December 5, 2004
The Planning Commission
City of Burlingarne, Califaz•nia
To Wham It May Concern:
RECEiVED
DEC 1 3 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
In revie�w of the plans for the second floor Addition/Remodel of Konstantinos Dokos
buxlding at 819-821 Cowan Rd, we feel that it will be positzve for the area. In addition,
the desi�m will f t well with the buildings in the area.
This projeet should be approved.
Sincerely,
_ . " - ���'� ��' G.c-C%�--� �'
� �/, "t�{� 1,;;.�t'✓i�L 1 � � '
�;-�'� �_� � ���r�—�� �s,—�,�v`—�� ' �� � G��'�'����,�'7
'l ������ ..� %��.� t,��/��- � `�—
U ; ----- �
1�� —/� —�` �
ADDENDUM FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 821 COWAN ROAD
ON-SITE PARKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO
AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING
A. INTRODUCTION
This Mitigated Negative Declaration addendum has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the
implementing guidelines of the California Environxnental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), which permits a
lead agency (the City of Burlingame) to prepare an addendum to the previously prepared mitigated negative
declaration if some changes or additions to that mitigated negative declaration are necessary, but none of the
changes are sufficiently substantial to warrant preparation of a new (or subsequent) mitigated negative
declaration pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
As approved by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this addendum may be included in, or attached to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it need not be circulated for public review.
B. SUMMARY
On January 24, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed
first floor remodel and second floor addition to an existing office/warehouse building, and recommended that
the on-site parking be provided to code requirements. The addendum for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared for the revised proj ect proposed at 821 Cowan Road, Burlingame. The applicant submitted
revised plans, date stamped February 4, 2005. Below is a summary of the revisions with regard to the on-site
parking.
C. IMPACTS TO ON-SITE PARHING
After receiving additional comments at the January 24, 2005, study meeting, the applicant met with the proj ect
planner and chief building official to discuss the disabled-accessible parking and total on-site parking
requirements for this project. The building ofiicial noted that the location of the disabled-accessible parking
spaces as previously proposed did not comply with ADA requirements. After working with the building
official, the applicant relocated the disabled-accessible parking spaces from the right side of the parking lot to
the left side of the site directly behind the building. This new location provides a safe, clear access to the front
of the building which complies with ADA requirements. The path now runs along the left side of the building
rather than along the driveway.
With the relocation of the disabled-accessible parking spaces to the rear of the building, the applicant was able
to increase the number of on-site parking spaces, from 51 to 53 on-site parking spaces where 53 spaces are
required. In addition, the nuxnber of compact spaces was reduced from 11 to 8, where a m�imum of 8 are
allowed. The changes to the parking area reduced landscaping by 250 SF, which still complies with total on-
site and parking area landscape requirements (15.9% proposed where 16% is required). With the revised
project, based on plans date stamped February 4, 2005, the following variances have been eliminated:
► Parking variance for number of parking spaces (51 paxking spaces previously proposed, where 53
parking spaces are required) (CS 25.70.040); and
► Parking variance for number of compact parking spaces (11 compact spaces previously proposed,
where 8 compacts spaces are allowed) (CS 25.70.044).
ADDENDUM FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
821 COWAN ROAD
Page 2
The existing on-site parking configuration provides 54 parking spaces, but is nonconforming because a 24'-0"
clear back-up space does not exist for all parking spaces (22'-8" existing) and disabled-accessible parking is
not provided. A total of 53 parking on-site parking spaces are required for the proposed office/warehouse
building (1:300 SF for office and 1:1000 SF for warehouse). With the proposed project, the parking area will
be re-striped to comply with current code requirements, including providing disabled-accessible parking. The
applicant is proposing 53 on-site parking spaces (43 standard, 8 compact and 2 disabled-accessible spaces)
where 53 are required. The applicant projects that a maximum of 30 people is expected on-site at any one
time. A clear back-up space of 24'-0" is provided for all on-site parking spaces. A shared access driveway
exists between this property and 837 Cowan Road (properiy to the south).
In addition, the driveway aisles at the north and south ends of the parking lot are also nonconforming (12'-0"
and 15'-6" aisle widths existing, where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two directions).
Because the use is being intensified on the site with the addition of more office/warehouse space, a variance is
required for the aisle width at the north and south ends of the parking lot (12'-0" and 13'-6" provided where
18'-0" is the minimuxn required for traffic moving in two directions). The proposed plan will require traffic to
travel in a counter clockwise direction through the parking area. The City's traffic engineer reviewed the
proposed on-site traffic circulation and accepted the design. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing
to install one-way directional signage throughout the parking area to clearly define the vehicular direction for
employees and visitors to the site. The City's traffic engineer noted that prior to submitting for a building
permit, the applicant should work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and
markings on the pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum for the proposal identifies potential impacts in the areas
of noise during construction on the adj acent off ce and warehouse buildings, on-site circulation and aesthetics.
All of these potential impacts were determined not to be potentially significant with the implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and Addendum. No additional impacts are anticipated and
the identified mitigation measures are still applicable to the project.
,
CITY OF BURLINGAME
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND-536-P, 821 Cowan Road
The City of Burlingame by Mar�aret Monroe on January 25, 2005, completed a review of the proposed
project and determined that: .
(X� It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX� No Environmental Impaet Report is required.
Proieet Description: The applicant is proposing a first floor remodel and second floor addition to. an
existing office/warehouse building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned O-M. Currently, there is an existing one=
story, concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building (13,522 SF) on the site. The proposed project includes
remodeling the existing first floor (no new floor area added) and adding a new second story (11,825 SF).
O-M Code Sections 25.43.020 (9 and 11), state that office uses and warehousing, storage, distribution of
goods, and wholesale of materials, liquids and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building,
are permitted uses in this district.
The proposed 25,377 SF office/warehouse building will contain 13,552 SF of warehouse space on the first
floor and 11,825 SF of office space on the second floor. The proposed building, as measured to the roof
ridge, is 32'-4" above average top of curb (35'-0" height allowed without a conditional use permit). A total
of 53 parking on-site parking spaces are required for the proposed office/warehouse building (1:300 SF for
office and 1:1000 SF for warehouse). The applicant is proposing 51 on-site parking spaces (38 standard,
11 compact and 2 disabled-accessible spaces). Parking variances are required for the numlier of parking
spaces (51 proposed where 53 are required), number of compact spaces (11 proposed where 8 are allowed) .
and for aisle width at the north and south ends of the parking lot (12'-0" provided where 18'-0" is the
minimum required for traffic moving in iwo directions).
Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed project is an expansion of an existing office/warehouse building
in an area that is planned and zoned for industrial uses intended to continue the existing pattem of use with
occupancy by wholesale outlets, professional and administrative offices, and light manufacturing plants.
The project is also compatible with the Burlingame Bay&ont Specific Plan (Inner Bayshore Area) which
designates this area as an office-manufacturing area (land uses in this area should focus on light industrial,
office and smaller, s.cattered employee serving, retail uses). The project complies with a majority of the
zoning code regulations and Bayfront Design Guidelines, and based on the mitigation measures listed in
the initial study which will be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the proj ect, the proj ect will
have no significant impact on the environment. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting
findings, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the proj ect will have a significant effect on the
environment.
� City Planner January 25, 2005
Si ture f Processi Official � Title Date
e
Mitigated Negative Declaration
The determination becomes final after action at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission,
unless the commission's action is appealed to the City Council.
Date posted: January 25, 2005
Declaxation of Postin� .
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true
copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council
Chambers. .
821 Cowan Road
Executed at Burlingame, California on January 25, 2005.
G�����
DORIS MORTENSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF BURLINGAME
-2-
�
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
APN:
821 Cowan Road
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
Parcel with an address of 821 Cowan Road, Burlinga.me,
California �
Greg Ward
One Stop Design, Inc.
3566 Beard Road
Fremont, CA 94555
Office Use
O-M (Office-Manufacturing).
024-401-560
8. Description of the Project: The applicant is proposing a first floor remodel and second floor addition to an
existing office/warehouse building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned O-M. Currently, there is an existing one-
story, concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building (13,522 SF) on the site. The proposed project includes
remodeling the existing first floor (no new floor area added) and adding a new second story (11,825 SF).
O-M Code Sections 25.43.020 (9 and 11), state thai office uses and warehousing, storage, distribution of
goods, and wholesale of materials, liquids and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building, are
permitted uses in this district.
The proposed 25;377 SF office/warehouse building will contain 13,552 SF ofwarehouse space on the first
floor and 11,825 SF of office space on the second floor. The proposed building, as measured to the roof
ridge, is 32'-4" above average top of curb (35'-0" height allowed without a conditional use permit). A total
of 53 parking on-site parking spaces are required for the proposed office/warehouse building (1:300 SF for
office and 1:1000 SF for warehouse). The applicant is proposing 51 on-site parking spaces (38 standard,ll
compact and 2 disabled-accessible spaces). Parking variances are required for the number ofparking spaces
(51 proposed where 53 are required) and for nuxnber of compact spaces (11 proposed where 8 are allowed).
The California Environmental Quality Act exempts additions to commercial buildings in urbanized areas not
exceeding 10, 000 SF in area. Environmental review is required for this project because the.proposed
addition to the existing office/warehouse building exceeds 10,000 SF (11,825 SF proposed) and therefore
does not qualify for an exemption. .
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is relatively level and measures 0.97 acres (42,300 SF) in
area. It is located in a developed office/industrial area and is surrounded by office, auto rental, manufacturing
1
and warehouse uses. The site is bordered by one and two-story office/warehouse buildings to the north and
one-story office/warehouse buildings to the south. One-story and three-story office buildings and an auto
. rental parking lot are located to the west, and one-story office/warehouse buildings exist east of the subject
property. The site is located between Bayshore Highway to the east and U.S. Highway 101 to the west. The
surrounding area is planned for manufacturing and office uses and is zoned O-M (office-manufacturirig).
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A building permit will be required from the City of
Burlingame Public Works Department, Building Division, for all demolition work on the existing building
and for construction of the new addition. The demolition of a portion of the existing building�will require a
permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Nation Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) guidelines and San Mateo CountyPollution Program Best Management Practices shall be required
to be followed for any construction activities and for future management of the site. The project is required
to comply with the noise and safety standards of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
however the project does not require approval by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission
because it is not located within the 65 CNEL noise contour, is not within an approach zone, and would not
- penetrate, any approach surface shown on the San Francisco International Airport height restriction maps.
Since the 34'-2" height (above average top of curb) of the building is well below the 161' height restriction
imposed in this area by FAA, Part 77, the project does not require review by the Federal Aviation
Administration for compliance with their standards.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proj ect, involving at least one impact
that is a"Potentiall Si 'ficant Im act" as indicated by the checklist on the followin ages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Population and Housing Mineral Resources Gtixltural Resources
Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recrearion
Materials
Hydrology & Water � X Noise Agricultural Resources
Quality
Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service - - =
Systems - , _
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD 1VOT have a sigxuficant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I iind that although the proposed proj ect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A_MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT is required. �
I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impacY' or "potentially significantunless
mitigated"@ impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIlt or NEGATIVE
DECLAItATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIlt or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing fiu-ther is required.
1"�.._- �`j ���
Marg et M nroe, City anner Date •
Issues and Supporting Information Sources so„r�es Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signifcant Significant Signifcant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
� Incorporated '
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,4 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specifc plan, local coastal program 1,2,4 X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,13 X
cormnunity conservation plan?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for exaxnple, by proposing new homes and businesses) or '
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? 1,3 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 3 X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial nuxnbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOII.S. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5,6,7 X
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 5,7 X
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a lmown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42. �
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,7 ' � X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5,6,7 X
iv) Landslides? 5,6 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,5,8 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 1,5,6 X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or coliapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 5,6,7 X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property? � �
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,5 X
tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sour�� Potentially Potentially Less Than No
SigniC►cant SigniFcant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation '
Incorporated
4. , HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1 X
requirements?
i. Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality 1,8 X
durin or followin construction?
� ii. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated
increased runoff? 1,8 X
iii. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage 1,8,15 X
atterns due to chan es in runoff flow rates volumes?
iv. Result in increased erosion in its watershed? 1,8 . X
v. Involve a tributary to an already impaired water body , as
listed on the Clean Water Action Section 303(d) list? If so, 1,8,15 X
will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the
water bod is alread im aired? �
vi. Have a potentially adverse environmental impact on surface 1�8 X
water uali , to marine, fresh, or wetland waters?
vii. Have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact 1,8 X
on ound water uali ?
viii.Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or 1,8 � X.
de adation of beneficial uses?
ix. Im act a uatic, wetland or ri arian habitat? 1,8 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing 1,8 X
neazby wells would drop to a level which would not support
earisting land uses or planned uses for wluch permits have been �
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? 1,8,15 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or '
area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or 1,8,15 X
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? �
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or 1,9 X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,9 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazazd area as mapped on 1,8,9 X
a federal Flood Hazazd Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signiticant Significant Signifcant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
. Incorporated
h) Place within a 1.00-year flood hazard area structures which would 1,8,9 X
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the 1,8,9 X
failure of a levee or dam? �
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,8 X
5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,10 X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contnbute to an existing or
1,10 X
projected air quality.violation?
c) Result in a cumularively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,10 X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quanritative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? �
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,10 X
concentrations? •
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substanrial number of 1,10 X
people? .
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an �ncrease in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,2,8 X � .
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? '
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? 12 X
c) Result in a change in air iraffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 8,11 X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,8 X .
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 8,17 X
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,8 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,8 X
altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signi�cant Signifcant Signi�cant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,8,13 X
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,13 X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Deparlment of
Fish and Gaine or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but 1,13 X
not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) . Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,13 X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established �
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of narive wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,8 X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? .
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1,8 X
Plan, Natural Community Conservarion Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
8. MII�TERAL RE50URCES. Would the project: �
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1,5 X
would be of vaiue to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 1,5 X
plan or other land use plan?
9. HA7_,_AR�S AND HA7.ARnOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous �.
materials? 1,8 X
b} Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 8 X
involving"the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazazdous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 1,8 X
of an existing or proposed school? �
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant SigniFcant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Secrion 14 X
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazazd to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public 1,11 X
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project azea?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
� project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 - X
the project area? � �
g) Impair implementarion of or physically interfere with an adopted 1,8,17 X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? .
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fres, including where wildlands are 1,8,17 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in: _
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 1 X
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generarion of excessive groundborne 1,8 X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise leveis in the 1 X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,8 X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 11 X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 1 X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,17 X
b) Police protection? i X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 � � X
e) Other public facilities? � 1 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Signi6cant Significant Impact
Issues IInless ImpaM
Mitigation
Incorporated
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: .
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ihe applicable 1,15 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 1,15 X
trealment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of e�sting facilities, the construction of 1,15 X
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have suff cient water supplies available to serve the project from 1,15 X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded �
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a deternunation by the wastewater treatment provider 1,15 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,15 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,15 X
related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,8 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1,8 X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? �
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,8 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,8 X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,8 X
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
b) Cause a substanrial adverse change in the significance of an 1,8 X
archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5?
c) Direcfly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,8 X
or site or unique geological feature?
d) Disturb any hwnan remains, including those interred outside of 1�8 X
formal cemeteries?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless ImpaM
Mitigation
Incorporated
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,8 X
regional parks or other recrearional facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recrearional facilities or require the 1,8 X
construcrion or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICiJLTURAL' RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland or Farmland of 1 X
Statewide Importance (Farniland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X
Williamson Act coniract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X
to non-agricultural use?
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
communiiy, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important exanaples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lunited, but 1 X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the ef�ects ofpast projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirecfly? 1 X
10
Initial Study Summary � ' 821 Cowan Road
18. SOURCE REFERENCES ;
1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 — Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2004 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City ofBurlingame, Burlingaxne, California, 2002.
4 2002 Census
5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised 1981.
6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo Courity, California,
1972.
7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF;
San Mateo County: California, 1987.
8 Plans date stamped October 25, 2004.
9 Map of Approximate Locations of I00 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance
Maps, September 16, 1981 � �
10 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995
11 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994
12 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997
13 Map ofAreas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department
of Fish and Game
14 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998
15 Engineering Memo dated June 1, 2004.
16 Recycling Specialist Memo dated June 2, 2004. �
17 Fire Department Memo dated June 1, 2004.
18 Building Department Memo dated June 4, 2004.
11
Initial Study Summary
821 Cowan Road
Land Use and Planning Summary: The applicant is proposing a first floor remodel and second floor
addition to an existing office/warehouse building at 821 Cowan Road, zoned O-M. Currently, there is an
existing one-story, concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building (13,522 SF) on the site. The proposed proj ect
includes remodeling the existing first floor (no new floor area added) and adding a new second story (11,825
SF). The proposed 25,377 SF office/warehouse building will contain 13,552 SF of warehouse space on tlie
first floor and 11,825 SF of office space on the second floor. The proposed building, as measured to the roof
ridge, is 32'-4" above average top of curb (35'-0" height allowed without a conditional use permit).
The General Plan land use element indicates that the areas designated for industrial uses are intended to
continue the existing pattern of use with occupancy by wholesale outlets, professional and administrative
offices, and light manufacturing plants. The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan (Inner Bayshore Area)
designates this area as an office-manufacturing area. Land uses in this area should focus on light industrial,
office and smaller, scattered employee serving, retail uses. � The O-M district is the zone assigned to
implement the "office use" General Plan designation. O-M Code Sections 25.43.020 (9 and 11), state that
office uses and warehousing, storage, distribution of goods, and wholesale ofmaterials, liquids and equipment
conducted wholly within an enclosed building, are permitted uses in this district. Therefore, this
office/warehouse proposal is consistent with these plans and the implementing zoning.
The proposed project requires several exceptions to the zoning code. A side setback variance along the left
side property line is required (9'-3 existing, 8'-3" proposed, where 10'-0" is the minimum required). Parking
variances are required for the number of parking spaces (51 proposed where 53 are required), number of
compact spaces (11 proposed where 8 are allowed) and for the aisle width at the north and south ends of the
parking lot (12'-0" proposed where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two directions).
Conditional use permits are required to exceed the Specific Area Plan land use density (0.6 FAR for
warehouse where 0.5 is allowed) and to vary from the design guidelines for Bayfront Development.
Mitigation:
Before any development is allowed, the following permits sha11 be obtained: side setback variance
along the left side property line (9'-3 existing, 8'-3" proposed, where 10'-0" is the minimum required);
parking variances for the number of parking spaces (51 proposed where 53 are required), number of
compact spaces (11 proposed where 8 are allowed) and for the aisle width at the north and south ends
of the parking lot (12'-0" proposed where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two
directions); and conditional use permits to exceed the Specific Area Plan land use density (0.6 FAR
for warehouse where 0.5 is allowed) and to vary from the design guidelines for Bay&ont Development.
• The project shall obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies
including: Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for office and light
industriaUmanufacturing uses. There is no residential development in the area. Because the site is presently
occupied by office/warehouse uses and the proposed addition to the building would not add more intense uses
to the site, the project would not generate sufficient new employment that it would have a direct impact on
housing demand in the immediate area.
12
Initial Study Summaiy � 821 Cotivan Road
Geologic Summary: The proposed development is on a site which is a part of an area which was created in
the 1950's by the placement of fill. The fill is between 5 and 13 feet deep and is underlain by 5 to 7 feet of
soft, highly compressible silty clay known as bay mud. The bay mud is underlain by at least 85 feet of
interbedded stiff to very stiff sandy gravelly clay and medium dense to very dense clayey gravel capable of
providing friction support for driven piles.
The site is in a seismically active region and the active San Andreas Fault is located about four miles west of
the site. There are no known fault traces passing through or trending toward the site. After the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake, the United States Geological Survey estimated the probability of at least one large
earthquake (M7 or greater) in the San Francisco Bay region within the next 30 years at about 67 percent.
Recent studies by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicate, unofficially, that the probabilitymay
be as high as 90 percent. On the San Francisco Peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault, the probabiliiy is
estimated at about 23 percent that an M7 or greater earthquake would occur in this time-frame. During such
an earthquake, the site would experience ground shaking of Modified Mercalli Intensity VIII, strong enough to
cause moderate damage to ordinary structures. In accordance with the 1987 USGS maps showing cumulative
damage potential from earthquake ground shaking, this site is in an area where the potential damage is
moderately low for concrete and steel structures, and moderate for tilt-up concrete structures. The underlying
soil consists of artificial fill, which is considered a Category C, shales and clays, and experiences a higher
intensity of ground shaking in a major earthquake.
Potential seismically induced ground failures at the site include liquefaction, ground lurching, landsliding and .
settlement. These seismically induced ground failures would have the potential to damage at-grade parking
lots and underground utility lines. The likelihood of seismically induced ground failures at the site, including
liquefaction, ground lurching, landsliding and settlement, is estimated to be low because the underlying
medium dense to dense soils contain significant amounts of clay and silt to act as binders for the coarser
material (sand, gravel) and would resist lateral movements.
The site is also subject to static settlement (compaction, compression, densification) of about 1 foot every 10
years. This is a naturally occurring effect of gravity in filled tidelands. This impact can be compensated for
by using flexible utility connections and hard or impervious surfaces on a flexible base in order to extend their
life. Pursuant to existing regulations, new facilities would be required to be installed to the standards of the
City of Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at the time a
building permit is issued.
Mitigation:
• The project design shall conform to all seismic related requirements of the latest edition of the
California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the time a building permit
is issued and any additional seismic requirements established by the State Architect's office.
•. The grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
All applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and
during construction.
All applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management
Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas denuded
13
Initial Study Summaty
821 Cowan Road
due to construction prior to the wet season; erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to
protect San Francisco Bay waters.
Water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections with the
degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his approval and inspection.
• In the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, the site shall be repaired as
approved by the City Engineer.
Hydrology and Water Quality Summary: This is an in-fill development project. The subject property is
located approximately 300 feet south of El Portal Channel and 550 feet east of San Francisco Bay. Runoff
from the site will be directed to the street into a storm drain on Cowan Road. Storm water runoff will be
routed to the Cowan Road Pump Station through an existing 15" reinforced concrete pipe and then through an
existing 54" corrugated metal pipe, and puxnped to El Portal Creek (on Burlingame/Millbrae city boundary)
which empties into the San Francisco Bay along the bay frontage. The proj ect site is located in Flood Zone B,
which is between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year flood zone. All of the surface water vvill be required
to drain to the street frontages.
The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate
capacity for the enlarged office/warehouse building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the
street. With the reconstruction, there will be additional landscaping installed at the left side and rear of the
property, where there is cuxrently none. This added pervious surface will cause a slight decrease in storm
water runoff. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water
conservation program, although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. The proj ect
shall be subject to compliance with the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements.
Municipal water supplies in the area are obtained exclusively from the City and County of San Francisco's
Hetch Hetchy reservoir storage; groundwater in the project area is often brackish and is generally not used.
The primary impact that the proposed proj ect would have on Bay water quality is the addition of contaminants
contained in surface run off water, especially from landscape fertilization and irrigation. However, since the
area of the site on which.the office/warehouse building is akeady paved, the change in runoff witli the
development is anticipated to be minimal. .
This project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water
Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time ofpermit application. Water
conservation requirements must be met for all fixtures in the office/warehouse building and City emergency
water conservation requirements met as water supply limitations require.
,
Mitigation:
• All runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the
applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices
for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance.
14
Initial,Study Summary
821 Cowan Road
All runoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas, shall be filtered to remove oil
and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be
installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in
working conditions shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, all costs for the
annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this proj ect's
property owner.
• All site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage.
• Grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the storm drain will be minimal.
• The property owner shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan
together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application.
• Low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met
at all times, including special additional emergency requirements.
� All applicable requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be
adhered to in the design and during construction.
• All runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
• Each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sandloil separator; all sand/oil separators
sha11 be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods ofheavy rainfall,
to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site and maintenance
shall be as directed by the City.
• That drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to
storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be
discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and
cleaning (vacuuming out) sandloil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as
immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 — April 1) and as directed by the
City.
Off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas.
Methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw
bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles
to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed during construction to maintain temporary erosion controls
and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established.
Air Quality Summary: No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature or
change in local or regional climate is anticipated ta occur as a result of the proposed office/warehouse
building. However, because many of the surrounding buildings are built close to praperty lines, dust created
15
Initial Study Summary 821 Cowan Road
during construction may be a potentially significant to people in the adjacent buildings, unless mitigation is
incorporated. To mitigate this potentially significant effect, the site will be required to be sprayed with water
to control the dust. A conshuction fence, containing a impermeable fabric/material, shall be required around
the site during construction to keep all construction debris on site.
Mitigation:
• The site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Constiuction
equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
A construction fence, including a impermeable fabric/material, sha11 be required around the site during
construction to keep all construction debris on site.
Transportation/Circulation Summary: Regional access is provided to this area by U.S. Highway 101. It is
typically an eight lane facility the length of the Peninsula with operational improvements using auxilary lanes
at select locations. It is fully improved to freeway status in the project area with four through lanes in each
direction and full access grade-separated interchanges at Broadway and Millbrae Avenue and partial access
(northbound U.S. 101 only) interchanges at Peninsula Avenue and Anza Avenue. The interchanges which
provide access and egress for the site are the Broadway and Millbrae Avenue interchanges.
Local access to the project site and circulation through the Bayfront and Anza areas is provided by Bayshore
Highway, Airport Boulevard, Millbrae Avenue, Anza Boulevard, and Coyote Point Drive. A combination of
Broadway and Bayshore Highway links the project area with central Burlingame west of U.S. 101. Direct
access to the proj ect site is provided by a shared access driveway on Cowan Road. Cowan Road extends from
Bayshore Highway to Gilbreth Road.
The existing on-site parking configuration provides 54 parking spaces, but is nonconforming because a 24'-0"
clear back-up space does not exist for all parking spaces (22'-8" existing) and disabled-accessible parking is
not provided. In addition, the driveway aisles at the north and south ends of the parking lot are also
nonconfornung (12'-0" and 15'-6" aisle widths existing, where 18'-0" is the minimuxn required for traffic
moving in two directions). The proposed parking configuration will provide a 24'-0" clear back-up space for
all parking spaces, reducing the number of on-site parking spaces to 51. However, because the use is being
intensified on the site with the addition of more office/warehouse space, a variance is required for the aisle
width at the north and south ends of the parking lot (12'-0" provided where 18'-0" is the minimum required for
traffic moving in two directions). The proposed plan will require traffic to travel in a counter clockwise
direction through the parking area. The City's traffic engineer reviewed the proposed on-site traffic circulation
and accepted the design. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to install one-way directional
signage throughout the parking area to clearly define the vehicular egress direction for employees and visitors
to the site. The City's traffic engineer noted that prior to submitting for a building pernut, the applicant should
work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and markings on the pavement to
clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction.
A total of 53 parking on-site parking spaces are required for the proposed office/warehouse building (1:300 SF
for office and 1:1000 SF for warehouse). With the proposed project, the parki.ng a.zea will be re-striped to
comply with current code requirements, including providing disabled-accessible parking. However, the
16
Initial Study Summary � 821 Cowan Road
number ofparking spaces will be reduced. The applicant is proposing 51 on-site parking spaces (38 standard,
11 compact and 2 disabled-accessible spaces). Parking variances are required for the number of parking
spaces (51 proposed where 53 are required) and for number of compact spaces [11 proposed (22%) where 8
(16°/a) are allowed]. The applicant projects that a maacimum of 30 people are expected on-site at any one time.
A clear back-up space of 24'-0" is provided for all on-site parking spaces. A shared access driveway exists
between this property and 837 Cowan Road (property to the south). A copy of the deed provided by the
applicant indicates that there is a 12-foot wide non-exclusive easement (total available width for access/egrees
is 24'-0") on both properties for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, drainage, and construction and
rnaintenance of underground utility lines (see survey sheet). .
The Bayfront Development fee is intended to fund the proposed improvements to the AirportlCoyote Point
intersection as part of interchange improvements in the Bayfront area. This project is required to pay the
Bayfront Development fee. Therefore, this development will contribute its proportional share for
roadway/circulation improvements which will mitigate the cumulative impacts of this and other projects on
area circulation. �
Mitigation:
• One-way directional signage shall be installed and painted throughout the parking area to clearly
define the vehicular direction for employees and visitors to the site; prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant/property owner shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the
required signage and markings on the pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction.
• Payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Inner
Bayshore and Shoreline areas shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other
proj ects on area circulation, one-half of the fee is due at the time of planning application and one-half
due before the final framing inspection.
Biological Resources Summary: The proposed building will be constructed on a site that has been fully
developed and already contains structures and paving. There are no existing animal habitats in the area that
will be altered because there are none. There are no records. of rare or endangered plant or animal species
have been identified on this developed urban site. No native or non-native plant life exists on site. The
existing site has a very small amount of landscaping including three sycamore trees and a lawn area at the
front of the site. The three existing sycamore trees, ranging in size from 10 to 12 inches in diameter, will
remain. As part ofthe project, the applicant is proposing to install additional landscaping throughout the site.
The project complies with landscaping requirements by providing 16.5% (7,000 SF) on-site landscaping
where 15% (6,345 SF) is required (includes walkways at the front of the site). Although the O-M District
does not require front setback landscaping, it should be noted that 90% (3,300 SF) of the front setback is
landscaped (including walkways).
The applicant indicates that the proposed landscaping includes ornamental shrubs and hedges. The applicant
proposes to plant Viburnum arrowwod, Horizontal plumosa, Japanese barberry and Rhododendron maximum
along the front, left side and rear of the property and throughout the parking area. The proj ect is subject to the
Tree Protection and Reforestaiion Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1992 as amended in 1993.
New trees required by the Parks Deparhnent will not alter the diversity or number of species of plant life in the
area. There is no farmland in Burlingame.
17
Initial Study Summary
821 Cowan Road
Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The site will receive gas and electricity service from Pacific Gas
and Electric Company. All gas and electric services are in place with adequate capaciiy to handle the
expansion of the office/warehouse use on this site. The incremental use of energy to serve the additional
11,825 SF of office use is insignificant and the remodel will result in the entire building complying with Title
24 requirements. Substantial amounts of fuel will not be needed to construct, develop or maintain the proj ect.
Hazards Summary: This project is not expected to expose people to health hazards, nor is it expected to
create a health hazard. The site is not listed on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, nor is
it listed on San Mateo County's Inventory of Fuel Leak Sites. An NPDES permit is required to ensure that
runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
There are no schools within a quarter of a mile of the project site, and hence the project would not pose any
hazards to schools in the vicinity of the project site. Furtliermore, there are no elements in the site plan of the
proposed proj ect that would interfere with existing emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans.
The project site is surrounded by existing office/warehouse buildings and would not be adjacent to any
wildland areas; consequently, people and structures would not be exposed to risks related to wildland fires.
Mitigation:
• If any trenching is proposed on the site, the applicant shall contact the San Mateo County Health
Department; if any contaminated soil is encountered, the applicant shall follow Countyprotocol for its
disposal.
Noise Summary: The site is impacted by noise from traffic on Bayshore Highway, Bayshore Freeway 101,
and from aircraft landings and takeoffs at San Francisco International Airport, which is located about 2.5
miles northwest of the site. Quarterly noise reports provided by the airport indicate that Burlingame
consistently experiences noise levels less than 60 dB CNEL in this area. The Noise Element of the
Burlingame General Plan lists the acceptable maximum outdoor noise levels for office/wazehouse buildings as
65 dBA. This site is located on Cowan, approximately 950 feet from the Bayshore freeway, and it is not
expected that the combined noise levels from the airport, freeway, and adjacent roadway would exceed 65
dBA. Since the area is already impacted by traffic and aircraft noise, the additional vehicular traffic generated
by this use would not have a significant impact on the ambient noise level in the area. Construction activities
may affect adjacent businesses, and noise levels may increase during construction. The Noise Element
requires that interior noise levels for offices shall not exceed 45 dBA.
Mitigation:
All construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code
requirements, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and in addition to the limitations
of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035).
The office/warehouse building shall be buili so that the interior noise level in aIl areas used as office
does not exceed 45 dBa.
• All construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame Municipal
Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m: on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
18
Initial,Study Summary
821 Cowan Road
Public Services Summary: The project is not expected to have a sxgnificant impact on the provision ofother
public services, since this is an urbanized area with adequately sized existing public facilities in place. Public.
services were designed to accommodate this use, and the proposed use compared to the existing use is not a
significant intensification in terms of number of people using the site or level of activity.
Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The existing sewer line on the subject properiy connects to a 6-inch
and then to an 8-inch sewer line which leads to the wastewater treatment plant. All new utility connections to
serve the site and which are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards and
diameter; sewer laterals will be checked and replaced if necessary. There are no changes proposed to the size
of.the existing sewer line since there is no increase in flow proposed. The proposed project will be served by
existing utilities in place in the area. The proposed project would not require water supplies in excess of
existing distribution capacity, would not require new or altered wastewater treatment or collection facilities,
would not require new or altered storm water drainage systems, and would not require new or altered solid
waste disposal systems. The wastewater treatment plant and existing water distribution and wastewater
collection facilities have adequate capacity to serve the project.
All new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development sha11 be installed
to meet current code standards and diameter; existing sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if
necessary.
Aesthetics Summary: The project site is located on the east side of the Highway 101 corridor and south of
the El Portal Channel. The project site is located in a fully developed office/light industrial area. The site is
bordered by one and two-story office/warehouse buildings to the north and one-story. office/warehouse
buildings to the south. One-story and three-story office buildings and an auto rental parking lot are located to
the west, and one-story office/warehouse buildings exist east of the subj ect property. The proposed proj ect is
a two story building measuring 32'-4" above the average top of curb.
The proposed project requires several exceptions to the zoning code. A side setback variance along the left
side properiy line is required (9'-3 existing, 8'-3" proposed, where 10'-0" is the minimum required). Parl�ng
variances are required for the number of parking spaces (51 proposed where 53 are required), number of
compact spaces (11 proposed where 8 are allowed) and for the aisle width at the north and south ends of the
parking lot (12'-0" proposed where 18'-0" is .the minimum required for traffic moving in two directions).
Conditional use permits are required to exceed the Specific Area Plan land use density (0.6 FAR for
warehouse where 0.5 is allowed) and to vary from the design guidelines for Bayfront Development.
The existing buildings in the general area are office/warehouse buildings, one and two stories tall, with
occasional three-story structures interspersed. The project plans indicate that the project would not be built
with a reflective exterior finish. Light and glare affects from the building's exterior finish would not be
expected. The proposed exterior will include stucco walls, new vinyl windows throughout the building, and a
new pitched s-tile roof. In addition, uncovered decks (141 SF to 302 SF each) with wrought iron railing are
proposed on the second floor at the front and rear of the building. The uncovered decks are set into ihe
building and do not cantilever over the first floor. The existing roll-up doors will be retained and painted to
match the trim color on the building. The proposed building, as measured to the roof ridge, is 32'-4" above
average top of curb (35'-0" height allowed without a conditional use permit). Currently, the existing building
covers 33.8% of the lot (includes the canopy at the front of the building). With this project, the applicant is
proposing to remove the existing canopy and add architectural features (one-foot projections) to the exterior of
19
Initial Study Summary
821 Cowan Road
the building. With these proposed changes, the lot coverage.will decrease to 32.5% where 60% is the
maximum allowed. The existing building is nonconforming with regard to the left side setback (9'-3" existirig
where 10'-0" is the minimum required). With the proposed architectural features (one-foot projections) added
to the sides of the building, the left side setback on the first and second floors will be decreased to 8'-3".
Therefore, a side setback variance is required (8'-3" proposed where 10'-0" is the minimum required).
The two-story office/warehouse building, which would be located behind an existing single-story
office/warehouse building, would be visible from the Bay Trail along the shoreline north of the project site.
An existing three-story office building at the corner of Bayshore Highway and Cowan Road, located to the
north of the project, would screen views of the office/warehouse building from the Bay Trail north of the
project site.
There is an existing single-story office building behind the site at 835-845 Cowan Road. Views of the bay for
this building are alreadyblocked by the building on the subject site. From viewpoints west ofthe project site,
including Gilbreth Road and U.S. 101, most of the proposed second story addition would be screened from
view by existing two=story office/warehouse and industrial warehouse buildings and mature vegetation. The
office/warehouse building would be seen adjacent to other office/warehouse and industrial buildings and
hotels of similar height and mass. Therefore, view blockage in the direction of San Francisco Bay would be
minimal.
Although the plans do not indicate the type of exterior lighting to be used for the parking area and building,
the project lighting will need to conform with the City of Burlingame's exterior lighting regulations. The
proj ect will contain exterior lighting in the parking lot and on the exterior of the building, and will not create a
new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. All
on-site illumination will be required to be focused on to the site using shielded lighting fixtures.
Mitigation:
• On-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City's
exterior illumination ordinance.
All parking areas should be lit for safeiy at night, such lighting should comply with the requirements
of the City's exterior illumination ordinance.
The remodeUaddition shall not be built with a reflective exterior finish.
Cultural Resources Summary: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites at the location
of the office/warehouse building. Since the site consists of landfill and rubble brought into the site in the
1950s, it is not expected that any historic or archeological relics are present. Any archeological or historic,
cultural, or ethnic sites which may have been in or near these locations were disturbed or destroyed by
previous development prior to this proposal.
Mitigation:
• If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction, all
work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protecrion measures, as
determined by qualified experts, can be implemented.
20
Initial Study Summary
821 Cowan Road
Recreation Summary: The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities,
nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The site
involved in this proj ect is not zoned or used for recreational uses.
�
21
Initial Study Summary
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
821 Cowan Rodd
Before any development is allowed, the following permits shall be obtained: side setback variance
along the left side properiy line (9'-3 existing, 8'-3" proposed, where 10'-0" is the minimum required);
parking variances for the number of parking spaces (51 proposed where 53 are required), number of
compact spaces (11 proposed where 8 are allowed) and for the aisle width at the north and south ends
of the parking lot (12'-0" proposed where 18'-0" is the minimum required for traffic moving in two
directions); and conditional use permits to exceed the Specific Area Plan land use density (0.6 FAR
for warehouse where 0.5 is allowed) and to vary from the design guidelines for Bayfront Development.
2. The project shall obtain necessary pernuts to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies
including: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. .
3. The project design shall conform to all seismic related requirements of the latest edition of the
California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the time a building permit
is issued and any additional seismic requirements established by the State Architect's office.
4. The grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
All applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and
during construction.
5. AIl applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management
Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas denuded
due to construction prior to the wet season; erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to
protect San Francisco Bay waters.
6. Water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections with the
degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his approval and inspection.
7. In the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, the site shall be repaired as
approved by the City Engineer.
8. All runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the
applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices
for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance. � '
9. All runoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas, shall be filtered to remove oil
and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be
installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in
working conditions shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, a11 costs for the
annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this proj ect's
property owner.
10. All site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage.
11. Grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoffinto the storm drain will be minimal.
22
Initial Study Summary 821 Cowan Road
12. The property owner shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan
together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application.
13. Low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met
at all times, including special additional emergency requirements.
14. All applicable requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be
adhered to in the design and during construction.
15. All runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
16. Each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sandloil separator; all sand/oil sepazators
� shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and imxnediately following periods of heavyrainfall,
to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site and maintenance
shall be as directed by the City.
17. That drainage from paved surfaces, ir�cluding parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to
stortn water inlets equipped with sandloil-separators andlor fossil filters, then the water shall be
discharged into the storm drain system; the properly owners shall be responsible for inspecting and
cleaning (vacuuming out) sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as
immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 — April l) and as directed by the
City.
18. Off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas.
19. Methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw
bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles
to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed during construction to maintain temporary erosion controls
and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established.
20. The site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction
equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
21. A conshuction fence, including a impermeable fabric/material, shall be required around the site during
construction to keep all construction debris on site.
22. One-way directional signage shall be installed and painted throughout the parking area to clearly
define the vehicular direction for employees and visitors to the site; prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant/property owner shall work with the Ciiy's traffic engineer to determine the
required signage and markings on the pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction.
23
Initial Study Summary
821 Cowan Road
23. Payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in tlie Inner
Bayshore and Shoreline areas shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other
projects on area circulation, one-half of the fee is due at the time ofplanning application and one-half
due before the final framing inspection.
24. If any trenching is proposed on the site, the applicant shall contact the San Mateo County Health
Department; if any contaminated soil is encountered, the applicant shall follow Countyprotocol for its
disposal.
25. All construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code
requirements, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and in addition to the limitations
of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035).
26. . The office/warehouse building shall be built so that the interior noise level in all areas used as office
does not exceed 45 dBa.
27. All construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame Municipal
Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
28. All new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be
installed to meet current code standards and diameter; existing sewer laterals shall be checked and
replaced if necessary.
29. On-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City's
exterior illumination ordinance.
30. All parking areas should be lit for safety at night, such lighting should comply with the requirements
of the City's exterior illumination ordinance.
31. The remodeUaddition shall not be built with a reflective exterior finish.
32. If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction, all
work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as
determined by qualified experts, can be implemented.
24
' _ _ . : : : - _. . _
. - � , ,� ���CITY o� CITYOFBURLINGAME � �- - � �
; ',� • PLANNING DEPARTMENT , �
BU,RIJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
• . � BURLINGAME, CA 94010
`'� am TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696•3790
�<,�.,,,�.E6� www.burlingame.org
�. . � Site: 821 C �
� OWAN ROAD _
'� Application for mitigated negative deciaration, side �
setback and parking variances, and conditional
. : use permits for a first floor remodel and second PUBLIC.;HEARING
-� floor addition to an existing office/warehouse N0�"�CE.
building at: 821 COWAN ROAD , zoned.0-M. '
(APN: 024-401-260). --. _ _. . ._-�-._--- - --- - ------== ---`:
�� The City of Buriingame Planning Cominission
announces the following public hearing on Monday,
- I February 28, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. '
� in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
� . Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. -
+ Mailed: February 18, 2005 .
.. 'I - '
_ . . I (Please �refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
��s�
�� �� � � �a��
� � A copy of the applic� t� anci�tan� �v�r th� project �_ ay be reviewed prior
i to the meeting a���x��'����m��'p��`��r��ri`e'r�t �t��:`�`�Primrose Road,
; Burlingame, C �a ��'�'
w � � .�
��
. If you challe . e �� �je �
� I raising only t � �
� � described m he��n���Ce�i� �
� � � �� �,� ���=���`
at or prior to� he publzc �;e
,�,
.. t Property ow : rs , .�c�r� �
� their tenants� bou
. �
! . (650) 558-7 � 0� ` �
� ; �'�
; Margaret Monro � - �
i City Planner ��
� . PU�'� �
;
� (Please refer to other side)
;
� . :_ . .
be limited to
blic hearing,
�d to. the city
� � � � � �.
�spon �ble or informing
infor ati , please call
�`� ;
� ���
� ��
��a
�% �CE
�
RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, PARHING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a mitigated negative declaration has been proposed and application has been made
for conditional use permits to exceed the Specific Area Plan land use density and to var. f�
the desi n�guidelines for Bavfront Development, parkin� variance for aisle width and side
setback variance for a first floor remodel and second floor addition to an existin�
office/warehouse buildin� at 821 Cowan Road, zoned O-M, Konstantinos Dokos, P.O. Box 125,
Millbrae, CA, 94030. �ropertv owner, APN: 024-401-560;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 28, 2005, 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:
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 mitigated negative declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
ND-536P, is hereby approved.
2. Said mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits, parking and side setback
variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Findings for such mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits, parking and
side setback variances are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of Februarv, 2005, by the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits, parking and
side setback variances.
821 Cowan Road
Effective March 10, 2005
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped February 4, 2005, sheets T.1, L.1, T.2, A.1 through A.7 and Plat of Survey;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's June 1, 2004, memos, the
Chief Building Official's February 9, 2005, and June 4, 2004, memos, the Recycling
Specialist's June 2, 2004, memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 31, 2005, memo
shall be met;
3. that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts
in the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline areas shall be required to mitigate cumulative
impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half of the fee is due at the time
of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection;
4. that one-way directional signage shall be installed and painted throughout the parking
area to clearly define the vehicular direction for employees and visitors to the site; prior
to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/property owner shall work with the City's
traffic engineer to determine the required signage and markings on the pavement to
clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction;
5. that the driveway aisles in front of the roll-up doors at the rear of the building and in the
parking area shall be maintained clear and trucks shall not be stored or parked in the
driveway aisles;
6. that the paved area adjacent to parking space #15 shall be painted "No Parking" to
provide a clear, unobstructed back-up area for the disabled-accessible parking spaces;
7. that the 53 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the customers and employees of
the businesses at this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles
either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking;
that the landscaping noted on sheet L.1 shall be installed according to plan and shall be
irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the
site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species;
9. that the property
Conservation Plan
application;
owner shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management
together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
10. that the office/warehouse building shall be built so that the interior noise level in all areas
used as office does not exceed 45 dBa;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits, parking and
side setback variances.
821 Cowan Road
Effective March 10, 2005
Page 2
11. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. on Sundays and holidays;
12. that on-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance
with the City's exterior illumination ordinance;
13. that all parking areas should be lit for safety at night, such lighting should comply with
the requirements of the City's exterior illumination ordinance;
14. that the remodeUaddition shall not be built with a reflective exterior finish;
15. that the project shall obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required
permitting agencies including: Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
16. that the project design shall conform to all seismic related requirements of the latest
edition of the California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at
the time a building permit is issued and any additional seismic requirements established
by the State Architect's office;
17. that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California
Building Code requirements, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and in
addition to the limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame
Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035);
18. that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the
development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; existing
sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary;
19. that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible
connections with the degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his
approval and inspection;
20. that in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, the site shall be
repaired as approved by the City Engineer; �
21. that all site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits, parking and
side setback variances.
821 Cowan Road
Effective March 10, 2005
Page 3
22. that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation
requirements shall be met at all times, including special additional emergency
requirements;
23. that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the
City Engineer. All applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be
adhered to in the design and during construction;
24. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that
prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize
the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all
soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm
even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching
matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto
public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other
chemicals;
25. that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best
Management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction,
including stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the wet season; erosion
shall be controlled during and after construction to protect San Francisco Bay waters;
26. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing
BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property
lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of
cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected;
existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-
site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes,
staging areas and washout areas;
27. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications,
and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and
sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for
grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods
and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent
irrigation;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits, parking and
side setback variances.
821 Cowan Road
Effective March 10, 2005
Page 4
28. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be
required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain
maintenance;
29. • that all runoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas, shall be
filtered to remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City
Engineer and such facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property owner,
failure to maintain such filters and facilities in working conditions shall cause this
conditional use permit to be called up for review, all costs for the annual or more frequent
inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this project's property
owner;
30. that the phrase "No Dumping-Drains To Bay" shall be labeled on new storm drain inlets
by stenciling, branding, plaguing or casting;
31. that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the storm drain
will be minimal;
32. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all
sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately
following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers;
maintenance records shall be kept on-site and maintenance shall be as directed by the
City; '
33. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be
routed to storm water inlets equipped with sandJoil-separators and/or fossil iilters, then
the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning (vacuuxning out) sand/oil separators and changing
fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy
season (October 15 — April 1) and as directed by the City;
34. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff
shall be diverted around exposed construction areas;
35. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and
surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained
drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permits, parking and
side setback variances.
821 Cowan Road
Effective March 10, 2005
Page 5
36. that no vehicles or equipment shall be washed, cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site;
37. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt
fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats,
and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed during
construction to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously
until permanent erosion controls have been established;
38. that the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction.
Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District;
39. that a construction fence, including a impermeable fabric/material, shall be required
around the site during construction to keep all construction debris on site;
40. that if any trenching is proposed on the site, the applicant shall contact the San Mateo
County Health Department; if any contaminated soil is encountered, the applicant shall
follow County protocol for its disposal; and
41. that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and
construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and
proper protection measures, as deternuned by qualified experts, can be implemented.