The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1301 Burlingame Avenue - ResolutionRECORDING REQUESTED BY: Planning Department City of Burlingame WHEN RECORDED MA[L TO: PLANNfNG DEPARTMENT CITY O� I3URLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE BIJRI,INGAME, CA 94010 DOC t� 2003-091693 04/07/2003 02:42P R1 �ee:NC Page 1 of 5 Recorded in Official Records County of San Mateo Warren Slocum Assessor-Caurty Clerk-Recorder Recorded By I I�ll�i ��i�ii �i'I i��!� �� i'��i'i� �I!�� ii I��i Resolution No. U23-?(?03 1301 Burlin�;ame Avenue ; APN: 02)-202-060 TITLE OF DOCUMENT �' RECEIVED MAY 1 2 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAP�IE PLANNING UEPT. I hereby certify this to be a full, true and correct copy of the document it purports to be, the ori`�inal of which is on file in my office. Date: 03.19.03 � 4�— Mar aret Monroe, City Planner RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING RESOLUTION 023-2003 RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a miti ag ted negative declaration and commercial design review amendment for a new one-story commercial buildin�at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Avtar Johal Familv Trust, property owner, APN: 029-202-060; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 10, 2003, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and mitigated negative declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-526 P and Addendum, is hereby approved. 2. Said mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review amendment are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review amendment 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. I, Joseph Bojues , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do�'fereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the lOth day of March, 2003 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Auran; Brownrigg; Kerighran; Vistica Bojues; Keele ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Osterling � � (� �a N � � �Ny- C� O I M N Mo. N W OI 1`- N �oa N�� o� EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review amendment 1301Burlingame Avenue effective March 17, 2003 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 18, 2003, sheets A3.0 through A3.3, with 2'-8" high x 5'-5'-4" wide gray Italian sandstone slabs, a recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and 45'-4" length x 2'-8" height display window along Park Road, and a 5' width x 5'-4" height clerestory window along Park Road; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission commercial design review approval before demolition of the existing structure (except for asbestos removal or reconstruction) or construction of the new building takes place on the site; 3. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Dcpartment; and that the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the permit; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope or approved of building, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to commercial design review; 5. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's, Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's July 29, 2002, memos and the conditions of the City Engineer's August 6, 2002, September 10, 2002 and October 28, 20U2 memos shall be met; 6. that the demolition and construction on the site shall follow the construction logistics plan date stamped June 29, 2001, and the memo and diagrams regarding construction staging and date stamped September 4, 2002, and demolition and site construction plans date stamped October 22, 2002; 7. that the debris box in the alley shall be limited to a 10' x 24' debris box, and shall only be in place for a two week period during demolition, and the alley and fire lane shall not be completely blocked, there shall be adequate space for a vehicle to maneuver around the debris box; and that flagmen shall be available for traffic control while the debris box is in place; that an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for the scaffolding in the public right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road; G� 10 11 that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not block any on-street parking spaces; that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J; that truck access to the site shall not use Burlingame Avenue or California Drive, trucks shall access the site from Howard and the City Hall Lane alley, access from US 101 to the site shall be M �m'1 41 �a N V 1n �i N y- CJ O I M M f� o.. �v m �� oa Nvr o� � via Carolan Avenue; page-2 Coiiditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review amendment 1301Burtingame Avenue effective March 17, 2003 12. that no construction that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffolding, pedestrian barricades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occur between November 3"� through January 5`h; construction solely within the building may occur during this time as long as the public alley and right of way are not impacted or blocked; 13. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 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. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling shall be permitted on weekends or holidays; 14. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building does not exceed 45 dBA; 15. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan; 16. that the contractor shall prepare, have approved and shall implement a plan that insures that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 17. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; . .� 19. that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � m � �« N � N �Nw f_7 O �mv �� .. N N m rro �ca Nc+ •- �� 3 ROUTING FORM DATE: February 21, 2003 TO: _City Engineer ✓ Chief Building Offiicial Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for commercial design review amendment to change exterior materials and windows and raise parapet height at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A, APN: 029-202-060. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, February 24, 2003 G n � Y�e�� s.�e'j r� Vl � cvP �W '� ��f l�rn rc-v/ b �l �� 2�1 �C t y k�W �i/� y ., � Reviewed Date of Comments: �� ' � C; Ql t� ~a N a � �i N � O O I (�11n Mo �� m; � �oa �b � o� �PSEO CO G � �I�III y a y ��/\-< . Y �� I um Wa rren S oc Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder RECEIPT # 248202 Clerk: JCHIN 04/07/2003 02:43P Document Num: 2003-091693 thru 2003-091695 REC. NO.: 2003-091693 # Pgs : 5 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 19.00 REC. NO.: 2003-091694 # Pgs : 4 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 16.00 REC. NO.: 2003-091695 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: TOTAL NO CHARGE FEE -----> TOTAL FEE ---------------> TOTAL PAYMENTS ----------> Page 1 # Pqs : 14 46.00 81.00 0.00 0.00 555 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1665 web www.care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Assessor Clerk Recorder phone 650.363.4500 fax 650.363.7 903 phone 650.363.4712 fax 650.363.4843 phons 650.363..1713 fax 650.599.7386 email asseswrf�care.co.sanmateo.ca.us email c�er�care.co.sanmateo.ca.us email recorder�care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Item # � Cont'd Commercial Design Review Study City of Burlingame Continued Study Session for Environmental Scoping Session and Commercial Design Review For a New, Single-Story Commercial Building Address: 1301 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: 10/15/02 Request: Environmental Scoping Review and Commercial Design Review of a proposed new, single-story, 4,342 SF commercial building located at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned G1 Subarea A(C.S. 25.57.010). Applicant: Robert Bradsby, 8 Inc. APN: 029-202-060 Property Owner: Avtar Johal Family Trust Lot Area: 4,544 SF General Plan: Shopping and Service Commercial Zoning: C-1 Subarea A Adjacent Development: Retail with public parking to the rear Current Use: 2-story commercial building, currently vacant, formerly a bank Proposed Use: Single-story commercial building proposed by Apple for computer retail sales. Allowable Use: Retail Sales are permitted in the G1 Subarea A zone. Project History: On July 9, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal at this site for a new, two-story commercial building proposed by Apple for computer retail sales. The application was submitted prior to the effective date of Commercial Design Review (Ordinance 1652). The applicant was requesting environmental scoping and a five space parking variance for the proposed building. The proposed lower floor was to be used for retail sales and the mezzanine level was to be used for storage and employee offices and facilities. At the July 9, 2001, study session, the Planning Commission referred the application to the Neighborhood Consistcncy Subcommittce (see attached July 9, 2001 PC minutes and the August 2, 2001 and September 5, 2001 Subcommittee minutes). After meeting with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee multiple times, the applicant withdrew the application for a parking variance for a new, two-story commercial building. On July 26, 2002, the applicant submitted the current application for a new, single-story commercial building. No on-site parking is required because the first floor of retail establishments in C-1, Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area is exempt from parking requirements (C.S.25.36.040,c,3). Commercial Design Review is required for the proposed new, single-story building. Based on the size and the promincnt location of the proposed project, the City �ngineer requires that the demolition of the existing building be included in the environrnental review for the proposed project. August 12, 2002 Study Meeting: At the environmental scoping and commercial design review study meeting for the proposed new single story building, the Planning Commission had the following concerns: • it is necessary to have an historical analysis to deternline the significance of this building as a part of the CEQA evaluation; • can the height of the building be reduced; • step back the long wall on Park Road and/or add articulation; • add view to activity on the inside, from Park Road to enhance pedestrian interest; • add lentils over the window openings on the Park Road side; S'roping Mecting.for E�ivironmerital Revietiv for C'oi�imercial Desigr: Review /301 Burlir:ga�ne Ave�:ue for n New, Sir:gle Sto�y Gommercinl I3uildirrK • select a softer exterior material and/or design especially along the Park Road side; • reduce the parapet height and relocate mechanical equipment, even screen it, on the roof to reduce the mass of the building especially along Park Road frontage; • lowering the building by 5 or 6 runs of brick would make it possible for bigger street trecs to screen the mass of the stnicture on Park Road; • rear of the building looks industrial, needs to look more like retail, add more articulation, highly visible from Lot J and Park Road. The Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to make design changes and to provide a historical survey of the building. Project Summary (revised plans date stamped September 27, 2002 and Historic Resourcc Study date stamped September 3, 2002): The applicant is proposing construction of a new single-story, 4342 SF commercial building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A. The existing 2-story, 7,411 SF commercial building currently located on the site at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road will be demolished. Previously occupied by a bank, the existing building with mezzanine, approximately 1500 SF, and basement, approximately 1367 SF, is currently vacant. The bank was a non-conforming use in the G 1 Subarea A zone. With the removal of the building the nonconforming use will cease on this site and cannot return. The proposal includes demolishing the existing building and constructing a new, 4342 SF single-story building with 2411.5 SF of retail space and 1930.5 SF of floor area for supporting services such as office, storage, and restrooms. The proposed commercial building will be built from lot line to lot line, except for a recessed entry at the front of the building and an alcove door at the rear of the building off City Hall Lane. The retail use will be for the sale of computers and computer related merchandise. There will be no basement or mezzanine level in the new building. The retail space on the first floor is exempt from parking requirements in Subarea A (C.S.25.36.040,c,3). Signage is shown on the building for reference, but is not a part of this application. As part of the proposed project, the applicant has offered to undertake streetscape improvements as recommended by the city's Public Works Department. The improvements include new trees with ornamental grates, ornamental trashcans, a bicycle rack, a bench, and a new sidewalk. The applicant will also give an in-lieu fee to the City for a future a bulb-out at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. For reference, some of these streetscape improvements have recently been installed at 1420 Burlingame Avenue and in front of Lot J on Primrose Road. Desigfa Clianges: The revised plans show the following changes, made to address the Planning Commission's design concerns expressed at the August 12, 2002 study meeting: • the building fa�ade material has been changed from masonry to brick veneer, with a brick soldier course wrapping around the building at a height of approximately 10'-0" above grade at each elevation; • the height of the proposed building has been reduced from 26'-0" to 21'-2"; • the AC equipment on the roof has been moved from the center of the roof to the right, so that it is approximately 5'-0" from the edge of the neighboring building at 1305 Burlingame Avenue; • the display window on the Park Road elevation has been increased in length from 30'-0" to 41'-6"; the height 3'-4" and the depth 3'-0" remain the same; and • the metal awning at the rear of the building has been removed to allow complete access to City Hall Lane, which is a fire lane and runs the rear of the site. 2 S�•��ping. Meeting fa- Enti�i��onn2ental Kei�iew for Conznzercial Uesigri Review 1301 Burlingame Avenue for a New, Sirrgle Story C'onvr7ercial Buildirzg Historical Stasdv: The applicant has submitted a Historical Resource Study prepared by a qualified expert, date stamped September 3, 2002 (attached to staff report), that concludes that the building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue should not be considered a historical resource because previous major alterations to the building have stripped it of any physical integrity that might have inade it significant as an architectural or historical resource. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Environmental scoping for the demolition ofthe existing building and the construction ofthe new, single- story building; and ■ Commercial design review. EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS: none none none LOT COVERAGE: 4544 SF 4342 SF 4544 SF 100% 96% 100% LANDSCAPING: none none none HEIGHT: 21 -2 (three proposed AC units approximately on the roof will extend to 28�-p�� 25'-5" in height as 35'-0" measured from average top of curb) PARKING: 0 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces USE retail sales and commercial retail sales and supporting bank* services on the first floor Personal service on the first floor * existing non-confornling use Staff Comments: See attached. Before an action hearing is scheduled for the proposed project, the applicant must do the following: address any environmental concerns identified in the environmental scoping session; and provide a complete plans for grading, demolition and construction, including slaging and traffic control (see City Engineer's memos dated August 6 and September 10, 2002). The City Engineer must approve these plans before the Planning Commission can take action on the proposed project and the City Engineer will not issue a demolition permit until the Planning Commission has granted approval for the project. Staff would also note that all signage proposed on site will require a separate sign permit application. Scnping Meeti�r� for Envii�oruner:tal Review for Commercial Design Review 1307 Burlingame Avenue for a New, Sirtgle Story C'onnnercial Building Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should allow public comment and review the proposed project. Direction should be given regarding: ■ any effects ofthe project that should be investigated by staff as being potentially significant (The areas of investigation for environmental evaluation as defined by CEQA are listed on the attached sheet for your reference); and ■ proposed design for the project, which is subject to commercial design review, and determine the appropriate next step for the design of the project. Erika Lewit Planner c. Robert Bradsby, Eight Inc. C! ENVIFcONi'IENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, speciiic plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan`? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault'? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction'? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil'? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements'? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 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 quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'? Page 1 of 4 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people`? 6. TRAi�TSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? � Result in inadequate parking capacity'? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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? b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Deparrinent of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defned by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife conidors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the rcgion and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND AAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: b) Create a signiiicant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? 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 the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use aiiport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Page 2 of 4 11. PUBLtC 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? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects'? c) Require or result in the conshuction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signi�cant environmental effects`? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater trearinent provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 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 historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farnlland, to non-agricultural use? Page 3 of 4 17. iYIA1�'llATORY F�NDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 4 of 4 THOMAS REX HARDY, AIA Registcnd Arcl�itcct ARCHITECTURE Tran�mittal � Sio Stockton Street No.ioi San Francisco, CA94io8 W 0 R K 5 H 0 P F'A � _ RE�E�v �� `� a SEp _ 3 Z�;U r CITY OF BUR�-'�' ' � � �'ti PLANNING C�-r'r Date: 3o August Zooz To: Margaret Monroe, City of Burlingame Planning Dept Robert Bradsby, Eight Inc. Project: i3oi Bu�tingame Avenue Historic Resource Study Project #o2io Via: USPS ;� Item -- -------- — --� Date �--------.__. _� �, i � Historic Resource Study I I--�'_ - ' = i i � ; ; _— +--- ---� i_1 j i i � _ .--_— —.�.r For your use, distribution and information. I hope this provides enough information for all the interested parties. Please let me know if you have any questions. +1 �415) g37-o489 tel +1(415) g37-�49gf� trhaia�a sbcglobal.net www.architectus.com Page � of *Resource N�ne or !�: (�sig�ed by reoorder) P1. Other ldentifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted `e. County pra�J N114�iE0 and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as �ry.) •b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R � of � of Sec B.M. c. Address (301 guRLiNl�A�I�tE �V� City $VRl.11JlvA�ME ZP �401d� �ilOg d. UTM: (Give mone than one for Iarge arKi/or linear resour+ces) Zone _, R1E/ mN e. Othef Locafional Data: (e_g., paroel #, direcdons to resouroe, eievation, etc., as appropriate) P�RcEt, �t oZq 2 o zo 6D *P3a. Description: (Describe resouroe and its major elernents. Indude design, materi�s, condition, aiterations, size, setfaig, and boundaries) se� arr��H ��►.rr "P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) �"� P'� �' 3 STo(lY �M M�ERfil14'L Bvll^b!N% `P4. Resources Present: X Building Structure Object _ Site _ District _ Element of District Other (Isdates, etc.) P5b. Description af Photo: (view, date, .n_ �.� ��_. . .. i.. .. . .... .., f -_ , . _ _ _ aocession � "P6. Date Construded/Age and Source: Historic Prehistoric Both `P7. Owner and Address: AvrArR �o�al. C65o 342- 85 "P8. Recorded by: (Name, affi�iation, and address) THoMdS R�i�' 1�4r2DY f4/A 5�0 STOG1�roN #!0 s,qN usco , �A a� o N I. b f �'I GN5 �3�•0481 'P9. Date Recorded: 26 �ti,�vSf ZOVZ 'P10. Survey Type: (Des«it» ��oNNAISSt►�c� SuR� 'P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other saurces, or enter "none.'� (�JO �(� "Attachments: NONE �( Location Map X�►►tinuation Sheet �Buiiding, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record _ Other (List): DPR 523A (1/95) 'Required i�ormation *NRHP Status Code 5 5 3 Page 2 of *Resource Name or #(assigned by rewrder) B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: ( 301 UI� �t IJCaA�M$ �c4V� B3. Original Use: �5A1J1C 64. Present Use: Y GA�NT �ST US�D AS B�WK "65. Architecturai Style: �l ED►TEK�+4N F..4i�1 iZE VIv *B6. Construction History: (Conscnxx:tian date, alterations, and date of altera6ons) S�� 4TTA�GF{M� W�TN KNowN T[MEL(t�1� and �RM1T N�SToRY. *B7. Moved7 X No _Yes _Unknown Date: Original Location: *68. Refated Features: � �A B9a. Architect: b. Builder: "610. Significance: Theme GaMM�1ZGl.a►�L �6V$LoP'M�J�T Area Period of Si�fficance � q 2o S� t�� Property Type ApPfica�,le Crfteria (Discuss importanoe in tertns of historical or architectural oontext as defined by lhame, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) S i� A�TiAt'.4�t I�t�ENi B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (ust attributes ana oodes) *612. References: 5� ,[�-�pr� M�r.0 �' 613. Remarks: (Sketch Map with nort►• aRow required.j *614. Evaluator: ��as �K �FAR�pY, �4►� *Date of Evaluation: 2(o ,4UC�U ST 2ooz (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (1/95) 'Requfred information _ _ __ _ _ _ _._. _ _ _ _ __ . __ _ _ _ State of Calitornia -- The Resauraes Agency Primary # _ ' ', DEP}�RTM:ENT OF PARKS AN� REEREA7'lOW F#Rf# :! LOCATION MAP . ,7ronom�a� T—==_- ; Page �_ of *Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) *Map Name: "Scale: ___ *Date of map: /S Nortn � BUR�.�rv�an�E �� 0 0 � � � ��i �a W 0 � � a �o� � `�� h �� r . .� _ �z ,. _.._—...__..� � ' ' /.� ` /4 A VE. c � I�lS' T -- ;�--- 6 � .� � ._.. 2. S �------ 4 i2oo iz NowA�zo .avE ; sca�: I" = loo' HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY ATTACHMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHMENTS z3oi Burlingame Avenue is a heavily altered commercial bank building in Burlingame's downtown area. Thought to have been designed in the late 2os or 3os, the buitding was constructed as a home forthe Bank of Italy, soon to become the Bank of America. As a resutt of numerous major alterations, including the apparent wholesale removal and changes to the interior, the building retains a very low level of physical integrity. As a result, i3oi Burlingame Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the Califarnia Register of Historical Resources or the Nationat Register of Historic Places. As such. i3oi Burlingame Avenue should not be considered to be a historic resource as defined in Section 2io84.i of the Califomia Environmental Quality .4ct (CEQA). INTRODUCTION and METHODOLOGY The preparer, Thomas Rex Hardy, AIA, was hired by the architectural firm of Eight Inc., in August Zoo2 to prepare a Historic Resource Study and to evaluate the potential historical and architectural significance of the former bank building located at 13oi Burlingame Avenue in Burlingame. The intention of this study is to furnish the relevant decision-makers with sufficient information to understand the historic and architectural merits of this building, and for them to make the determination whether or not the building merits local historic significance. The scope, content, and depth of material were discussed with the City of Burlingame Planning Department. Tom Hardy visited the building in August.2oo2 to photograph and eva(uate the physical integrity of the building. He then researched the building's construction and history in various local archives, viewing plans and permit records on file at the City of Burlingame Building Department, and bydiscussingthe buildingwith the Burlingame Public Library, Burtingame Historical Society. and the San Mateo County Historical Museum. He used these diverse sources to determine the buitding's potential architectural and historical significance in relation to the Catifornia Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places criteria. BUILDING DESCRIPTION The building is located on the southern corner of Burtingame Avenue and Park Avenue, taking up the entire 49' x 9z' site and backing on to an alleyway. The simple Mediterranean Revival style building is rough(y 20' high with painted cement plaster walls over brick structure. The primary facade on Burlingame Avenue consists of a pair of contemporary metal and glass doors with transom above and (arge steet sash 1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -1 HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY ATTACHMENTS windows on either side. The window to the left of the main entry has been modified to include an automatic teller machine. The secondary facade along Park Avenue has four similar windows towards the corner, and an exit door and transom along the south end of the wall. Both elevations are capped with a simple plaster cornice molding at the eave and shallow clay tile mansard roof. A(l seven windows are cased in non-historic redwood trim and shaded by contemporary canvas awnings. The building has a full basement (not availabte for survey, but recent photographs were reviewed�. There is also a partial mezzanine. The interior has been greatly altered with the addition of a mezzanine, various internal partitions and restrooms, an acoustic ceiling with recessed lighting, and even a large fireplace in the northwest corner of the lobby. CONDITION, CHANGES OVER TIME & SITE OBSERVATIONS The building today is a simple stucco box with rectangular door and window openings. The skip-trowel p(aster wall Fnish texture c(ear(y reveals that this is not the original wal( finish. The only existing elements on the buitding exterior that might remotely be considered original are the clay roof tile and small plaster comice at the eaves. These undistinguished features are not considered to possess historic or architectural significance. The upper portion of the windows appears to be steet sash and may be original. They were cased in wood around i974• No original fabric was evident in the building interior. The ta(( interior space of the original public lobby space has been completely altered by removal of any original material and the changes made in the 6os, 7os, and 8os. The original safe walls seem to be present, but the vault door and mechanism are lost. The building is thought to have been built in the tate Zos or 3os as a brar�ch bank of the Bank of America (formerly the Bank of Itaty). A i968 photograph of the building that shows paired plaster pilasters on the front facade, a(ong with bas-relief medallions beneath the windows and above the pi(asters. A dark band, presumably a marble or stone base, runs a(ong the entire base ofthe buitding. Elaborate bronze ornamentation overthe entry is lost, as are the original doors, bronze light fixtures, and flagpoles flanking the entrance. The building once had ptaster quoins full height at the corners. A window at the east corner of the building, with ornamentat plaster surround is also lost, as is original signage consisting of individual letters at the entablature. Any evidence of these original features no longer exists. These features were presumably removed during one of the numerous previous renovation prajects. Over 1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -2 HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY ATTACHMENTS time, the building has been generalty used as a bank and suffered remode(ing each time a new bank took over the space. Original Architecturat Featt�res No Longer Present Include: 1. Paired ornamental plaster pilasters 2. Ornamental plaster quoins at corners 3. Omamental plaster panels above pilasters 4. Ornamental plaster spandrels beneath windows 5, Decorative bronze tight fixtures 6. Bronze ornamentation above entra�ce 7. Original doors 8. Original flag poles flanking entrance 9. Omamenta( plaster dentils at cornice and ptaster moldings io. Stone or marble base ii. Corner window and ornamental plaster su�round EVALUATION _ __ ____ _. _ .;,:�s _ . .: : . >;:>::::T..:_� The preparer has made every effort to evatuate this building under the criteria designed for such evaluation by the National Park Service, I ntegrity In orderto qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, resources must not anly meet one of the criteria listed be(ow; they must also "retain enough of 1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -3 Photograph courtesy of and �O Burlingame Historical Society HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY ATTACHMENTS their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance." According to the Califomia Office of Historic Preservation, i�tegrity is "the authenticity of an historical resource's physica( identity evidence by the survival of characteristics that existed duringthe resources' period of significance." Integrity is evaluated with respect to seven variables: location, design, setting, materiats, workmanship, feeting and association. Although once a nicely composed building, i3o1 Burlingame Avenue has undergone substantial changes, including the interior, which significantly affect its architectural integrity. It is the opinion of the preparer that this structure does.not possess architectural or historic significance since it: a) appears to have no association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of ou� history; and b) appears to have no associatwn with the (ives of persons significant in our past; and c) does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represerrt the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and � d) has not yietded, nor may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Under these criteria for evaluation, the building would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic places nor for the California Register of Historical Resources. No local information was uncovered that woutd suggest that the building had any locat historic significance. The vast level of alterations over time, current condition and materials, removal of original material and features, and lack of remaining original historic fabric, features or elements present issues of lack of integrity which conclude the argument for the lack of significance. During the time avai(able for research at the va�ious local available resources, neither the original date of construction nor the original architect could be found. If further time could be allocated for additional research, it would be interesting to know these facts, but it is the opinion of the preparerthat the loss of original material and features, and the current lack of any original historic fabric makes the building ineligible for tisting as a historic resource. If the original date of construction could be known� microfiche of locat newspapers of the period could be reviewed to see if they contained any information about the design and construction ofthe building. 1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE '�} HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY APPENDIX ATTACHMENTS BUILDING PERMIT RECORDS Viewed at Burlingame City Hall 26 August zoo2 Note that clarity and comprehensiveness of records varies but give an idea of the building uses and alterations over the past 4o years. Date of Permit I Work Performed 2/6i 5/� 4/12/71 4/12/72 11/8/74 iol7/82 5/1O/85 5/12/85 Remodeling for Bank of America Ai�-conditioning for Bank of America Walk-up teller window addition for Bank of America by Continental Service Co. Support structural for signage for Bank of America by W.B. Clausen Structural Engineer, Oakland, CA Structural engineering [letter] forsignage for Bank�f Ar��erica by W.B. Clausen Structural Engineer, Oakland, CA Miscellaneous Alterations at Exterior and Interior for Western Ffederal Savings by Peter Munselle Architecture & Planning, Beverly Hills, CA. Included meuanine restrooms, revised entry, eacterior plaster, window frames "encased in douglas fir", addition of redwood planter boxes, removal of original? Flagpote, removal of original transom. Addition of restrooms, kitchenette, telfer counters, and fireplace! Illuminated Signage for powne� Savings ATM instal(ation for Bay �ew Federal Savings by Dale Bergerson, Architect, Encino, CA. Awnings and ATM instaltation for Bay View Federal Savings by Dale Bergerson. Architect, Encino. CA. 7/3/86 i Interior aiterations: teller counter modifications, entry tile removed, minor wall modifications, casework. sofFts. ! For Bay View Federat Savings by)essica Hall Interior Design, � San Francisco, CA 1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -5 HIS70RIC RESOURCE STUDY RESOURCES & ASSISTANCE ATTACHMENTS The Burlingame Public Library was consutted but had no information on the buitding. The Burlingame Historical Society was contacted and vo(unteers Russ Cohen, Etlen Hunter and Martha May assisted the preparer by researching their archives and directories, and furnishing a photograph of the building's original design features. The permit history of the building was reviewed at the City of Burlingame Building Department. The San Mateo Historical Society was. Carol Peterson, the archivist reported that there was no information on i3os Burlingame Avenue in their files. The building was visited and p3�ot�graphed by the preparer in August Zoo2. 1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -E> HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY PREPARER'S QUALIFfCATIONS ATTACHMENTS The preparer of this Historic Resource Study, Thomas Rex Hardy� AIA, has worked in architecture since graduating with honors from U.C. Berkeley in s977. He has been licensed by the state of California to practice architecture since i983- He worked in the office of Page & Tumbull in San Francisco from i985 through Zooi, specializing in the �estoration and p�eservation of historic buildings. As an associate of Page & Tumbul(, San Francisco's oldest preservation firm, Mr. Hardy worked on the oldest houses in Mountain View, Palo Alto and Atherton as well as on many other significant and historic buildings in the BayArea. He was the project architect forthe restoration of the Garden Court at the Palace Hotet, and the rehabititation of the historic United States Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He is the author of and contributor to several Historic Structures Reports and Historic Resource Studies and is the designer of a new building in the lackson Square National Historic District in San Francisco. He is currently in private practice in San Francisco. His experience with significant buildings includes work on the following projects: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Beale Memorial Library, u�oo Baker St, Bakersfield, CA Flood Mansion, San Francisco, CA Hanna-Honeycomb House, Pa(o Atto, CA Haslett Warehouse, San Francisco, CA Jackson Square National Historic District, San Francisco, CA Charles & Kathleen Norris House, z247 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA PG&E & Matson Buildings, San Francisco Rengstorff House, Mouritain �ew, CA Sheraton-Patace Hotel, San Francisco, CA Tecate Border Crossing Station, Southern Catifomia U. 5. Court ofAppeals, San Francisco, CA U. S. Courthouse, Los Ange[es, CA U.S. Post Office and Office Building, Hilo, NI U. S. Courthouse, Phoenix, AZ Washoe Courrty Courthouse, Reno, NV Watkins-Cartan House, Atherton, CA STATE OR LOCAL LANDMARKS v�56 Edgewood Drive, Palo Atto, CA Fallon House, San Jose, CA Harris-Lass House, Santa Clara, CA Pattersan House, Fremont, CA Sea Ranch Barn, Sea Ranch, CA Stanford University, CA Woodside vltage Church, Woodside, CA SAN FRANGSCO CITY LANDMARKS 425 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 835 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA Crocker Fence, San Francisco, CA Davies Frehouse, San Frarrcisco, CA Flood Mansion, San Francisco, CA Mechanics' Institute, San Francisco, CA Musto Building, i66 Grant Ave, San Francisco, CA Ortman-Shumate Residence, San Francisco Stern Grove Srocadero Clubhouse, San Francisco, CA 1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -] PERSONAL EDUCATION EXPERIENCE 2001 to present: 1985 t0 2001: i989 to i99z: i98q to i985: 1977 to i984: THOMAS REX NARDY, AIA 5io Stockton St, No. ioi San Francisco, California 94io8 �415) $37-0489 Registration: California i2683 (since i982) Email: trhaia@sbcglobal.net Web: www.architectus.com U.C. Berkeley, i977 A.B. Architecture, graduated with honors Malvern College, England i969-i972 THOMAS REX iiARDY. AIA� San Francisco, �1 Sole Proprietor PAGE & TURNBUIL� San Francisco, CA Project Architect, CAD Manager Associate Principal HARDY ARCHITECTS, San Francisco, � Sole Proprietor MOSHER� DREW � WATSON� FERGUSON, San Diego, CA Project Architect CLARK, STROMQUtST Si SANDSTROM, Palo Atto, CA Projed Architect, Associate of firm A W A R D 5 Califomia Historic Preservation Conference i983 forRenovation of Guest House at the Hanna-Honeycomb House, Stanford, Califomia Califomia Historic Preservation Conference i988 forRehabilitation ofStem Grove TrocaderoClubhouse, San Francisco, California A f F I L I A T I O N 5 American Institute ofArchitects Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage Classical America Califomia Preservation Foundation William Morris Society P U B L 1 C A T I O N S, E r c. The Oberlin Book of Bandstands, Competition Entry, Preservation P�ess, i987 RESUME