HomeMy WebLinkAbout1301 Burlingame Avenue - Staff Report��� CITY o� STAFF REPORT
BURUNGAME
� oe
v
�AwT[a .+� 6.
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
nA�: DECEMBER 19 2002
�xoM: CITY PLANNER
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 1.06.03
' ' �; � /,11., �. �
APPROVED
BY
sus.�cT: REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, SINGLE STORY
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Ai�rmative action should include findings for the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Commercial Design Review. Criteria for these actions are included at the
end of the staff report. Action alternatives include:
. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration and Commercial Design Review;
• Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration and Commercial Design; or
• Deny Without Prejudice the application and return it to the Planning Commission with
direction.
Conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission:
(Conditions in italics are required mitigations for the Negative Declaration)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department da.te
stamped November 15, 2002, sheets A0.01 through A3.1 and C 1.0 through C6.0, with tan-colored
brick, a brick soldier course below the parapet and above the windows on each elevation, and a
recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors al�rL:�-�;f!�=•:game Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-
foot tall display 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 shadl 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 cmd 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 Department; and that the applicant shall comply with ald
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;
RE✓I�W OFPLANNING COMMISSION'SAPPROI�AL OFA MITIGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATIONAND
COMMERCIAI, DESIGIV REI�IEW FOR A NEW, SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1301 BURLINGAME
AVENUE JANUARY 6, 2003
5. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's, Building O�cial'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,
2002 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 �, 2002, anc� 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 aldey and itre 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;
8. that an encroachmentpermit shall be obtainedfrom the Public Works Depariment for the scaffolding
in the publie right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road;
9. that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not block any on-
street parking spaces;
10. that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J;
11. 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 via Carolan
Avenue;
12. that no constructiorz that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffolding, pedesirian
barricades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occur between November 3rd
through January S``'; eonstruction solely within the builcling may oeeur 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 to the limits on hours of construction imposed by the � dn =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 eonstruction
on 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;
I5. that the eontraetor shall submit the "Reeycling and Waste Reduetion " form to the building department
to be approved by the Chief Building O�cial that demonstrates how 60 pereent of construction
demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applieant 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 F,limination System (NPDES) standards;
REY'IEW OFPLANNING COMMISSION'SAPPROVAL OFA MITIGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATIONAND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REI�lEW FOR A NEW, SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1301 BIIRLINGAME
AVENUE JANUARY 6, 2003
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 executec� to the satisfaction of the City;
18. that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and
19. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 1998 edition, as amendec� by the City of Burlingame.
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-0-3
(Cers. Bojues, Keighran and Vistica absent) to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and commercial
design review for the proposal to demolish an existing bank building with partial mezzanine and basement
and replace it with a new single story commercial building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A,
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. To support their action on the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the commercia� design review the commissioners found that they had completed a number of
reviews of this project, that the proposed tan brick with soldier course trim was consistent with the existing
buildings on the Avenue, that signage for the store will be minimalistic and displays in the windows will be
changed often to maintain pedestrian interest. For the negative declaration the found with proposed
mitigations and the timing of commencement of construction and the holiday shopping season addressed along
with the applicant agreeing not to begin demolition of the structure until after the holiday season, there would
be no significant environmental effects caused by the project. A condition was added to clarify construction
hours and timing of use of heavy equipment and hauling during construction. In reviewing design revisions
made to the building in October 2002, the Planning Commission noted that they support the quality of the
design and materials shown in the revision. They commented that the Park Avenue side of the building is not
necessarily pedestrian friendly, but that this fa�ade will be softened by installation of 4 street trees and a new
sidewalk. In addition, the lowered height of the parapet of the proposed building makes the structure more
pedestrian oriented on all street frontages.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant Robert Bradsby, architect, representing Apple Computer, is proposing to demolish the existing
commercial building at 1301� i��;r,su:.le Avenue, and replace it with a new single story, 4,342 SF commercial
building. The property is zoned C-1, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A. The existing
commercial building is two stories with a partial mezzanine (1500 SF) and basement (1367 SF) and contains
7,411 SF. The building was used for a bank, but is presently vacant. Since banks are a nonconforming use on
Burlingame Avenue, the change in use of this site to retail sales will reduce the number of banks on
Burlingame Avenue permanently.
The proposed new one story 4,342 SF commercial building will have 2,412 SF of retail space and 1,931 SF
of storage, restrooms and a small office space. As allowed in the C-1 zone Subarea A, the new structure will
be built lot line to lot line except for a recessed entry at the rear on City Hall Lane. There will be no
mezzanine or basement areas in the new building. First floor retail space is exempt from on-site parking
requirements in Subarea A(CS 25.36.040, c,3)
The fa�ade of the new building will be tan colored brick, with a brick soldier course at the top of the parapet
and above the windows facing Burlingame Avenue continuing around and along the Park Road frontage. A
42 foot long window 3 feet high will be set at eye level in the long wall on Park Road to add pedestrian
interest to the street frontage. The proposed project includes the streetscape improvements as recommended
REl�EW OFPLANNING COMMISSION'SAPPROI�AL (IFA MITIGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATIONAND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REI�IEW FOR A NEW, SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAI. BUILDING AT 1301 BURLINGAME
AVENUE JANUARY 6, 2003
by the City's Burlingame Avenue streetscape study. Improvements include new street trees with ornamental
grates, one bicycle rack, one bench, ornamental trashcans, and a new sidewalk on the Burlingame Avenue and
Park Road sides of the building. The streetscape plan includes a bulb out at the corner of Burlingame Avenue
and Park Road. Since the applicant will build the sidewalk improvements on the west side of Park Road, he
will build a standard corner finish. The applicant will deposit with the city the cost of construction for
building the bulb out portion of the sidewalk improvements at a later date, when the bulb-outs can be built on
both sides of the intersection at the same time. It is not safe to narrow one side of the intersection and not the
other. In addition the bulb out may affect the angle of the parking on Burlingame Avenue, so its construction
needs to be integrated into the future sidewalk replacement of the Burlingame Avenue frontages on that block.
When the city accepts a fee for future work, the improvement must be implemented within five years or the
money is returned to the applicant.
The Table comparing the proposed project to the existing development on the site and to the current zoning
code requirements appears on page 2 of the attached Planning Commission StaffReport dated November 24,
2002. The table documents that the proposed project, as designed, is within all the development
requirements of the C-1 zone, Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Cummercial Area overlay with lot
coverage of 96% (100% allowed), height of 25'-5" (with a maximum height allowed of 35'-0"), and retail use
proposed so no on-site parking is required for first floor retail sales. The new structure will have only one
floor.
The application was submitted for commercial design review on August 12 continued to October 15, 2002.
The project was not assigned to a design reviewer, however, the commission directed the applicant to make
revisions and resubmit them to the Commission for review, which was done at the October meeting. In the
August review the commission expressed concern about having an historical analysis done for the present
building; reducing the height of the then proposed project; adding articulation or interest to the long wall on
Park; enhancing the pedestrian interest on the Park Road side; reducing the parapet and relocating the
mechanical equipment on the roof so that it was not seen from the street and would reduce the visual mass of
the building especially along the Park Road frontage; lowering the building so that it would be possible for
bigger street trees to screen more of the mass of the structure; and work on the appearance of the rear of the
building (on City Hall Lane) so that it looks less industrial.
In response the applicant made a number of design changes to the p�-e���-�ructure: the building material
was changed to tan brick with soldier course wrapping around the building at about 10'-0" above grade on
each elevation; the parapet height was reduced from 26'-0" to 21'-2"; the AC equipment on the roof was
relocated from the center of the roof to the right side about 5'-0" from the building at 1305 Burlingame
Avenue to reduce its visibility from Park Road and Burlingame Avenue, because it covers more than 5% of
the roof area the city measures the height of the proposed building as 25'-5", although the applicant actually
lowered the parapet height almost 5 feet; the metal awning at the rear which projected into City Hall Lane was
removed and the possible obstruction to the fire lane eliminated. The applicant hired a qualified expert to
prepare an Historical Resource Study (attached in Planning Commission Staff Report and dated September 3,
2002). The study concluded that the existing structure at 1301 Burlingame Avenue is not considered an
historical resource because of previous major alterations to the building which have stripped it of any physical
integrity which might have made it significant as an architectural or historical resource.
It should be noted that signage is shown on the application to demonstrate how the signs would be integrated
into the proposed building design. The applicant must make separate application for, and have sepa.rate
review of his signage. Signage is not included in the project application.
R��7EW OFPLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROl�AL OFA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONAIVD
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1301 BURI.INGAME
AVENUE lANUARY 6, 2003
The proposed application includes requests for :
• Commercial design review; and
• Acceptance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project. The Initial Study identified
five potential effects of the project: Transportation and Traffic; Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; Noise; Aesthetics; and Cultural Resources. Each of these was evaluated, mitigations identified to
address concerns raised in the evaluation. It was determined by staff, and supported by the Planning
Commission that there were no significant, unavoidable impacts caused by the project. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration as approved by the Planning Commission, is attached to the staff report.
History:
The applicant originally submitted a proposal for a new structure for the site at 1301 Burlingame Avenue in
2001, before the effective date of the commercial design review requirements. On July 2, 2001, the Plannir��
Commission reviewed this proposal for environmental scoping. The size of the proposed project, at that time,
required a five space parking variance since it included a mezzanine level to be used for storage and
employees offices and faculties. At the July 2001 meeting the Planning Commission referred the project to
the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee which discussed the project with the applicant at three
meetings. After these meetings the applicant withdrew the application for the two story commercial building
and parking variance. On July 26, 2002, the applicant submitted the current one story commercial building
proposal which has no parking variance. Because the project was resubmitted after the effective date of the
commercial design review ordinance, the present project was processed using the design review procedures.
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Alternatives, Commercial Design Review Criteria, Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Monroe letter to Robert Bradsby, December 3, 2002, setting the appeal hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes, November 25, 2002
City Planner Memo, November 6, 2002, to Planning Commission RE:FYI Revisions to Exterior Materials for
a New Commercial Building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, Zoned C-1, Subarea A
'�` Fi�i�zring Commission Staff Report, November 25, 2002, with attachments �
Mitigated Negative Declaration, ND-526, 1301 Burlingame Avenue
Resolution
Notice of Appeal Hearing
1301 Burlingame Avenue
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Cin� council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit.
hillside area construction permit, fence e�ception. sign e�ception or esception to the antenna ordinance,
the Council must make findings as rcquired by the code. Findings must be particular to the given
properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council
members seated during the public hearing must agrec in order to pass an afFirmative motion.
2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. 1fie reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the
record.
3. Ciri� Council may� deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application
made to the Citv Council is not thc sainc as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning
Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the
proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like addiUonal information or
additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional informaUon required to be
gi��cn to staff. applicant and Planning Commission/City� Council for the further consideration should be
made ven� clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the
Cit�� Council or the Planning Commission.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
The criteria for commercial design review in a C-1 or C-2 zoning district, Municipal Code Section
25.57.030:
1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas;
2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activitti� by placement of buildings to masimize commercial
use of the street frontage, of� street pubic spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not
dominate street frontages: and
3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with
the surrounding devclopment;
4. Compatibility of the architecturc with the mass, bulk, scale and e.xisting materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby: and
�. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent
among priman� elements of the structure, restores or retains e�isting or significant original
architectural features. and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate
area; and
6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
e�isting opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
FINDINGS FOR A MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that to be approved the governing body acting
on a project must find, on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the
public hearing, that there is no substantial evidence that the project with the mitigations proposed will have
a significant (negative) effect on the en�7ronment.
The proposed mitigations shall be included in the conditions of approval of the project and tlus constitutes
thc required mitigation monitoring plan to insure that the terms of the mitigations which reduce the effects
of the project on the environment are implemented.
��� CITY O�
BURLJNGAME
e
�Q� 90
�RwTEo JUNE b
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250
PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790
December 3, 2002
Eight, Inc.
Attn: Robert Bradsby
675 California Street
San Francisco CA 94108
Dear Mr. Bradsby,
At the City Council meeting of December 2, 2002, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your
project at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned G 1, Subarea A. A public hearing will be held on January 6,
2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
�����?����
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
APPLHRCC.acc
c: City Clerk
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 25, 2002
contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 33) that drainage from paved
surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible
and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater�nlets
prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and
maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy
season (October 15 — April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 34) that all site catch basins and
drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction
to prevent debris from entering; 35) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth
moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District; 36) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored
by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 37) that all construction
shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 38) that the method of
construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building
and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 39) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and
which are affected by the development, shall b� stalled to meet current code standards and local capacities
of the collection and distribution systems sh'�11 be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; 40)
that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any tra�.�s#�.:�ers needed for this site shall be
installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 41) that sewer laterals from the site to the
public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development;
42) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 43) that all drainage (including water from the
below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 44) that
project approval� shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump
system; and t� sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps,
controls, le sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise
require t; 45) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling
and te Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for
de ition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; and 46) that this project shall
co ly with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit. The
motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran, and Vistica absent).
C. Keele moved to recommend approval of the tentative condominium i��a� to the City Council. The motion
was seconded by C;'. Auran. Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend
approval of the t�tative condominium map. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran, and
Vistica absent,,�t�' Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m.
8. 808 EDi
STORY
ON C.AI
DRIVE — ZONED C-R— APPLICATION FOR P G VARIANCES FOR A NEW, THREE-
K ON EDGEHILL DRIVE AND AN ATTACH SINGLE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING
A DRIVE (MIKE JALILIE, APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER; CJW ARCHITECTURE,
�j 9.
This item was continued to the December 9, 2001, meeting.
1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY, RETAIL BUILDING
(ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
.�
City of Burlingame Plunning Commission Minutes
November 25, 2002
Reference staffreport 11.25.02, with attachments. Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and
sta.ffcomments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked if the City's
construction hours permitted construction on the weekends. CA Anderson noted that weekend construction
is allowed by the City, but that the Commission could modify the City's standard construction hours.
Acting Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Tim Kobe, Eight Inc., was present to answer questions.
The Commission asked: will there be additional signage along Park Road in the blank space beyond the
display window; is the color of the brick the same yellow that is shown on the photo boards; will this color
compliment the city's designated color for the sidewalk improvements, will there be automated displays in
the display window; why was the brick color changed from black to tan and were any other colors
considered; would the applicant be willing to forego construction on the weekends, which is the biggest
shopping time for Burlingame Avenue. The applicant responded that the proposed signage was meant to be
minimalist; the color of the proposed tan brick is very similar to the bricks seen in Council Chambers and
the color will compliment the color dictated by the City for the sidewalk; Apple has a design team that
creates displays for the window on Park Road, the designs may be automated and will be changed frequently
to coincide with advertising campaigns; there did not seem to be overwhelming support among the
Commissioners for the black ��i�k �o the color was changed to tan, red-tinted bricks were also considered;
and applicant would agree to construction hours imposed by the Commission. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: concern about restricting the construction hours, think it would be better for the
merchants on Burlingame Avenue if the construction was completed as quickly as possible. CP Monroe
noted that condition # 13 should be modified to clarify the City's standard construction hours and to prohibit
heavy equipment operation or hauling on weekends. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by
resolution, with the following amended conditions:
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
November 15, 2002, sheets A0.01 through A3.1 and C 1.0 through C6.0, with tan-colored brick, a brick
soldier course below the parapet and above the windows on each elevation, and a recessed storefront
windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display 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 siructures 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 Department; 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, 2002
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; 8) that an encroachment permit shall be obtained from
10
City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 25, 2002
the Public Works Department for the scaffolding in the public right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and
Park Road; 9) that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not block
any on-street parking spaces; 10) that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J; 11) 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 via Carolan Avenue; 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`d through January Sth;
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 to the limits on 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 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 deparhnent to be approved by the Chief
—� Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverteeia
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; 18) that all
signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and 19) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Comment on the motion: Commission appreciates the hard work and cooperation of the applicant.
Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3
(Cers. Bojues, Keighran, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
10:35 p.m.
10. 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHW ONED O-M — APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIAN , � OF
THREE NEW WALL SI . (ALAN FORD/MARCO ACOSTA, SIGN RESOUR ICANTS/DESIGNER;
SATURN 1NVESTMEN'T GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER) (17 NOTICED� JECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
This item was continued to the December 9, 2002, meeting.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
11. 1384 HILLSIDE CIRCLE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REV , HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FI AND SECOND STORY
� ADDITION (JIM AND NANCY LOCKE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ELLIS A. SCHOICHET,
AIA EASA ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Planner�ewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
r��
11
a� CITY 0
4 �
BURLINGAME
` ;.
Planner's Report
MEMO
DATE: November 6, 2002
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
Meeting Date: 11/12/02
RE: FYI - REVISIONS TO EXTERIOR MATERIALS FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AT 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED G1, SUBAREA A.
Summary: On October 15, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed as a continued study item, the
commercial design review application at 1301 Burlingame Avenue.
The proposed building presented to the Commission at that hearing showed the exterior of the
building to be dark, charcoal colored brick. The Planning Commission referred the item to an action
calendar with recommendations for the environmental document (see attached October 15, 2002,
Planning Commission minutes).
After further consideration, the applicant has concluded that a lighter tan colored brick would be
more appropriate to the site (see attached October 29, 2002 facsimile from Eight, Inc.)
Planning staff would note that because the only change was to the exterior material, it was
determined that this change could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item before the
application returns for an action hearing. Staff is preparing the environmcntal document and the
application will return to the Commission for an action hearing.
Erika Lewit
Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
October 15, 2002 Planning Commission minutes
October 29, 2002 facsimile from Eight, Inc.
City of Burlingame Planning Comnzission Approvect Minutes
14
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:07 p.m.
1381 HILLSIDE C
AREA CONSTRU
HARTOG, APPLIC
October 1 S, 2002
� �,,,--
f
,� ZONED — R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
�1 PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELLEN
AND ARCHITECT; KURT AND JULIA DEGROSZ, PROPERTY OWNERS)
15
Planner B er briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staf�f`��
�:
Chair eighran opened the public cominent. Andrew Young, project architect, was present to answer
qu ions. Explained that this is minor project, owners wanted to expand the kitchen and master bedroom,
but keep the project in character with tY��e existing house. A lot of the floar a��a in this house is inhabitable
basement area and covered deck ar��.
There were no other commer�sffrom the floor and the public heari�g was closed.
,
�
Chair Keighran made a otion to place this item on the conse�E calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Bojues . ;'
;'
Comment on tion: architect has done a fine job wi�YiFthis project; this is a small additi�cin that blends well
with the e' ing house. �' �"
Chair Kei hran called for a vote on the mot' n to lace this item on the con �nt calendar. The motion
g P
passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling sent). The Planning Commissio 's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 11:1 p.m.
1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-
STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR
JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED
FROM AUGUST 12, 2002 MEETING)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Bob Bridger, Apple Computer retail sales, stated that they are
eager to be part of the Burlingame community. Tim Kobe, Apple Computer, store designer, stated that since
the last meeting they have had a historical study done on this property by Thomas Hardy, who is here tonight
to answer any questions. This study concluded that because of all of the previous alternation made to this
building, interior and exterior, it would not be considered historical. There was no historical value found on
the interior of the structure. Revised Apple proposal focuses on exterior material, using dark charcoal color
brick, with two bands of soldier coursing, follows around the building from the top of the windows at the
front and one at the parapet line. Brick proposed will not fade, an extra pallet of bricks will be stored for
future repairs or in-fill. This particular size brick was picked based upon the average size brick found on
Burlingame Avenue buildings. The grout to be used in between the bricks is 10-15% lighter than the brick,
providing texture. The height of the structure has been lowered 4'-10" from the previous design. The
mechanical equipment has been relocated to the west side of the roof to screen it from view from the street.
The linear glass area display window along Park Avenue has increased to 45 feet long to increase visual
16
Gity of Burlingarne Planning Comrnission Approved Minutes
Octofier l5, 2002
interest for pedestrians. Needed to keep existing floor plan to allow for storage of materials and to retain the
graphics panels and product displays that would be located against the wall, opening up the Park Avenue
wall to the interior would not allow for those displays. The metal awning at the rear of the building has been
removed, because it projected into the fire lane and was too high for protection if it met fire requirements.
Applicant tried to find balance between respecting the existing structural environment and being unique,
tried to keep it simple and elegant; sometimes that does result in departing from the norm.
Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, had a question regarding the historical survey. If the existing fa�ade were
striped away, and the old architectural features were still in tact, would it change the conclusion of the
historical survey? Thomas Hardy responded that because of the method of fastening of the existing facade
the old architectural details are beyond repair, and he would not change the conclusion of his historical
analysis. Mr. Cohen requested that the applicant please salvage any historical and architectural finds during
demolition send them over to the historical society. Asked if Apple sign would limit future use of the site
because it is partially inset in the brick? Applicant explained that there will be extra bricks kept on-site for
infill and repair. Would window along Park Avenue temp vandals? Applicant noted that there would be a
security system in place and that the glass used for this window would be very thick glass that is difficult to
break. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: design is a departure from what is normally seen on Burlingame Avenue;
concerned with Park Avenue fa�ade, long monochromatic expanse, can this be broken up; design is a very
strong statement, minimalist approach, introducing other types of materials might help; but bricks are nice,
gray gives warm feel, each brick has some color.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the
environmental review has been completed and Planning Commissions concerns have been adequately
addressed and reviewed by Staf£ This motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Comment on motion: design fits Burlingame Avenue, support quality of design and materials; concerned
with Park Avenue side of building but notice that the existing windows along Park are not pedestrian
friendly, this fa�ade will also be softened by installation of 4 trees and new sidewalk; the lowering of the
height of this structure definitely helps; window along Park Avenue is at a pedestrian scale; would like to get
feedback from the community on this project; simple, eloquent design, intriguing addition to Burlingame
Avenue, could have lasting effect.
The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns that should be addressed in the environmental
document:
• What procedures will be taken for safety of pedestrians during construction,;
• What traffic controls will be used;
• Where will delivery and construction vehicles be parked;
• Where will debris boxes be located; and
• What routes will delivery trucks be taking to and from the site during construction.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the
environmental document has been completed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:20
a.m.
17
bC�-�9-�002 TUE 12�35 PM EIGHT INC FAX N0. 415 434 8465 P, O1
ei6Hr iNc.
VIA FAX
To: Burlingan�e Planning Deportmenf
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Tel: 650.558.7Z52
Fax: 650.696.3790
Altn: Erika Lew;t
Prom: Robert Bradsby
Eight Inc.
Re: Apple Retail Store - Burlingame Avenue
Date: 10. 29.02
Ppges: 1 (including covar�
Cc:
Erika,
5everal of the commissioners indicared concern as fo how the public would react to the dark
fasade with the glowing white logo signs. Aher building a larger mockup, Apple Felt ►he
black wos parhaps too dark as well.
In response to these concerns and in hopes of completing the final step of the design review
without Further delay, we are proposing a light tan/sandy colorad brick For the entire Fasode.
To develop enough cont�ast between the cofor/value oF the brick and the logo signs, we ore
changing �he 2 logo signs. They will have faces oF beod blasted stainless steel with a thin
edge oF white acrylic behind the face Ihal will be internally illuminoted. 7he whole sign will
project From the Face oF �he brick only obout 2 inches. The size ond locations of the 2 signs
will be the same as on the previous design review submitfal. Our concern is rhat this change
would be a surprise to the commissioners at rhe upcoming action meeting iF we did not
communicote this revision. I think you would agrea that these chonges are less confroversial
and more easily accep�ed by the residents of Burlingame.
Pleqse discuss �his with Meg Monroa and advise me how besl to updQ�e Ihe commissioners
and still stay on Ihe colendar for the actron meetin� on November 25�.
Robert Brodsby
Eigh1 Inc.
675 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 TEl 415 434 6d62 FAX d 15 d3d 8464
Item # , �
Regular Action
� City of Burlingame
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Commercial Design Review For a New, Single-Story Commercial
Building
Address: 1301 Burlingame Avenue
Meeting Date: 11/25/02
Request: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Commercial Design Review of a proposed new, single-story,
4,342 SF commercial building located at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 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: G1 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 C-1 Subarea A zone.
CEQA Status: Refer to Negative Declaration ND-526 P.
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 Consistency
Subcommittee (see attached July 9, 2001 PC minutes and the August 2, 2001 and Septembcr 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 prominent location of
the proposed project, the City Engineer requires that the demolition of the existing building bc included in the
environmental review for the proposed project.
Project Summary: The applicant is proposing the 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 C-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,
Mitigated Negative Declaration Commercial Design Keview 1301 Burlingame Avenue
for a New, Single .Story Commercial Buildirig
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). The proposed fa�ade of the building will be a tan-colored
brick, with a brick soldier course at the top of the parapet and above the windows along Burlingame Avenue,
continuing around to the Park Road street frontage. There will be recessed storefront windows and frameless
glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display window along Park Road.
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, one bike rack, one bench,
ornamental trashcans, 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.
The applicant is requesting the following:
■ 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-conforming use
Staff Comments: See attached.
2
Mitigated Negative Declaration Commercial Design Review 1301 Burlingarne Avenue
for a New, Single Story Commercial Building
August 12, 2002 and October 15, 2002, Study Meetings: At the environmental scoping and commercial design
review study meeting on August 12, 2002, the Planning Commission had the following concerns about the
proposed single-story commercial building:
• it is necessary to have an historical analysis to determine 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;
• 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 trees to screen the mass
of the structure 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.
On October 15, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed revised plans for the proposed project at a continued
design review study meeting. The revised plans showed the following revisions to address the Planning
Commission's conccrns:
Design Changes ( 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 tan 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.
Historical Study: The applicant has submitted a�Iistorical 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 made it significant as an architectural or historical resource.
The Planning Commission noted that the revised design fits Burlingame Avenue and they support the quality of
design and materials. They commented that the Park Avenue side of the building is not necessarily pedestrian
Mitigated Negative Declaration Commercial Design Review 1301 Burlingame Avenue
for a New, Single Story Commercial Building
friendly, but that this fa�ade will he softened by installation of 4 trees and a new sidewalk. In addition, the
lowered height of the proposed building helps make the building more pedestrian oriented.
The Planning Commission directed that the project return as a regular action item when an environmental
document had been completed to address the following issues:
• What procedures will be taken for safety of pedestrians during construction,;
• What traffic controls will be used;
• Where will delivery and construction vehicles be parked;
• Where will debris boxes be located; and
• What routes will delivery trucks be taking to and from the site during construction.
Mitigated Negative Declaration: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project.
The initial study for the proposed project showed that there would be potentially significant impacts, unless
mitigation was proposed, to aesthetics and cultural resources, and air quality, transportation and traffic, hazards
and hazardous materials, and noise, during demolition and construction. A summary of the Declaration follows
and the full document is included as part of the staff report:
Transportation and Traffic
The Public Works Department has identified a potential short-term impact on traffic circulation and
pedestrian safety during construction. This site is in the center of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
District and since the proposed structure will be built lot line to lot line, there is no on-site space for
construction vehicles and staging
City Hall Lane, the alley behind the site will be used daily by contractors to drop off tools and workers.
Construction vehicles will be parked during working hours at remote public parking lots, not in the adjacent
lot. Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to reduce the impact to less than significant include:
routing construction traffic along Carolan Avenue, Howard Avenue, and City Hall Lane, not undertaking
construction that blocks the public right-of--way between November 3, 2002 and January 5, 2003, and
providing flag men in City Hall Lane for traffic control when a debris box is in place.
Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed application is for one single-story commercial building to replace an existing two-story
commercial building. The new structure will accommodate about the same number of people as the previous
use, the change in emissions generated here over emission from all development in Burlingame is
insignificant. The only known health hazard on the site is the asbestos that is part of the existing building.
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 Department. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the permit.
Noise
During the demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new building, ambient noise levels
could potentially impact the surrounding, primarily retail uses. All construction must abide by the
construction hours established in the municipal code, which limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays.
There shall be no construction on holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site shall be
4
Mitigated Negcitive Declaration Commercial Design Xeview
for a New, Single Story Commercial Building
1301 Burlingarne Avenue
permitted on weekends or holidays. There shall be no demolition of the exterior of the existing building, nor
any construction of the proposed building, during the time period between the holiday periods (November 3
through January St"). Compliance with these standards will reduce the impact of the project to a less than
significant level.
Aesthetics
The proposed structure is a modern, one-story commercial structure using a tan colored brick fa�ade with a
brick soldier course at the top of the parapet and above the windows along Burlingame Avenue, continuing
around to the Park Road street frontage. Commercial design review is required to determine if the proposed
building is architecturally consistent and consistent with the commercial neighborhood setting. The building
will have to obtain Planning Commission design review approval before demolition of the existing structure,
except for asbestos removal or reconstruction takes place on the site.
Cultural Resources
The project site now contains a commercial bank structure that was built in the late 1920's. The applicant has
provided an historic resource study prepared by Thomas Rex Hardy, AIA. The study notes that the building
today is a simple stucco box with rectangular door and window openings, and does not have the original wall
finish. The only existing elements that might be considered original are the clay tile roof and small plaster
cornice at the eaves. These undistinguished features are not considered to possess historic or architectural
significance.
The study includes an evaluation of this building using the criteria for evaluation established by the National
Park Service for qualifying for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is the opinion of the
author of the study that this structure does not possess architectural or historic significance based on thc
criteria for listing on thc National Register and the California Register of Historic Resources. No local
information was found which would suggest that the building had any local significance. The study notes
that as a result of numerous major alterations, including the apparent wholesale removal and changes to the
interior, the building retains a very low level of integrity in its physical features. As a result, this structure
does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources or the National
Register of Historic Places. As such, the structure should not be considered to be an historic resource as
defined in Section 21084.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must
review and approve the mitigated negative declaration (ND 526-P), finding that on the basis of the Initial Study
and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment.
Commercial Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1652
adopted by the Council on Apri12, 2001 are outlined as follows:
1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas;
2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of
the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street
frontages;
3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development;
Mitigated Negative Declaration Commercial Design Review
for a New, Single Story Commercial Building
1301 Burlingame Avenue
4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby;
5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among
primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features,
and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and
6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for commercial design review and including the conditions
representing mitigation for the mitigated negative declaration (in italics below) and any conditions from the staff
report and/or that the commissioners wish to add. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated.
The resolution with conditions shall be recorded with the property to insure implementation of the required
mitigations. Please note that the conditions below that are in italics reflect the mitigation measures taken from
the mitigated negative declaration. If approved, these conditions will also be placed on the building permit:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
November 15, 2002, sheets A0.01 through A3.1 and C 1.0 through C6.0, with tan-colored brick, a brick
soldier course below the parapet and above the windows on each elevation, and a recessed storefront
windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display 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 builcling takes place on the site;
3. that demolitiori 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 Department; 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 revicw;
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,
2002 memos shall be met;
6. that the demolition and constructiort 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 construc.tion plans date starraped 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
3
Mitiguted Negative Declaration Commercial Design Review
for a New, Single Story Commercial Building
1301 Burlingame Avenue
a t�vo tiveek 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;
8. that an encroachmentpermit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for the scaffolding
ira the public right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road;
9. that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue und Park Road shall not block any on-
street purking spaces;
10. that enaployee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J;
11. 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 via
Carolan Avenue;
12. tlaat 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 3r`�
through January S`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 corastruction shall he 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
Burliragame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7: 00 a.m. and 7: 00 p.nt. on weekdays, 9: 00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10: 00 a.na. to 6: 00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no
construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or haulittg 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;
I5. that the contractor shall submit the "Recyclirag und Waste Reduction " form to the building
department to fie 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;
18. that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and
7
Mitigated Negative Declaration Comrnercial Design Review 1301 Burlingarne Avenue
for a New, Single Story Commercial Buildir:g
19. 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.
Erika Lewit
Planner
c. Robert Bradsby, Eight Inc.
:
vai a� i cvi.� io. io rnn qy uuli uul
JUL-25-2002 THU 04:42 PM EIGHT INC FAX N0. 415 434 8464 � P. 08
g
Cri'Y OF 8[tit1.II�IGAhfE PLANNQ�lG DEPART6fE1VT 541 PRIMROSE ROAA M(630) SSi7250 F(650)
APPLYCA�'ION TO THE PLANN�NG CONIlV�I
a�_.,,�
Type of application: nesign Reviev��L Conditional Usc Pcrmit 'Vaciana
Speciel Parnoit �ther Parc�l Num6er: 029 �
Project addres�: � � 01 �urli.ngame _Avt
APPtYCAN'T
Naitie: Rober� Bradsbv
Address: 675 Califarni$ s��^
City/Statc/Zip:san Franci sco CA 94 Z 08
Phono (w): 415 .434 _ 8462
(h): 51 0 _ 950 .0222
(�:415_4�4_8d64
ARCffiTECT/DESIGN�R
Name7Robert Bradaby/Eic�ht Inc.
!�(�TCSS: 67S [`al i forni a 6t _
City/State/Zip: San Franciseo CA 94108
Phonc (w): g 1 5= e 3 g�� 46 2
�) �
(�: 41I�[ 43 .8464
PROPERT'Y OWNER
Phone (w): (�`-�0 -
��
L��
��
:.�� �
S.t�il..�
Please indicate with an as1
the contact person for this
pRUJ'EC'T DESCRIPTION: Demoli,tfon of existi
replacement with 1 story, 4535 retafl bui
AFFADA'VY'YYSICNATURE: I heraby ccrtify under penalty of perjury that the info�
given hercin istruo and co ct the st m� kno e e and belief.
Applicant§ signaturc: Datc: `� '
I lanow about the proposcd application and ho�by a rize the abov� applicant co si
applicatian to the Planning Cotrtmissi�� /
Property owners signatura:-� /� .�-.%�/� %� - - Da[e; -7._ ZS '
RECEIV�D
JUL 2 6 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 29, 2002
TO: _City Engineer
Chief Building Official
� Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for commercial design review for the construction of a single-story retail building
at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A, APN: 029-202-060.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 29, 2002
TO: _City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
�Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for commercial design review for the construction of a single-story retail building
at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A, APN: 029-202-060.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, luly 29, 2002
� C,;v��— ���'`�"v� ��i����> cw�-
G� � � � �
� , � �.� G�.(,c.�l, ��'`.v
� � �� .
�
�, ✓V l o'Lt,�-c3"1 L�c @k�"i �✓V tu t1"Lv►�` ,
I �
��-
_ �2�� ��� ���--� ��« z=�- c��
� �� � �
�� �
�. V V�' LxJ'� l.� 1..� v J
[7✓
�� ��� �-� ��
Y
Reviewed By: \ Date of Comments: l/2Ll /'L`Z_-
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 29, 2002
TO: _City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for commercial design review for the construction of a single-story retail building
at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A, APN: 029-202-060.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Planning Department -
�--
Public Works Department - Enginee
August 6, 2002 .
�
SUBJECT: Engineering Department comments on Revised plans for Planning Commission
Review for 1301 Burlingame Ave. - New one story retail building
Staff has reviewed the resubmittal for the core and shell building plans received 7/26/02 and
has the following comments:
A property survey stamped by a licensed land surveyor shall show the existing and
proposed building with respect to property lines, corners, utility lines and boxes,
existing rights and easements, deed restrictions, on street parking, crosswalks, street
markings, public right of ways, sidewalk dimensions, street lights, public alley (City
Hall Lane), and parking lots (Lot J). Also correct the reference on Sheet A02.00B
`Excepted Parcel, Book 107' should be `Excepted Parcel, Book 707 page 435' .
2. The exact property corners and a boundary survey need to be marked in the field and
shown on the plans to verify the proposed building and property line locations.
Property corners cannot be measured from the center line of the street. No portion of
the building shall encroach into the public right-of-way or easement.
Show existing and proposed on-street parking stall layout, crosswalks, street markings
and striping. Indicate any changes to layout for existing crosswalks, and parking stalls
along the entire block for Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. (For your information
the city uses two coats of white paint for four-inch wide stripes.)
4. The plans shall address the impact of construction to the public alley, parking lot J, city
sidewalk, crosswalk, on-street parking, vehicular circulation, and existing utilities. A
traffic control plan with encroacYunent permit shall identify staging areas; construction
schedule, hours, and activities; location and storage of all equipment; truck delivery
areas; debris removal; construction parking; and barricade and scaffolding needs prior
to issuance of a demolition permit. Scaffolding sections/details need to show fall ratings
for the lid/roof of the tunnel and side wall construction. All traffic and parking
interruptions shall be shown on a survey or aerial photo with overlays illustrating the
locations where traffic flow and parking will be impacted and traffic control points. An
encroachment permit can be obtained from Public Works Department, City Hall 501
Primrose Road,
5. No improvements or construction activities shall block the public alley or parking lot J
Page 1 of 4
located at the rear of the store off Park Road. No storage of construction equipment
and materials will be allowed in the city public right of way. A city encroachment
permit with the necessary bond(s) as determined by the City Engineer will be required
for all construction in public right of way.
6. Any demolition shall identify and show asbestos removal including a permit from the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
7. All site runoff during and after construction shall meet the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES) and Storm water Pollution Prevention Best
Management Practices (BMP).
8. No construction will be allowed during November through January, during the retail
holiday business season.
9. Show proposed grading, elevations, and drainage for driveway, curb and gutter, and
sidewalks on both Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. All sidewalks must be ADA
compliant with a maximum 2% cross slope. (The grades must be coordinated with
existing topography not the building).
10. The project shall replace the frontage curb and gutter, sidewalk, and corner per city's
Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Master Plan (Refer to attachments provided to Gensler
Associates on 6/4/O1).
11. The developer shall pay for the cost of streetscape bulb out improvements at street
frontages to the project site along Park Road and Burlingame Avenue. Based on
current projects, it is estimated the bulb out improvements will cost approximately
$150,000. This amount will be subject to the construction cost index and final design
details. The bulb out portion of the streetscape improvements will be installed at a
future date pending master plan development with community participation. Funds for
future bulb out construction will be placed in a trust fund under the Burlingame
Streetscape Improvements project (number 320-75110-220). The monies will be held
until construction at a future date. A review of the project will be done at five years
from the date of issuing the building permit if not constructed by that time.
12. Show existing and proposed utilities in public right of way along Burlingame Avenue
and Park Road including all connections from building through to street (i.e. sanitary
sewer clean outs, proposed curb drains, water meter and fire sprinkler connections,
street light electrical lines, manholes, and new catch basins for bulb out, etc.). The
proposed location of trees can be adjusted to accommodate existing utilities.
13. For a new building the existing sanitary sewer lateral connection(s) at the main shall be
removed and replaced. New sewer lateral connection(s) at the main requires city
inspection and approval. Cut and plug all abandoned sewer laterals at the city main. An
encroachment permit is required from the Public Works Dept. whenever the city's
Page 2 of 4
portion of the sewer lateral or city clean out is to be laid and/or connected to the sewer
main.
14. All storm water drainage including overflow drainage, shall not discharge on a public
sidewalk but must run through a curb drain per city standard details. Any new
drainage facilities or curb drains on site or in the public right of way shall meet the
City of Burlingame Standard details and specifications.
15. Show section detail for any concrete paving and asphalt/class II base as required for the
project.
16. Show existing and proposed location and installation of parking meter posts (meter
heads installed by the Police Department) and sign posts with signs (refer to City
standard parking meter and sign post details).
17. All garbage storage must be on site within private property and cannot block a public
right of way. No wet garbage fluids shall enter public right of way or the storm
drainage system both during and after construction.
18. Provide Specifications for grading and paving, colored concrete construction, tree
planting including root control barrier, irrigation, tree grates, signs and sign posts,
parking meters posts, and striping.
19. Existing city street lights in the public right of way are to remain and be protected
during construction. Any damage to light poles or equipment including iinishes shall be
repaired or replaced by the owner.
20. Show location and installation of tree grates and frame (Urban Accessories) with
specified color coating for all trees in sidewalk area. It is recommended that the frame
have the standard attachment for poured-in-place concrete. Place the frame first when
pouring the concrete curb and then pour the colored concrete sidewalk up to the frame.
21. Show irrigation to street trees (preferably bubblers) and landscaping planters and
include irrigation controller with electrical supply. Reduced pressure principle
assembly and any back flow preventor to be reviewed and approved by the Water
Department (650-558-7676 Ray Vanover or Frank Donnelly).
22. Show root control barrier surrounding planting pits for trees (preferably Bio Barrier,
12" high, available from Angus Chemicals, Oakland, CA 1-800-233-8435 or equal as
approved by City Arborist).
23. Show expansion joint locations and scoring pattern for concrete paving and curb and
gutter per streetscape improvements master plan.
24. Show location and grades where new sidewalk abuts existing walk and include dowel
Page 3 of 4
connections from new to existing concrete for sidewalk, and curb and gutter.
25. Show sidewalk paving to be toned or colored (Scofield Chromix Admixtures #5233
Sunbaked Clay), and curb and gutter to be plain concrete with two pounds lampblack
per City standard sidewalk details.
26. A minimum of six new trees shall be provided, four trees on Park Road, and two trees
on Burlingame Avenue. Tree selection at the corners shall be Aristocrat Pear (Pyrus
calleryana `Aristocrat'); while along the street shall be Victorian Box (Pittosporum
undulatum). All trees shall be installed at minimum 24" box size. Note the existing
Pittosporum undulatum recently planted in front of the existing bank may be
transplanted if possible. Please contact the city arborist for review - Steve Porter 650-
558-7332.
27. Show installation at corner of one, new streetscape trash receptacle with custom green
finish to match existing streetscape receptacles (Canterbury Internationa140 gallon,
Pennsylvania Avenue Receptacle). Property owner to be responsible for maintenance
of receptacle and management of all on site debris.
28. Show location of any proposed benches. Streetscape benches to be Timberform
Restoration No. 2120-5-M with armrests, purpleheart slats, and coated with No. 6009
Essex Green color for frames and mounting system (Columbia Cascade Co. 503-223-
1157). Maximum bench length is five feet.
29. Provide one bicycle rack according to the streetscape master plan improvements
(Creative Pipe, Hammerhead HH4, 24" length and 36" height, with black thermoplastic
coasting and standard embedded anchor mount). Install bicycle rack before pouring
concrete paving.
Cc: Syed Murtuza, City Engineer
Phil Monaghan, Senior Civil Engineer
Jane Gomery, Associate Engineer
U: \V ICTOR\Projects\Private\ 1301 Burlingame. wpd
Page 4 of 4
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: Planning Department
FROM: Public Works Department - Engineering Division
DATE: September 10, 2002
SUBJECT: Engineering Department comments on September 3, 2002 memo from Eight, Inc.
on construction schedule, traffic control, and pedestrian protection for1301
Burlingame Ave. - New one story retail building
Staff has reviewed the memo dated September 3, 2002 regarding the Apple Retail Store at
1301 Burlingame Avenue. The following comments are in addition to the Engineering Dept.
comments to the Planning Dept. on August 7, 2002.
Construction Schedule
- No construction will be allowed during November through January, the retail holiday
business season. (Items 4 through 7 on the schedule are shown to occur during the retail holiday
season)
- Pedestrian barricades will need to be removed by November 15, 2002. Pedestrian access can
not be blocked from mid November through the end of January, 2003.
Public Parking
- No public parking stalls may be used for a construction trailer. An off site location must be
found for the trailer and shown
- The dimensions and exact locations of all public on street parking stalls needs to be shown.
Will any changes be required during construction?
- Where will trucks that pick up debris and malce deliveries of materials park? What size area the
dimensions of the area they will need? How much street parking will be impacted?
- What are the impacts to the public parking lot J behind the building?
- All employees will be required to park off site. Please indicate where that will be.
Site Access
- What is the remaining width of City Hall Lane at the rear of the building? No improvements or
construction activities shall block the public alley or parking lot J located at the rear of the
store off Park Road. No storage of construction equipment and materials will be allowed in the
city public right of way. This public alley must remain accessible to fire and BFI trucks at all
times.
- What is the size of the dumpster? How long will it be on the site? A city encroachment
permit with the necessary bond(s) as determined by the City Engineer will be required for all
material storage and construction related activities in public right of way.
Pedestrian safety
- The scaffolding must be reviewed by the Public Works Department before installation and a
special encroachment permit will be required. Scaffolding sections/details need to show fall
ratings for the lidlroof of the tunnel and side wall construction.
- Will the location of the cross walk change at any time? Will it ever be blocked?
Page 1 of 2
�
- When and how will public parking stalls be accessed by pedestrians (note - gate and scaffolding
blocking sidewalk access)? What happens to the parking meters? Can drivers get out of their
vehicles and onto the sidewalk safely without going into the street?
Vehicular circulation
- What is the circulation route for truck hauling and deliveries`? At what time of day will they
deliveries and hauling be done?
- Traffic control needs to be defined. All traffic and parking interruptions shall be shown on a
survey or aerial photo with overlays illustrating the locations where traffic flow and parking
will be impacted and traffic control points.
Site survey and project dernition
- No survey has been approved to locate the property and the proposed building
Utilities and NPDES
- What are the impacts to existing utilities? Will any utilities be inaccessible during construction
and if so when?
- Any demolition shall identify and show asbestos removal including a permit from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District.
- All site runoff during and after construction shall meet the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination Standards (NPDES) and Storm water Pollution Prevention Best Management
Practices (BMP). How will this be managed?
- How and when will the new sanitary sewer lateral be installed? New sewer lateral
connection(s) at the main requires city inspection and approval. Cut and plug all abandoned
sewer laterals at the city main. An encroachment permit is required from the Public Works
Dept. whenever the city's portion of the sewer lateral or city clean out is to be laid and/or
connected to the sewer main.
- What happens to existing city street lights and signs? How will night lighting be
accommodated? Will all signs be visible during construction?
- All garbage storage must be on site within private property and cannot block a public right of
way. No wet garbage fluids shall enter public right of way or the storm drainage system both
during and after construction.
- Existing city street lights in the public right of way are to remain and be protected during
construction. Any damage to light poles or equipment including finishes shall be repaired or
replaced by the owner.
Streetscape
- All trees that are removed must be replaced with 36" box trees as specified in the streetscape
plans. A minimum of six new trees shall be provided, four trees on Park Road, and two trees
on Burlingame Avenue. Tree selection at the corners shall be Aristocrat Pear (Pyrus calleryana
`Aristocrat'); while along the street shall be Victorian Box (Pittosporum undulatum). All trees
shall be installed at minimum 24" box size. Note the existing Pittosporum undulatum recently
planted in front of the existing bank may be transplanted if possible. Please contact the city
arborist for review - Steve Porter 650-558-7332.
Cc: Syed Murtuza, City Engineer; Phil Monaghan, Senior Civil Engineer; Victor Voong,
Engineer; Jane Gomery, Associate Engineer
C:\Documents and Settings\elewit�L.ocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK3�1301 Burhngame Ave comments - construcuon meihods 9-10-02.meml.wpd
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: Planning Department
FROM: Public Works Department - Engineering Division
DATE: October 28, 2002
SUBJECT: Engineering Department comments on October 9, 2002 plans and comments
from Eight, Inc. on construction demolition, site improvements, landscaping,
traff'ic control, and pedestrian protection for1301 Burlingame Ave. - New one
story retail building
Staff has reviewed the plans and information date stamped October 9, 2002 regarding the
Apple Retail Store at 1301 Burlingame Avenue. The submittal included a set of plans with 10
sheets (C1.0 thru C5.0 and L1.0 thru L4.0) and traffic control plan description with
photographs. The following comments are in addition to the Engineering Dept. comments to
the Planning Dept. from August 7, 2002 and September 10, 2002.
Property Survey
- The survey still needs to show bearings for the centerline of any street if that is the basis for the
property corners. The referenced city map on the survey does not have any bearings. The survey
still needs to be stamped by a licensed land surveyor. Also show all on-street parking stalls and
street markings on the survey and plans including the motorcycle stall to remain.
Construction Schedule
- To clarify the dates for construction prohibition in the retail area are November 3, 2002 through
January 5, 2003. This includes all construction that will impact the public right of way such as
scaffolding, pedestrian barricades, truck loading and unloading, and parking reductions.
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 at any time.
Site Access
- The city is concerned about a debris boxing blocking the existing alley. This public alley must
remain accessible to fire and BFI trucks at all times. A 10' to 12' lane may work but there will
need to be flagmen available at all times for traffic control. Is there another possible location for
the debris box off site? What are the exact dates and times the box will be needed? Can a box
be located on site for part of the time?
Vehicular circulation
- The proposed truck hauling and deliveries route needs some minor revisions. There can be no
truck access on Burlingame Avenue except occasionally from Park to Primrose Road. There can
be no access on Burlingame Avenue from California Drive to Park Road. We recommend North
Carolan Road versus California Drive for access from the freeway. Note on the plans that the city
Page 1 of 2
traffic engineer will need to approve all routes, dates, and times for any traffic control. Please
review and revise your traffic control plans accordingly
Streetscape
- To clarify all trees that are removed must be replaced with 36" box trees as specified in the
streetscape plans. Note the existing Pittosporum undulatum recently planted in front of the
existing bank may be transplanted if possible. Please contact the city arborist for review -
Steve Porter 650-558-7332.
- Show two Aristocrat Pear (Pyrus calleryana `Aristocrat') at the corner of Park and Burlingame
Avenue in lieu of the proposed Victorian Box.
- Streetscape bulb-out improvements can not be installed at this time because the city has not
refined the master plan with the merchants and community. This is a six month to one year
process with many public meetings and review. Currently there is no funding available to
proceed with the Burlingame Avenue streetscape master plan. In addition the city does not want
to have one bulb-out on a corner where there is no matching bulb-out across the street. This is
not safe and confusing to traffic and pedestrians.
Plan comments
- Backflow preventor assembly must be on site and not in the public alley.
- City standard sidewalk does not use welded wire mesh in the concrete mix.
- The bicycle rack should be placed parallel to the street so that parked bicycles do not block the
sidewalk.
Cc: Syed Murtuza, City Engineer; Phil Monaghan, Senior Civil Engineer; Victor Voong,
Engineer; Jane Gomery, Associate Engineer
U:\FILES\Building Dept. Plan Checks\1301 Burlingame Ave comments - review of civil, lanscaping and traffic control 10-28-02.mem.wpd
Page 2 of 2
SGP-03-�002 TUE 07�05 PM EIGHT INC FAX N0, 415 434 8464 P, Ol
ei6HT iNc.
�i ,._.
� L i_� _. ! . �_ ,.�.
S E P- 4 2002
V!A FAX
To:
Tel:
Fax:
Attn:
From:
Re:
Date:
Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 940 1 0-3 997
650.558.7252
650.696.3790
Erika Lewit
Robert Bradsby
Eight Inc.
Apple Retail Store — Burlingame Avenue
09.03.02
;ITY ,., " , '.��:';i�.f,ii�:
P I P, f�; . �_. 1s =�. s' .�.
Pages: 5 (including cover) ,�
Cu I
Erika,
Attached are Nvo diagrams for the proposed street and sidewalk spaces which the con�ractor
will need 10 build the new building. Also included is a preliminary schedule. �
Our work hours would be arranged to have deliveries in the mornings from 7 to 9 AM on
typical days. Any vehicles parked in the alley would be attended to allow fire departm nt
movement if it becomes necessary. Demolition of the building will be done Predominat ly
From the interior of 1he structure to limit street and sidewalk closures within the constrai ts oF
safety for public and workers. The current buildin� design proposes to be a steel struct re
with a masonry veneer. The existing basement wi be demolished down to the level ne essory
to install a new slab on grade. The majority of the basement void will be filled and �
compacted. Aher the new exterior walls and roof is completed, the barricades would be
removed on the fwo streets and the sidewalk closed for replacemenl. j
ARer planning approval and subsequenf approval of the demo/building permiFs, the ir�tent For
barricading would be to erect steel scaFfolding on both sidewalks to allow workers a n rrow
work area along fhe property lines. Along Burlingame Avenue we would remove the o
small existing trees and create a �unnel for pedesfrians. The scafFolding would have a
platform above the pedestrians for Ihe contractors to move aboul. This platform would e
designed to resist impact from falling maFerials as required. The face of the barricade ould
have a mesh screen or painted plywood skin from the top oF the tunnel up to the top o the
675 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 TEL 415 434 8462 FAX �415 d34 8464
S.F..P-03-�002 TUE 07;05 PM EIGHT INC FAX N0. 415 434 8464 P, 0�
el6HT INC.
scaffolding to obscure fhe construction from the street. At the pedestrian level, the edge
tunnel will have a painted plywood wall separating foot traffic from the construction.
On Park Road, the bar�icade will be similar to thal on Burlingame Avenue except some
existing trees may be retained. The placement of rhe tunnel will be defermined by the
clearance for pedestrian movement will on both sides of the trees. We believe this can
achieved by keeping the scaffoldin entirely on the sidewalk and iF not, we will build t
easte�rn face of the barricade as lift�e as possible into roadway while maintaining all th
existing parking spaces. Alternately, we would remove the t�ees and align the barricac
the curb.
the
of the
with
At fhe intersection of Burlingame and Park, we will provide openings in the barricades for
ped�strians to access the existing streef crosswalks. I
The rear of Ihe project would be fenced af the property line and have the main gates F�
equipment access, removal debris and delivery of materials. The alley would have a si
dumpster located against fhe fence for the duralion of the project where cars currently
a non-sfriped area. In the barricade on Park Road, we need a gate for occasional mat
and equipment access. Probably this side gate would only be for delivery of large stru�
elements fhaf would not fit f�om the alley due to required maneuvering space of the
equipment. Use oF this gate and the related impact on parking spaces would be coord
wifh Public Works ahead of time.
� daily
gle
ark in
rial
ural
ted
The drive lane of the alley will be used daily by contractors, stopping their �rucks long nough
to drop oFf of rools and workers. The trucks and cars will be parked during working ho rs af
remote public parking lots, nol in the adjocent lot across the alley. The only long term arking
spaces which will be required for the project would be two spaces for the construction railer
and the stairs accessing this trailer. This trailer would remain from the start of demolitio until
the completion of fhe rooF decking. At this point the contractor will remove the trailer a d
move their ofFices inlo the building until the tenant improvements are finished.
I hope fhis clarifies our projecYs impact on �he streets and sidewalks. I think thal this pr
provides the maximum safery for the pedestrians and private vehicles while still allowin
conrrac�or room to work efficiently. The sooner the project is completed, the sooner 1he
barricades will be removed. IF you have any questions please call me, and we can dis�
Ihis in more speciFics.
Robert Bradsby
Eigl�t Inc.
�osal
the
675 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 TEl 415 434 8462 fAX I415 434 8464
�
U I
Z 1
I� �r
E--
2
C� I
Li] I
�
�
c.o
0
N
o i
� I
IE—
' - -- ' - -
PROPOSED LOGTION OF CON5TAUCl10N
COMPMIY iANLEA (/�SSUAdE 2 STALLS
� u�irc rw
� I
0
�
�
� �
C'�
O .
I
�f1" - -- - - - - -
�
TAEES
UNi1L COMPLE710N OF ROOF) � �
�vr� r+�r� sroaE
PROPOS� LOCATION OF CONSTAUCTION I i� euuHa�wE �� .
^�w�� G
�A11) .�� PAN� NO. �W
a1�61
MM nNL
/ \ iBWff
/ wpQn 11C �R1 F mMfA m//I.�
� // � � ��
/� ._ _ _ _ _ -__ — lV
� / � / I � I
\/ � I W I
�
I Z
�c �_ PROPOSm TUWPIFI BARPoGIDE j i�
UNT1L CAMPLEf10N OF WAI.IS m
�' AIN F.D ACCESS
-- � m �.
— — a.a.r �
-- � � PLA�N 'ADE
rROPOSED GATE T}�{i BAFiFiI E
FOR LIMfTEO D9.IVERI
PARI( STAEET _ _�
u • lY.UI
— —_ T—. _ _ — _ _ _ . _ — _ _ _ — _ . _ —T— _ -- _ _ _ _ — _ _ -
�oPosFn sr� sca�o�nric wrn�
MESH SCREEN OR PLYWOOD SKW
E�OSiING STREET TAEES WHEAE
TFEY OCCUR
DECK BOARDS FOR PROTECTION OF
PEDESTRWJS AND WORKMEIJ
ACCESS ABOVE TLINNEL
PEDESTAUW iUNfJ�
STREEf PARVWG ALONC CURB
PAINTm PLYW'OOD SIDE TO
Tl1PWEL
��'��N �� ���.'�.��C�sp�
��$��� � � ���
� I� � � i i � � IY �.
�
APPLE BURLINGAME
PRECAST BRICK
y � � r 4th Quarter
I ask ame ura a inis
1 Preconstrudion 39 days ; Tue 8/20/02 Mon 10/14/02
---- _ .._ _.....:_._ ---_ ... _-� - -
�, 2 Setup Pedestrian Barricades 5 days Tue 10/15/02 Mon 10/21/02
.._ __ _... .. _._.._..... -- --
� 3 , Demolish Building 15 days Tue 10/22J02 , Mon 11/'11/02
co_ ......_ _ _ ___ --
4 �Backfill Site 3 days Tue 11/12/02 Thu 11/14/02
..__. .__ _ ,.... :__.. . _._._ i. __. __ .....
c'�*� 5 � Underground Utili6es 15 days � Fri 11/15/02 : Mon 12/9/02
d- —t. - _ ;_ __ _ _ .. ..._.._-- - —
� 6 � Slab on Grade 15 days Tue 12/10/02 Tue 12/31/02
___ _ ...._....... ____.__..._ ---
�. 7 Erect Steel Frame 10 days Thu 1/2/03' Wed 1/15/03
8 Roof Systems 10 days Thu 1/16/03' Wed 1/29/03
O..... . __._._._.:.__ ._._
z 9 � Infill Framing 10 days , Thu 1/16/03: Wed 1/29/03
X 10 Exterior Sheathing 8 Waterpr� 10 days Thu 1I30/03 i Wed 2/12/03
¢
- ` .
�' 11 � Hang Precast Panels 5 days Thu 2/13l03 Thu 2/20/03
12 � Remove Barncades & Trailor 3 days Fri 2l21/03 ` Tue 2/25/03
.._. _ _;......._..
13 Interior Construdion 13 wks Thu 1/30/03: Thu 5/1l03
14 New Sidewalks 20 days Wed 3/26/03: Tue 4/22/03
._..:. _ , _.._......
15 Stock Store 5 days � Fri 5/2/03: Thu 5/8/03
16 ; Store Opening 0 days Thu 5/8/03 Thu 5/8/03
v
z
F-
S
C_7
Ls..l
�
�
CD
O
N
O
L_c.l
�
�
N
O
O
CV
m
0
i
�
��
�
Page �
1st Quarter
�
�_--____�
c,.�u<<�,.«., ���
2nd Quarter
5/8
AUG-b�-�b02 FRI 12�13 PM EIGHT INC FRX N0, 415 434 8464 P, 02
O011l Oy• Vll 1 Vf UUIILII\VIMIYIL f L1�1\I�11`IV� VJV V.7v �II`lV� vuJ'�Iv'v�. ��•�vr���r� � .�'� •
P►aonir� Deputmeat SO! Primroaa Road P(6S0) 558-7250 F(630) 696-3790
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(to be completed by applicant when Negative Declaration or Environeaeeit Impact
Retwrt is re9uirod) ,
EtAL 1NFORMATION i
Address: +�l 01 � U RLI �s1�Wl� �� � Assessor's Parcei Number; � 2 q Z
.��1►...,: � . � .� • � � ���" � . •u �.. 'J .
W�:i J � � - r i �
� � '� � : � u..•W' .�JLii�� � I
C� . / • c �
�ppficatioas requ�red fa this project
�iniurn xrmit, buildin�t rierrnit, etc.):
vari�utce, subdivision mAp. 1 map,
:Wt�T � BU tl..�IIJG, l'r � �i
pe�znits, applications and appmvala required for this projocc by Ctiry, Regional� State
INFORMATION
�a 4
Foct
Federat
C'1 /5�€� �r
ng use(s) of propeTty: it£�Ac � C- �CU Vh�tS� �,�
Number of E�ciating Parking Spaccs`: D Number of Compacc Spaces :
�cr of Existing Stn�ctutrs and Total Squaro Foat�ge of Each:_ I$� ( l.DIIS�
— _ --
ai1�r sttuctures be demolishod for tI�is projxt? ✓ Yes No
and u9C of StructurGs W be demQlishod: -7, Q� I 4- 5 I�' f�T�l l,
ber end siu of existing trees on site`: S-TR���L�����
eay of the �xisting tress be t�anoved? Yce No R�,A�O
�s, list number, size and typc of trees to be removed� ���£
UT�
any natvral or man-made water channels which tun through ar adjacent tu thc sito?
Yed _� No If Yes, where? .._.,., .�,�
and
oF Burlingamc miniinum s�rdard parlc[nQ cpace size ia 9'u20'. Tho minimum sixe tor compsct pulcin� �ccs it $'x17'.
to Ciry of Qurlingpme Zonin� Ordinance GS. 25.70 for p�rking roquiremartc Por particular use6. �
ec in U►e City of $urUn�ame'e Urbui Reforeetation end Troe Pro�ectloa Oeditunce (C.S. 11.0� for �+es rem�val parmie
ee pLnta�g rcquiKmarb.
RE��AVED I�,,,��.F,�
AUG - 2 2002 �
CITY Of- FSUkLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
AUG-02-2002 FRI 12�13 PM EIGHT INC FAX NO, 415 434 8464 P, 04
OGllt L1r � Va 1� VI YVIILlI�\I19ML � LP11�I�J1\61� VJV �ICV VI r7V� Vua VV"VL � �• V�/�n�� I '�.J� �
I
Ci of Huriin�uae Pboniue Depa�tment SQ l Priau�ae k,atd p(6S0) 558 7230 F(6S0) 696 3790
D 'be in �ral �e cxisting a�unding lattd uses to the:
No� ___(ZE'C� !. S�PS f1�S �URLIPtCii('N'� �N� I
PROJEGT
on_
W
deati�l Projal�: !
�bor of l�wclling�Jnit�; N � ,
of Unit(s): I
ehold siu (number of persons per unit) expeeted:
mer+�lWIndustrl�l ProJecn:
And aquarc foota e of oaoh use: ��1 �- �'�-�7 �p� 't' �11�(,U
t7�t--,—C�- �P� 42t� 5'F- -- ��R�� Sii4�'� 1I5
�ated number of anployees per shit� 6
the project involva jhc uso, disposa! or emission of potcatially hAzardons
Icum products)? � Ycs _ _ N° ., ,
—�- - - - -w-� -� A - "—
If
o SF
�C (including
i
�tlanal Projects (public fac111Ue�, ho�pitab, sc�ools): �
;
ftinctioa of facilitS+: N� i
number of employees pe�
n,.�-,..,..,.....
dl Proj�.t: i
�d Hs�r,ard: Is thia site within a special flood ha2erd area?�Yes � N
,d U�e: If tbe project involvos a conditioaal use pe�g�t, vsrianco or c�oni�� applic tion, plEasc
,ain why tho applications aro roquirad�: . 1�jP'� r.
_ L
� P ftU out and sl�bmit the i�DP�P'�'� sPPlic�tian &xm 9variancc �pcC�sl pami4 ctc.) i
� E l� E I V E�► i�v��.�xM
�
AUG - 2 2002 �
CITY UF �;UkLINGAME
. PLANNING DEPT.
AUG-0�-2002 FRI 12�14 PM EIGHT INC FAX N0. 415 434 8464
.�aii� oy. �ii � vr o�n�.an��Mc r �r��riri�r�a� v.+v vov o��v� �IYL'YV'VL i�.�+�nm�
Ci of Burlin�rme Planniag Dtparhh�ent 501 P:imrose Rad P(650) 538-7�50 F(6S0) 69�3790 �
; gross �9wrc faot�e: Exisdng: � 6' � pmposed;
of floors of constiuction� Exutin�: 2 fi YM�'CZZ Proposod:
Standud rad compqa off-strat pauicing spuYs prot�idod:
Standard N' o �J t
Compact u n N
Total t� c N�
Pc�oposod: sttndud N � N�
Cpiqp�ct IV' 0 N�
Tocal N oN �
Arnauat of di�tlfill mstorial bcing movcd (chocic one):
P, 05
� �y.. ..
0-500 cubic yuda 5.000-20,000 cubic ystds
�✓S00-S,000 cubic ysrds • Ova 20,000 cubic y�t+d�(indicate aaw )
No : If fill �i b�in� plscod ovcr cxistin,g bey 511, prvvido oapneeting nports which eh,ow e effect of
th� fill on tl�e undd'lyina bAy mud.
w►ater
of sit� tv bc covcccd with impervious surfaca (parkia�_tot paving,
Is �e u+ea with itnperviou��urfaces ]ess d�an 200 fat eway fl�m t wetland, sdc+eam. la,�oon o� bs�l
Yes No
Deactiba
aourccs genGretod during oporation of facility:
�a: WiU ti�e pro os 1 cause
ofvibratioa: bV
: Plesse describe
�IGN 3 hAl�
pc�pc�►�xl racl�it�r lighlih� uf IhCt'at;ili�y�:
3' x 3� APRox. �►JE �t'� 5 X S A
: Bxpected smount of vrater osage:
t(c day Peak use _ _�aUmin
ercial �„ Uday Peak use _ QaUmin
ed fire flow de�vand SsUmin
Deecribe
: Bxpected daily sewet discherge �O0 ��- � ��
; of wsstawater discharge on site (i.e. �eatrooms, resteurents, ieborAwry, material
2 R�8'fRbOW15 ON �-�(
• co c��y ots�run�.me sxc�ior m�i�aon oraiwn�ce �rro. 147� re�Cdit� ro9uJrem�nit� whicb Wnit i
ill ' n in boti eaidentfal wd wmc�ercial mna.
R E � � ��`w'� �= �
AUG - 2 20U2
CI PLANN�ING DIF PT��r
8��� bY Y�� P�OJ� �B,
ing, etc.j
���.�
AUG-b�-2002 FRI 1��14 PM EIGHT INC FAX N0, 415 434 8464 P, 06
Nv��� uy . va i� v� vun�a�r�ar�w�� ��.nnna�ru� v.iv vav u� av� V Y1' VV' VL ��.......�..� .-�- ..
�
of $urlin�ne Pl�aaia� Dapa�t�eo� SOl Prinu+ooe Rc4d P(630) 338-'1ZS0 R(6S0) 69fr3790
iN"d:
d�a following itcros applicabk to thc project or its offe�ta? Prvvidc attactuncnt to a�plain of �il
�s cl�ecked 'ye�'.
Yn No
oge in exisdng feanu�as of aay bays, ddelands, beachea or lulls� or �
t�atial aitcrat{on of gruund cancours. _� %�
�
nge in sce�ic views or vistas 6�om exieting re�idmtial srees or public laads i
�.. .-.� �
in pattem. acale or charac,�ter of general area of p�oject.
�
�
�`
amounts of solid wasto or litta.
in dust, ssh� smolra fim�es or odors in viciaity.
in brry. lAgoo�n, str�am, chaancl a groundwater quality or quantiry, or
n of wcistin� driinag� psto�ma.
cl�go in exiating noise ur vbn�dun 1cvCly in thv vicinity (during
i �ndlor duting opaallon).
on 511ed lond or ou elope of 10 94 oc more.
or dicpossl oF potontially hazardous meteiials, sueh as toxic substances.
mable materials or ezplosives.
chaage in demand for municipal servicas (police, fire water, sewage)
incc�aso in fossil fuel coacumption (oil� natural gas, ctc.).
R�l tionahip to a lar��r project or scries of projects.
�. �C��CI lv+� ��,fMPc�'To $E �'[L�p u�t1� f �wGIN�.E:(2�1�
� '� �se�-�t�'� -� e� c�r� � � �,s��Hq�' a��ec�R-
P�R�oR. To E�.pC'� �v
CE 1gTCATiON
I h. y ce�ait�+ that the atatemeats flirnished above and in the sttached exh'bits
p t the data and in%rmation required for this initial evaluetiun w the best of
my bility, and that the facb� etstecnenra, end infom►atton preseated are we and
co to the best of my lmowledge aad belief. „ n � ,� ��
D�•o2�U2 s;�,
RECEIV�:.��:�
AUG - z 2ooz
X
X
���
CI1 Y UF BURLINUi;(JIt
PLANNING DEP I
RUG-b�-2002 FRI 12;13 PM EIGHT INC FAX NO, 415 434 8464 P, 03
Sent By: CITY OF BURLINOAME PLANNINO� 650 696 3790� JU1-�u-u[ ��:3tlAMj i raye c
�
Pc�aposed use of the sitc �� �- �`.� � I
Days and houc� ofvperatian � _i �iS � �N� (� �W� � I 0 �
Number oflruaks/aorvicc vcbicles to be paciced at site (by type) l� N� �
' �
Glurcnt �ad �ected auximum awnber of lo inclu�tt oviraer �t tt�is locacion; '�
���g In Z Yars In 5 Ycars
i
of BucUbpime Pl�min� Dep�m�me SOt P�im+o.e Rad P(6S0) SS8-72S0 F(6S0) 696-3790 ' Q,�me•ocg
�
COMMERCIAL APPiICATIONS
PLANPIINC3 QOI�II4Q99iON APPLK)ATION 9UPPL8I�IBN1'AL FORM I
�%ucs of AM to ARer 5:00
' n FM PM
adcdays ^'
1-t�te `T
-time
2 I
eek,�ds
. ull-tiane `� 5
time
3 z
AM w ARer 5:00
PM PM
p �
2 I
� �
3 2
AM to 'Atier :00
PM P �i
p
2 1
� 5
3 21
Gtirreut aud r�'a,Kvd meximum number of visitaa/tustomcrs wh�o ma comc to t1�e eite:
Exieting In 2 Years � In S Yesrs '
�1tre of AM to AR�er 5:00 AM to After 5:00 AM to After
paation PM PM PM PM PM P
�eacdays �l0 2 � �'� . � � � �
.eekends
5�, 3o bo �o �0 4
6 What is tlu maximum number of people cxpectod.on site �t any one �nmo (include pwaer,
loyees and visitors/customera): 3 0 —-- ;-
7 Where doJwill d�c ownor aad employ�ees pu�c? v,�c�k� o� 5 � T� � R-kt�JC�
8. Where do✓will mc customece/visitors park? � N � lAl6 �4tJ�
P,�Rca►r�'G 1.a1's c tv �4�
9 P�sent or most rccent uae of aibe �
1. T.iat of otticr tenants on prowp�tty� their number of cmploya�s� hours of operation (�ttacl� list if
R E C� �. � `��`� . �a...
AUG - 2 2002
CITY OF BURLIC�GAf�I
PLANNING DEPT.
Tt{OMAS REX HARDY, AIA
Registered Arc6itect
ARCHITECTURE
�'�-¢�n��.itt�.I
Date
To:
Pro ject:
Via:
�.L7
Sio Stockton Street Nu. ioi
San Francisco, CA94io8
W 0 R K S H 0 P
RE�E���r,� t :
-3 '
S
EP t��t�r
. ;� E.
C11Y �FNING�.,��' , ,
PLAN
3o August 2002
Margaret Monroe, City of Burlingame Planning Dept
Robert Bradsby, Eight Inc.
i3oi Burlingame Avenue Historic Resource Study
Project #0210
USPS
. _ ............................._.............................................._ ._......._........._........_._.._._...._._......_..__..__....._.._..__._._......
i ............................................................. ...
' Q� Item Date _
i� Historic Resource Study __ v�__ '
_....._.__ _........_..._..____..........._ ................ _._........:......_._....._.._....._._......_...__ ...___________.........._..____�.
,---- --- -----
_. __.._. . .. _ ,
� � ___.._ �
i ;
� . �_....._....�---�_....
_ ... __.....�.....;
i i _._._a
i —
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-o48g tel
+1 �415) 837-o4y8 fax
trhaia�c�sbcglobal.net
www.architectus.com
;
5tate of Caiffornta The Resources Agency Primary # - '`
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREAT{ON , HRI :# ' `:
PRiMARY RECORD Trinomia� ` ` ''::
, NRHP Status Corle ', :
_ Other Listings , `.
----- - -- �
`' i. : ; Review Code ' ' Reviewer _ Date
Page � of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by reoorder)
P1. Other ldent(fier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*8. County y�'�j�J NI�z�O and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Loca6on Map as necessary.)
"b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R � of � of Sec B.M.
c. Address (3pl BURLINC�ArN1E aV� City $uRLt1JG�4ME ZP �1401���il�g
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or li�ear resources) Zone _, mE/ mN
e. Other Locational Data: (e.9., parce� #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as �propriate)
P/�fZG�"cL � Ozq' Z O 26 (op
*P3a. Description: (Describe resou�ce and its major elements. Inciude design, materials, condiGon, alteradons, size, setting, and boundari�)
S E $ ATT� GH !� �"r.l�fi
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) ��'�
*P4. Resources Present: � Building _ Structure _ Object _ Site
' a �,
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: Historic Prehistoric
_ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
,av-r�.� daaa�-
G65o 342- 5
'P8. Recorded by: (Name, affi�iation,
and address) T1�40MAS R�/( Ei�'��rj i4/A
5i0 SToU�roN #!o
s,q�v usco , c,a a� o
coNsu�uub A�RtMmEGI'
CM5) 433•048�
•P9. Date Recorded:
2fo d.Urvsr 2oczr
'P10. Survey Type: (Describe
j�Go N NAI S St1�IJ[� Su Rv�
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.'� (�10 j�(�
*Attachments: NONE )( Location Map i( Continuation Sheet �Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record _District Record Linear Feature Record _Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record _ Other (List):
I- 3 SzorzY GaM I�t�ER�t�4-L Bv��b��v�
District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #� _
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
— ----
State of California � The Resources Agenay Primary # , ; ;:
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# ', '"' '
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, I�►ND OBJECT REC�RD '
*NRHP Status Code 5 5 3
Page 2_ of *Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) _ _
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: I 301 UR�IIJC-rA�M� �.4V�
B3. Original Use: �3AlJX. B4. Present Use: 1J G�►NT I..AST US�D AS &�►JK
*B5. Architectural Style: M EDITEK�A�N E.4�1 K� VIv
*66. Constructiofl History: (Constniction date, alterations, and date of altera�)
S�� �4tTArGMM� W RN I�►vowN 'Cl1�ELtu�E cvnd pBRM►T N►sroRY.
*B7. Moved? %� No _Yes _Unknown Date: Orlginal Location:
*68. Related Features: � �A
B9a. Architect: b. Builder:
*610. 5lgnlficance: Theme GoMM�tZG1A�4 �6VSl.o?MS�.1T Area
Period of SignFficance �q 2os �' �� Property Type Applicable Criteria
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
s g� A-Ttac�c rw�Nr
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (�ist attributes and codes)
*B12. References: 5� ,L�'�p��j�..{ M��y'r
B13. Remarks:
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
*B14. Evaluator. ���AS R�J� �DY, ELt�.
*Date of Evaluation: 2lo ANGU ST 2002
(This space reserved for o�cial comments.)
DPR 523B (7/95) "Required informatlon
State of California -- 7he Resources Agency Primary #_ _�_ _�_.�_._.
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATIDN MAP , , Tr�nomia� ---- ==--- : .. ' ------ ,
Qage �_ of *Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder)
*Map Name: *Scale: "Date of map:
/5
North
�
BURLiN�aM�
�o'
0
0
, �
�
�
�
�a
,
W
O
� �
0.
Go'
�
`��
�
��
70' �v
27
a
AVE.
1 ra' +s ..i �Is� so'
I� � i� C
1 �$ 8 R; � �
i ._, � .
� - Q i�o� - - � ' -
�o � I I
g � � g� � � �
—�_..__ L _ I�• �s'
� 195'
— — — — — — --- — � — — _. _. .
a � !/ T
� � —_' �� —.
� � i !P 6
2 ... ------ 2p ---- �.
• /3 S
` /4 4
..a
_
� �
a=
• TO' � Q
��r • �
iso� s
T. e, zo' �A
/5 3 ^—
� 3.,-. a
-p � � 2 — — —
$ --- — —
� � r /.2
A V£. �
1�
How��o
�cAL�: I�� = (00'
HIS70RIC RESOURCE STUDY
ATTACHMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATTACHMENTS
i3o1 Burlingame Avenue is a heavily altered commercial bank buitding in
Burlingame's downtown area. Thought to have been designed in the (ate Zos or 3os,
the building was constructed as a home for the Bank of Italy, soon to become the
Bank ofAmerica. As a result 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 resutt,l3oi Burlingame Avenue does not appear to be etigible
for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of
Historic Places. As such, i3o1 Burlingame Avenue should not be considered to be a
historic resource as defined in Section Zzo84.i of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCTION and METHODOLOGY
The preparer, Thomas Rex Hardy, AIA, was hired by the architectural firm of Eight Inc.,
in August zooz to prepare a Historic Resource Study and to evaluate the potential
historical and architectural significance of the former bank building located at 1301
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 Zoo2 to photograph and evaluate 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 by discussingthe bui(dingwith the Burlingame
Public Library, Burlingame 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 California Register of
Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places criteria.
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The building is located on the southern corner of Bur(ingame Avenue and Park
Avenue, taking up the entire 49' x 92' site and backing on to an alleyway. The simple
Mediterranean Reviva( style building is roughly Zo' high with painted cement plaster
walts over brick structure. The primary facade on Burlingame Avenue consists of a
pair of contemporary metal and glass doors with transom above and large steel sash
1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -1
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY
ATTACHMENTS
windows on eithe.► 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. All seven windows are cased in non-historic redwood trim and shaded
by contemporary canvas awnings.
The building has a full basement (not available 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 plaster wall finish texture clearly reveals that this is not the
original wall finish. The only existing elements on the building exterior that might
remotely be considered original are the clay roof tile and small ptaster cornice at the
eaves. These undistinguished features are not considered to possess historic or
architectural significance.
The upper portion of the windows appears to be steel sash and may be original. They
were cased in wood around i974•
No original fabric was evident in the building interior. The tall interior space of the
original public lobby space has been completely altered by removal of any original
materiat 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 tost.
The building is thought to have been built in the late Zos or 3os as a branch bank of
the Bank of America (formerly the Bank of Italy). A 1968 photograph of the building
that shows paired plaster pilasters on the front facade, along with bas-relief
medallions beneath the windows and above the pilasters. A dark band, presumably a
marb(e or stone base, runs along the entire base of the build ing. Elaborate bronze
ornamentation over the 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 ornamental 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
presumabty removed during one of the numerous previous renovation projects. Over
1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -2
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY
ATTACHMENTS
time, the building has been generally used as a bank and suffered remodeling each
time a new bank took over the space.
_
�
.t
���
.......... ........
��
� . �"r.f�i:„f-4;.
�
�: .
Photograph courtesy of and O Burlingame Historical Society
Original Architectural Features No Longer Present Inctude:
1.
2.
3•
4•
5•
6.
7�
8.
9•
10.
11.
Paired ornamental plaster pilasters
Ornamental plaster quoins at corners
Omamental plaster panels above pilasters
Ornamentat plaster spandrels beneath windows
Decorative bronze (ight fixtures
Bronze ornamentation above entra�ce
Original doors
Original flag poles flanking entrance
Omamenta( plaster dentils at cornice and ptaster moldings
Stone or marble base
Corner window and ornamental plaster surround
EVALUATION
The preparer has made every effort to evaluate this building underthe criteria
designed for such evaluation by the National Park Service.
Integrity
In order to qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, resources
must not anly meet one of the criteria listed below; they must also "retain enough of
1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -3
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 California Office of
Historic Preservation, integrity is "the authenticity of an historical resource's physical
identity evidence by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resources'
period of significance." Integrity is evaluated with respect to seven variables:
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Although
once a nicety composed building, i3o1 Burlingame Avenue has undergone substantial
changes, including the interior, which significantly affect its architectural integrity.
It is the opinion of the preparerthat this structure does not possess architecturat or
historic significance since it:
a) appears to have no association with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; and
b) appears to have no association with the lives of persons significant in
our past; and
c) does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that
possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may tack individual
distinction; and
d) has not yielded, 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 would suggest that the building had any local
historic significance.
The vast (evel 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 available for research at the various locat 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 preparer that the toss of original material and
features, and the current tack of any originat historic fabric makes the building
ineligible for listing as a historic resource.
If the original date of construction could be known, microfiche of tocal newspapers of
the period cauld be reviewed to see if they contained any information about the
design and construction of the building.
1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -!}
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY
APPENDIX
ATTACHMENTS
BUILDING PERMIT RECORDS
Viewed at Burlingame City Hall 26 August 2002
Note that clarity and comprehensiveness of records varies but give an idea of the
building uses and alterations over the past yo years.
- -- ----------------------------------
-------
rDate of Permit 1 Work Performed __
2/6z Remodeli� for Bank of America _+_ _
r /68 ; Air-conditionin for Bank ofAmerica _�
4/12/7z ; Walk-up teller window addition for Bank of America by
i Continental Service Co. i
�_ _._ __..._ ___—__._^.-----�____._.___.__�_..___�_.__�.__�_�.
4/i2/72 ; Support structural for signage for Bank of America by W.B.
; Clausen Structura( Engineer, Oakland, CA
8/21/73 ! St tu ucr�r-al engineering [letter] for signage for Bank of America
________j�W.B. Clausen Structural�ineer, Oakland, CA �
zi/8/74 j Miscellaneous Alterations at Exterior and Interior for Western l
� Ffederal Savings by Peter Munsetle Architecture & Planning,
� � Beverly Hi(Is, CA. Included mezzanine restrooms, revised entry, �
� ! exterior plaster, window frames "encased in douglas fir", �
I ; addition of redwood planter boxes, removal of original? ,
j Ftagpole, removal of original transom. Addition of restrooms, �
�_ � kitchenette, teller counters, and fireplace! �
's 10/7/82 ; Illuminated Si�nage for powney Savin�s '
r5/so/85 � ATM installation for Bay View Federal Savings by Dale �
; ; Ber erson, Architect, Encino, CA. i
5/i2/85 ; Awnings and ATM instaltation for Bay View Federal Savings by �
� � Dale Ber�erson, Architect. Encino, CA.__ __ _
� - ----;--...-.-_._ ---1
i 7/3/86 � Interior aiterations: teller counter modifications, entry tile {
i � removed, minor wall modifications, casework, soffits. !
; � For Bay View Federal Savings by Jessica Hall Interior Design, �
! I San Francisco, CA
1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -5
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY
RESOURCES & ASSISTANCE
ATTACHMENTS
The Burlingame Public Library was consulted but had no information on the building.
The Burlingame H istorical Society was contacted and volunteers Russ Cohen, Ellen
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. Carot Peterson, the archivist reported that
there was no information on i3o1 Burlingame Avenue in their fites.
The building was visited and photographed by the preparer in August Zoo2.
1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -6
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY
PREPARER'S QUALIFICATIONS
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 1977. He has been
licensed by the state of California to practice architecture since i983•
He worked in the office of Page & Turnbu(l in San Francisco from i985 through Zoo1,
specializing in the restoration and preservation of historic buildings. As an associate
of Page & Turnbutl, 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 Bay Area. He was the project architect for the
restoration of the Garden Court at the Palace Hotel, and the rehabilitation of the
historic United States Court of Appea(s 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 )ackson 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, v�oo Baker St,
Bakersfield, CA
Flood Mansion, San Francisco, CA
Hanna-Honeycomb House, Palo Alto, 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, Mountain View, CA
Sheraton-Palace Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Tecate Border Crossing Station, Southern
Califvmia
U. S. Court ofAppeals, San Francisco, CA
U. S. Courthouse, Los Angeles, CA
U.S. Post Office and Office Building, Hilo, HI
U. S. Courthouse, Phoenix, AZ
Washoe County Courthouse, Reno, NV
Watkins-Cartan House, Atherton, CA
STATE OR LOCAL LANDMARKS
i456 Edgewood Drive, Palo Atto, CA
Fallon House, San 1ose, CA
Harris-Lass House, Santa Ctara, CA
Patterson House, Fremont, CA
Sea Ranch Barn, Sea Ranch, CA
Stanford University, CA
Woodside Vi(lage Church, Woodside, CA
SAN FRANUSCO C�TY LANDMARKS
4z5 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA
$35 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA
Crocker Fence, San Francisco, CA
Davies Rrehouse, San Francisco, 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 Trocadero Clubhouse, San
Francisco, CA
1301 BURLINGAME AVE PAGE -]
PERSONAL
EDUCATION
THOMP,S REX I-iP,RC�Y, /�IA
5io Stockton St, No. iol
San Francisco, California 94io8
�415) 837-0489
Registration: Catifornia i2683 (since i98z)
Email: trhaia@sbcglobal.net
Web: www.architectus.com
U.C. Berkeley, i977
A.B. Architecture, graduated with honors
Malvern College, England i969-i972
E X P E R I E N C E 20oi t0 pre5ent:
1985 t0 2001:
i989 to i99i:
i984 to i985:
1977 to 19g4=
THOMAS REX HARDY, AIA� San Francisco, CA
Sole Proprietor
PAGE Si TURNBULL, San Francisco, CA
Project Architect, CAD Manager Associate Principal
HARDY ARCHITECTS� San Francisco, CA
Sole Proprietor
MOSHER� D REW � WATSON � FERGUSON, San Diego, CA
Project Architect
CLARK, STROMQUIST Si SANDSTROM, Palo Alto, CA
Project Architect, Associate of firm
A W A R D S Catifomia Historic Preservation Conference i983
fnrRenovation of Guest House at the Hanna-Honeycomb House,
Stanford, California
Catifomia Historic Preservation Conference i988
forRehabilitation of Stern Grove Trocadero Clubhouse,
San Francisco, California
A F F I L I A T I O N S American Institute of Architects
Foundation for San Francisco's Architedurat Heritage
Classical America
California Preservation Foundation
William Morris Society
PUBLICATIONS, ETG.
The Oberlin Book of Bandstands, Competition Entry,
Preservation Press, i987
RESUME
RLINGAME � CITY OF BURLINGAME
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND-526 P, 1301 Burlingame Avenue, demolition of existing 7411 SF two-story bank building
and construction of a new one-story 4342 SF commercial building
The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on November 6, 2002, completed a review of the proposed
project and determined that:
(X� It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Project Description: The site at 1301 Burlingame Avenue is a corner property at the intersection of Park
Road and Burlingame Avenue in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. T'he applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing two-story 7,411 SF commercial building on site and to construct a new, single-story,
4,342 SF commercial building. There was no on-site parking for the existing building. The Zoning Code
exempts all first floor retail space from parking requirements in the C-1, Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area so there is no on-site parking required or proposed for the new commercial building. The applicant is
requesting Commercial Design Review for the proposed single-story commercial building. The project
meets all zoning code requirements.
Reasons for Conclusion: The new commercial building will replace an existing commercial building of
similar size. Therefore, there will be no increase in traffic or demand for public services. Issues related to
construction traffic and safety have been adequately addressed by the mitigation measures contained in the
initial study. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting fmdings, it is found that based on
the mitigation measures proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Si atur of Processing Official
Citv Planner ��• � , �Z
Title Date
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: �O�/PJ►'1 �� � . 2�2—
RECE�VED
NOV 0 6 2002
COUNTY MANAGER
Negative Declaration
1301 Burlingame Avenue
Declaration 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.
Executed at Burlingame, California on D V- , 2002.
�
� ANN MUSSO, CIT`Y CLERI�, CITY OF BURLINGAME
-2-
DRAFI' INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2
3.
4.
5.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
1301 Burlingame Avenue
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
Parcel with an address of 1301 Burlingame Avenue,
Burlingame, California
Robert Bradsby, Eight Inc.
675 California Street
San Francisco CA 94108
C
�
General Plan Designation: Shopping and Se v;��e Commercial
Zoning: C-1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area APN: 029-202-060
8. Description of the Project: The site at 1301 Burlingame Avenue is a corner property at the
intersection of Park Road and Burlingame Avenue in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two-story 7,411 SF commercial building on
site and to construct a new, single-story, 4,342 SF commercial building. There was no on-site
parking for the existing building. The Zoning Code exempts all first floor retail space &om
parking requirements in the C-1, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area so there is no on-site
parking required or proposed for the new commercial building. The applicant is requesting
Commercial Design Review for the proposed single-story commercial building. The project meets
all zoning code requirements.
9. 5urrounding Land Uses and 5etting: The 4,544 SF lot is on the south side of Burlingame
Avenue at the intersection of Park Road and Burlingame Avenue. The site is bordered on the
north (front) by Burlingame Avenue, on the east (left side) by Park Avenue, on the south (rear) by
City Hall Lane, a public right-of-way (measuring 20'-0" in wic�th) and City Parking Lot J, and on
the west (right side) by a commercial retail building. The existing building covers the lot to the
property lines, except for an approximately 2'-0" wedge-shaped area at the rear of the building and
abutting City Hall Lane. Park Road, which runs along the east (left side) of the property,
terminates at the intersection with Burlingame Avenue. There is a stop sign on Park Road and
unmetered pedestrian crosswalks at the intersection, spanning both Burlingame Avenue and Park
Road. T'he surrounding land use is commercial retail and services and restaurants. A United
States Post Office is located on Pazk Road approximately 170 feet from the subject site
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A permit will be required from the Bay,
Area Air Quality Management District for demolition of the existing structures. A building permit
will be required from the City of Burlingame Public Works Department Building Division for
demolition of the existing building and for construction of the new building. An encroachment
permit will be required from the City of Burlingame Public Works Department for work that
affects public right-of-ways, including sidewalks, crosswalks, public parking spaces, City Hall
Lane, and water or sewer connections.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources X Aestherics
Population and Housing Mineral Resources X Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils X Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Hydrology & Water X Noise Agricultural Resources
Quality
X 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 NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project 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 fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMEN'I'AL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a" potentially significant impacY' or " potentially significant
unless mirigated" irnpact 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 mitigarion measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IIVIPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only thP Pffects that remain to be addressed. '
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potenrially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mirigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigarion measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing fiu-ther is required.
�� . � �
Margaret onroe, City lanner Date
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Thao No
Sigoificant Significant Signiticant Impact
Issues Uoless Impsct
Mitigation
Inrnrporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANIVING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regularion
of an agency with jurisdiction over tt►e project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program 1,2 X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservarion plan or natural
community conservarion plan? 1 15 X
,
2. POPiTLATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: �
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either d'uecdy
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirecdy (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? 1,3 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 3 X
the cons�uction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substanrial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
cons�uction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potenrial substantial adverse 5,6,7 X
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a laiown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 5,6,7 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 Publicarion 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,6,7 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5,6,7 X
iv) Lanc�,�ides? 6 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 4,5,11 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 5,6 7 X
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 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 altemarive wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 9,11 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,16 X
substantially with groundwater rechar�e such that there would be
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteatially Potentially Less T6an No
S➢gniticant Significaot Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigatloo •
Incorponted
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
e�sting land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substanrial erosion or 1,4,9,
siltarion on- or of� site? 11 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or 1,4,9, X
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 11 �
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on . or ofi=site?
e) Create or contribute nuioff water which would exceed the '
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or 10, 1� X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
� Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4,9,
11 X
g) Place housing within a 100-yeaz flood hazard area as mapped on 11 X
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 11 X
impede or red"uect flood flows?
i) Expose people or shuctures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a.result of the 1 X
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,7 X
5. AIIt QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicabie air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following detercninations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obshuct implementation of the appli�able air 1 12 � X
quality plan? '
b) Violate any air quality standard or contnbute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? 1,12 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,12 X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attauunent under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitarive thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,12 X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,12 X
people?
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traf�ic wluch is substantial in relation to the 1,9,10 X
eacisting trat�ic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
in a substanrial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congesrion at
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ��� Potentially Potentialiy Lesss Than No
Signifcant Signifcant Significant qnpact
Issues Unless Impad
Mitigatan
Inrnrporated
intersecrions)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumularively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? 14 X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,9,10 X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substanrially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,4, 20, X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompahble uses (e.g., 21
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2 X
� Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,4,9,
10 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,4 X
alternarive transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substanrial adverse effect, either duectly or through
habitat modifications, on any species idenrified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status specics in local or regional plans,
policies, or regularions, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,15 X
b) Have a substanrial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,15 X
other sensitive natural community idenrified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse ef�'ect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but 1,15 X
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the r a�• �ment of any native or 1,15 � 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 1,15 X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
� Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1,15 X
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 lmown mineral resource that 1,17 X
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state7
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 1,17 X
plan or other land use plan?
9. HA7.ARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ���� Potentially PoteuNslFy � Tn,o No
SigniTicant Sigoiticaot Signifiqnt Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inrnrponted
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
tluough the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? 1, I6 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 1,2,11, X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the 16
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazazdous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 1,4,16 X
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 16 X
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 1, 13 X
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
� For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or worlang in 1 X
the project area?
g) Impau implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 1, 19 X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or struchues to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1, 19 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intemuxed
with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Eacposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 1 X
stanci�uCds established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies? '
b) Elcposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 1,4 X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1 X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? �
d) A substanrial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,4,9, X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 10
project? -
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 1,13 X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use auport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project azea to excessive noise levels7
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 substanrial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government faciliries, the construction of which could
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less T6aa No
Stgnificaot Signilicant Signiticant ImpaCt
Issaes Unless Impact
Mitigatioo
Inrnrporated
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perfonnance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,19 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
12. iTTILI'I'IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the appIicable 1,9 X
Regional Water Quality Control Boazd?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 1,9 X
�eatment facilities or expansion of existing faciliries, the
construction of which could cause significant envuonmental
ef%cts?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the consirucrion of 1,9 X
wluch could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have suf�icient water supplies available to serve the project from 1,9 X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? '
e) Result in a determinarion by the wastewater treatment provider 1,9 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?
� Be served by a landfill with sufficient pemritted capacity to 1,9 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,9 X
related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substanrial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1 X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2,4 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,4 X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
14. CULTLTRAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,4 X
lustorical resource as defined in'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,4 X
azchaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,4 X
or site or unique geological feature?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sign�cant Sigoificsut Sigaiticant ImpaCt
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
I000rponted
d) Disturb any hucnan remains, including those interred outside of 1,4 X
formal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,4 X
regional parks or other recreational faciliries such that substanrial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,4 X
construction or expansion of recrearional facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources aze significant environmental
ei%cts, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agriculturai Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
Califomia Department of ConsPrvation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
proj ect:
a) Convert Prime Familand, Unique Farmland or Fannland of 1 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Familand 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 contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing envuonment 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-
susta'vung levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or ,-
endangered plant or aniu�al or Pliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? 1,15 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("G�mularively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when .
viewed in connection with the ef%cts ofpast projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
1 X
c) Does the project have environmental ef�'ects which will cause
substantial adverse ef%cts on human beings, either directly or
indirecfly? 1 X
Draft Initial Study Summary 1301 Burlingame Avenue
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, Califomia, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Tit[e 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2002 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City ofBurlingame, Burlingame, Califomia, 2002.
4 Plans date stamped September 27, 2002, Sheets A0.01, A1.00 — A1.05, C-1 & C-2, A2.00 — A2.02, A3.01 — A3.03,
Existing Building Plans, Topographic Survey, & Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Roof Plan and
Landscape Plan.
5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1971.
6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, Califomia,
1972.
7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF,
San Mateo County: Califomia, 1987.
8 Historic Resource Study prepared by Thomas Rex Hardy, AIA date stamped September 3, 2002
9 Fublic Works Engineering Memo dated October 28, 2002
10. Demolition and Site Construction Plans date stamped October 22, 2002, Sheets C1.00 — C5.00
11 Map ofApproximate Locations oj100 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance
Maps, September 16, 1981
12 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995
13 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994
14 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997
15 Map ofAreas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Departrnent
of Fish and Game
16 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998
17 E. Brabb, F. Taylor, and G. Miller, Geologic, Scenic and Historic Points oflnterest in San Mateo County, Department
of Interior, 1982
18 Chief Building Official Memo, dated July 29, 2002
19 Fire Department Memo, dated July 29, 2002
20 Recycling Specialist Memo, dated July 29, 2002
21 (:o�tistruction Logistics Plan date stamped June 29, 2002; memo and plans regarding construction staging date stamped
September 4, 2002
Draft Initial Study Summary
1301 Burlingame Avenue
Land Use and Planning Summary: T'he General Plan designates the existing 4,544 SF lot as
commercial shopping and services. The site is zoned C-1, Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area. The proposal for a single-story commercial retail building is consistent with the
General Plan and zoning requirements. T'he Zoning Code exempts all first floor retail space from parking
requirements in the C-1, Subarea A Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, so there is no on-site parking
required for the proposed commercial building.
The project consists of the demolition of an existing 2-story 7411 SF commercial building and replacing it
with a new one-story 4342 SF commercial building. New commercial buildings aze permitted in this
zoning district, provided they complete a commercial design review applicatian process to evaluate the
architectural consistency of the design for the proposed building and for the compatibility of the proposed
building with the commercial neighborhood setting. The proposed commercial building conforms to all
measurable requirements of the zoning code; the Planning Commission determines compliance with
commercial design review criteria.
Mitigation:
• The proposed commercial building shall complete the commercial design review process and be
approved by the Planning Commission before any demolition or construction is allowed on site.
Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for shopping and
service commercial uses. The proposed infill commercial development conforms to the City of
Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the
planned land use in the area. Since the site was previously developed with commercial uses of about the
same size, there will be no net increase in the number of employees seeking housing in this area.
Geologic Summary: The site is flat and located in an urban setting, which has been developed with
commercial uses for approximately 85 yeazs. The site is approximately 2 miles from the San Andreas
Fault, but is not within the Alquist-Priola zone. The site is about 2 miles from the Serra Fault, a minor
thrust fault considered to have common roots witl�.the San Andreas Fault. There are no known faults on
the site. The seismic exposure will be reduced over the present ie •elopment, since the residences will
incorporate the seismic construction requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition.
The site is relatively level and does not have a history of landslides. The soil type is designated as an
alluvium plain which consists primarily of gravel, sand, silt and clay deposits. Under seismic conditions
most Burlingame soils are reasonably stable. This site is in an azea of moderate to low (0.1 — 1%
probability ) liquefaction susceptibility. The project will be required to meet all the requirements,
including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the
City of Burlingame, for structural stability.
Mitigation:
• That the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 Edition, including seismic standazds for group occupancies, as amended by the City
of Burlingame, for structural stability
10
Initial Study Summary 1301 Burlingame Avenue
Water Summary: This project is a commercial infill development project and it is not located adjacent to
a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone B, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. The
site is tied to existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines with adequate capacity in
the system. Since the new commercial building will replace a commercial building of similar size, there
will be no increase in the water demand from the site. All of the surface water will be required to drain to
the street frontages, connector laterals will be required to be tested and replaced where necessary to insure
the systems are tight.
Air Quality Summary: The proposed application is for one single-story commercial building to replace
an existing two-story commercial building. The new structure will accommodate about the same number
of people as the previous use, the change in emissions generated here over emission from all development
in Burlingame is insignificant. The site is '/4 mile from Burlingame Caltrain station and is within wallting
distance of countywide bus service. The site is zoned for commercial retail development and with proper
adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create
any deterioration in the aii :,:�ality or climate, locally or regionally. "
Mitigation:
• 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 Department. The applicant shall comply with all
requirements of the permit.
TransportationlCirculation Summary: The site is located at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and
Park Road. Burlingame Avenue is designated as a collector street and provides the primary access to the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Park Road is also designated as a collector street serving the
commercial area and the adjacent public parking lots. Since the new commercial building will replace
one of similar size, it is not expected that there would be any long-term impacts on traffic circulation and
parking. Public Parking is available on the Burlingame Avenue and Park Road street frontages and in
Public Parking Lot J, directly behind the site, and Lot E, across Park Road.
The Public Works Departr �rtit has identified a potential short-term impact on traffic circulation and
pedestrian safety during construction. This site is in the center of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
District and since the proposed structure will be built lot line to lot line, there is no on-site space for
construction vehicles and staging. In order to address the concerns of the Public Works Department, the
applicant has submitted a construction logistics plan and traffic and parking assessment date stamped June
29, 2001, a memo and diagrams regarding construction staging date stamped September 4, 2002 and
demolition and site construction plans date stamped October 22, 2002.
The applicant indicates that demolition of the building will be done predominately from the interior of the
structure to limit street and sidewalk closures. Barricades with a tunnel for pedestrians would be placed
along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. There would be space within tbe barricade to allow workers a
narrow work area along the property lines. There would be scaffolding with a platform above the
pedestrian walkway for the contractors to move about. At the pedestrian level, the edge of the tunnel will
have a painted plywood wall separating foot traffic from the construction. There will be openings in the
barricades at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road to allow pedestrian access to the
crosswalk.
11
Initial Study Summary
1301 Burlingame Avenue
City Hall Lane, the alley behind the site will be used daily by contractors to drop off tools and workers.
Construction vehicles will be parked during working hours at remote public parking lots, not in the
adjacent lot. Two spaces adjacent to the site will be used for the construction trailer. T'he trailer needs to
remain from the start of demolition until the completion of the roof decking. Demolition of th estructure
shall occur after the holiday shopping season.
The Public Works Department Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal for demolition, traffic
control and pedestrian protection and requested that the following mitigation measures be applied to the
construction in order to insure adequate traffic control and pedeshian safety.
Mitigation:
• That the applicant shall comply with the construction operation plan as described in the memo and
diagrams date stamped September 4, 2002, which identifies site construction controls, barricades
and construction trailer location.
• that in addition to the provisions outlined in the September 4, 2002 memo, the following �
provisions shall be required:
1. 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; flagmen shall be available for traffic control while the debris box is in place;
2. that an encroachment pernut shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for the
scaffolding in the public right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road;
3. that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not
block any on-street parking spaces;
4. that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J;
5. 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 via Carolan Avenue; and
6. that no construction that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffolding,
pedestrian bazricades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occuT
between November 3`� through January 5�'; construction solely within the building may
occur during this time as long as the public alley and right of way aze not impacted or
blocked.
Biological Resources Snmmary: The site has been fully developed and used for commercial uses since
1920's or 1930's. There is no landscaping and no native plants or habitats exist on the site. This
commercial building is replacing existing commercial uses and will not alter any existing animal habitats
in the area. There is no record of rare or endangered plant or animal species for this developed urban site.
There are no trees existing on the site, and no new trees aze proposed on the site. The Zoning Code does
not require and landscaping on site for commercial development in the C-1, Subarea A district. The
existing street trees in the public right-of-way will be removed and replaced, and additional trees planted
per the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Plan. There is no fannland in Burlingame.
Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: All gas and electric services are in place with capacity to
handle the proposed development to the City of Burlingame. The incremental increase to the use of
energy is insignificant primarily because the new residences will comply with Title 24 requirements, while
the commercial building to be removed was built before these requirements.
12
Initial Study Summary 1301 Burlingame Avenue
Hazards Summary: This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By
its commercial retail nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the
environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of
Burlingame may need to implement. The only known health hazazds on the site is the asbestos that is part
of the existing building. As a part of the demolition permit process, the applicant will be required to
obtain a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which has regulations on proper
asbestos removal and handling. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as
amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health
hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES permit is required to ensure that runoff from the site does not
conh-ibute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
The Fire Marshal has required that the building be protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system
that is required to be monitored by an approved central station. This requirement will reduce potential fire
hazards for the project. Burlingame also participates in a county-wide mutual aid program for large-scale
fires and related emergencies. The City of Burlingame"s wate �_ stem serving this site is rated at a Class 2
system by the Insurance Services Offices, and is adequate for fighting fires at this location.
Noise Summary: The site has been developed for may yeazs with commercial uses. The new proposal
will not permanently increase the existing ambient noise levels because it is replacing structures of similar
use, which are compliant to current construction standazds, including increased insulation, which also
provides for noise attenuation. In addition, the site is not located in area regularly subject to regular
unusual noise effects such as airplane fly-overs. There are no outdoor areas proposed, and interior noise
levels should be adequately reduced by required construction insulation.
During the demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new building, ambient noise levels
could potentially impact the surrounding, primarily retail uses. All construction must abide by the
construction hours established in the municipal code, which limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to �6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the
site shall be permitted on weekends or holidays. There skall be no demolition of the exterior of the
existing building, nor any construction of the proposed buildi:.�, during the time period between the
holiday periods (November 3 through January 5�'). Compliance with these standazds will reduce the
impact of the project to a less than significant level.
Mitigation:
• 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 sha11 be no
construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling shall be
permitted on weekends or holidays.
• 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.
13
Initial Study Summary
1301 Burlingame Avenue
Public Services Snmmary: Because the project is infill, represents an insignificant increase in the total
population of the City, and is located on an already developed site, the existing public and governmental
services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the new commercial building.
Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in
place in the a.rea, or will be required to connect to these systems.
There is an existing 6-inch sewer main and a 6-inch water main in the center of $urlingame Avenue
wluch serve this property. There is a 12-inch storm drain which runs along Park Road and connects to the
box culvert storm drain which runs through Parking Lot J. Since this building replaces a commercial
building of about the same size, there is no increase in demand from this site and the existing facilities are
adequate to provide water, sewer and storm drain service.
The current solid waste service provider is Browning Ferris Industries (BFn, which sends.solid waste
collected in BurlingamP.t �� •�x Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during
the construction phase. The general contractor would be required to recycle and to reduce the waste
stream transport the construction waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid
waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for commercial use, and would not be
considered substantial.
The City of Burlingame has recently adopted an ordinance requiring recycling of construction waste and
demolition debris. The ordinance requires that 60 per cent of the total waste tonnage generated from
project construction shall be diverted from the waste stream. The applicant is required to complete a
Recycling and Waste Reduction Form to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official. It is
required that records shall be kept and submitted to the City prior to the final inspection of the project.
Mitigation:
• That the contractorshall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building
department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of
construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be
required to implement this plan. ,
• That the contract�. �hall 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) standazds.
Aesthetics Summary: The new one-story commercial building is replacing an existing two-story
commercial building. The proposed commercial building is subject to design review to insure that it is
internally architecturally consistent in design and consistent with the existing size and mass of the
commercial buildings in the vicinity. The site is in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and the
surrounding azea is fully developed with one and two story commercial structures, generally built lot line
to lot line. At this particular location, the land is flat and the azea fully developed; no distant views or
vistas are present.
The proposed structure is a modern, one-story commercial structure using a tan colored brick fa�ade with
a brick soldier course at the top of the parapet and above the windows along Burlingame Avenue,
continuing azound to the Pazk Road street frontage. There will be recessed storefront windows and
frameless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display window along Park
Road.
14
Initial Study Summary
1301 Burlingame Avenue
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Design Review Study meeting on August 12,
2002. The plans reviewed at that meeting showed a similar sized building with a gray masonry fa�ade.
The Planning Commission asked that the project be redesigned to reduce the height of the building,
provide articulation along Park Road and add pedestrian interest along Park Road, provide lenrils over the
windows to add interest, relocate mechanical equipment so it can be screened from view with lower
parapet; select a softer looking exterior material more in keeping with materials currently used on
Burlingame Avenue.
The applicant revised the design to address the concerns by changing the material from gray masonry to a
tan brick, added articulation by providing a soldier course at the parapet edge and above the windows;
lowered the height of the building from 26'-0" to 21' — 1 3/4" and extending the length of the window on
the Park Road frontage. Although this is still a modern building, the materials used are in keeping with
the styles found along Burlingame Avenue and its mass and bulk is consistent with the surrounding area.
Because the building replaces arr existing structure of about the same size and there is no signific�:i:�,
increase in the amount of glazing than in the existing building, there will be no significant increase in
light and glare on site from the proposed commercial use. Exterior lighting provided on for the building
will be required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to
be directed onto the site.
Mitigation:
• That this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance.
• That the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before demolition of
the existing structure except for asbestos removal or reconstruction takes place on the site.
14. Cultural Resources Summary: The project site now contains a commercial bank structure which
was built in the late 1920's or early 1930's. The applicant has provided an historic resource study
prepared by Thomas Rex Hardy, AIA. 'The study notes that the existing building is a simple
Mediterranean Revival style building about 20 feet high with painted cement plaster walls over a brick
structure. The �z-imary fa�ade on Burlingame Avenue consists of a pair of contemporary metal and glass
doors with transom above and large steel sash windows on either side. The secondary fa�ade alo�:g �azk
Road has four similar windows 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.
The study further notes that the building today is a simple stucco box with rectangular door an window
openings, and does not have the original wall finish. The only existing elements that might be considered
original are the clay tile roof and small plaster cornice at the eaves. These undistinguished features are
not considered to possess historic or architectural significance. The original structure, as shown in a 1968
photograph, had paired plaster pilasters on the front fa�ade and bas relief inedallions beneath the
windows. Elaborate bronze ornamentation over the entry is lost, as are the original doors, bronze light
fixtures, and flagpoles flanking the entrance. Any evidence of the original building features no longer
exists. Over time, the building has been generally used as a bank and suffered remodeling each time a
new bank took over the space.
The study includes an evaluation of this building using the criteria for evaluation established by the
National Park Service for qualifying for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to
15
Initia! Study Summary
1301 Burlingame Avenue
meeting these criteria, a building must also retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be
recognizable as historical resources and convey the reasons for its significance. It is the opinion of the
preparer of the study that this sh-uchue does not possess architectural or historic significance based on the
criteria for listing on the National Register and the California Register of Historic Resources. No local
information was found which would suggest that the building had any local significance.
In conclusion, the study notes that the building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue is a heavily altered
commercial bank building. As a result of numerous major alterations, including the apparent wholesale
rernoval and changes to the interior, the building retains a very low level of integrity in its physical
features. As a result, this structure does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. As such, the structure should not be
considered to be an historic resource as defined in Section 21084.1 of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
The project will not include extensive grading or diggi-�ig, s�wc:, the sites are relatively level and the
exiting below grad basement area will be filled. 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. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work will be
halted until they are fully investigated.
Mitigation:
• 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.
15. 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 project are not presently zoned or used for recreational uses.
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
, ,
The proposed commercial building shall complete the commercial design review process and be
approved by the Planning Commission before any demolition or construction is allowed on site.
2. That the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 Edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for
structural stability
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 Deparhnent. The applicant shall comply with all
requirements of the permit.
4. That the applicant shall comply with the construction operation plan as described in the memo and
diagrams date stamped September 4, 2002, which identifies site construction controls, bamcades
and construction trailer location.
16
Initial Study Summary 1301 Burlingame Avenue
5. that in addition to the provisions outlined in the September 4, 2002 memo, the following
provisions shall be required:
a. 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 shall not blocked, there shall
be adequate space for a vehicle to maneuver around the debris box and flagmen shall be
available for traffic control while the debris box is in place;
b. that an encroachment pernut shall be obtained for the scaffolding in the public right-of-
way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road;
c. that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not
block any on-street parking spaces;
d. that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J;
e. 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 the US 101 to
the site shall be via Carolan Avenue; and
f. that nc �^nstruction that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffalding,
pedestrian barricades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occur
between November 3`d through January 5`�'; construction solely within the building may
occur as long as the public alley and right of way are not impacted or blocked.
6. 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 Sahudays 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
pernutted on weekends or holidays.
7. That the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior
noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas.
8. That the shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be
approved by t� �� Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of constnic�ion
demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to
implement this plan.
9. All runoff created during conshuction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
10. That this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance.
11. That the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before demolition or
construction takes place on the site.
12. 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.
17
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Jt�ne 9,2001
➢ on south elevation, there is no sensitivity in window patterns, might want to look at the window
patterns from the interior.
➢ on the north etevation, don't see the level of articulation on roof forms seen on front and rear;
➢ the fireplace on the outside wall should be expressed on wall as a vertical component to add
articulation;
� special permit exception for declining hcight envelope on north elevation might be justified if it
enhances the architecture, could provide a pop out, it is not balanced, needs more windows;
➢ need more information on the windows, what is the trim package proposed, will it be traditional stucco,
mold.
Comment on motion: if applicant wants to file an exception for declining height envelope, needs to add that
application with Planning Department, the item will be set for hearing when the submittal is complete.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling
absent). The Planning Corru�nission's action is advisory and not ap�alable. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m.
9. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE — ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A— ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR A
NEW, TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING (MEYRICK JONES, APPLICANT; AVTAR
JOHAL FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER; ROB AERTS, ARCHITECT)
CP Monroe brieily presented the proj ect description. Commissioners noted that there was a note on the plan
indicating building permit submittal, has the applicant submitted for building permits. Planning staff noted
that these plans had not yet been submitted to the Building Department for plan check.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. He noted that the purpose of the scoping meeting was to
point out environmental issues that are of concern. Don Watts, representing Apple Computers, Tim Kobe,
Eight Inc., and Sidney Scarboro, Gensler Architects project manager, were available for questions and
comments; noted that Apple had discovered that its product was not being properly marketed, wanted to pick
up walk by traffic, have opened two stores so far, propose to open 100 to 300 stores nationwide; customers
can purchase computers and see what Apple has to offer, educational soflware, "genius" booth for answers to
technical questions, large screen for demonstrations. The proposed building is oriented to Burlingame
Avenue with a display window on Park Road, interior will have display areas, shelves for software,
children's area, demonstrations and a projection theater; back of house space on first floor will consist of
stairway, elevator and proj ection area; on second floor will have stock room and offices; the exterior will be
off-white stucco with matte black panels and transparent glass with frosted upper band, there will be no
signage other than white Apple logo on either side of the entry; concept is to provide local resource for
technology.
Commissioner questions: Notice doors are ten feet tall, how tall is average customer, is this the standard
prototype for these stores. The applicant noted that there are many ten foot high doors in the Burlingame
Page -8-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
June 9,2001
Avenue area, there is no standard Apple store prototype, although some elements are consistent, attempt was
made to be consistent with other buildings in the area. Commissioners asked how much analysis was done
on the existing building, was the quality and desires of the local community a factor in the decision to build
new. The applicant noted that to keep the existing building extensive seismic retrofit would be necessary,
this building has unreinforced masonry, the basement is 7' clear which does not meet current code, the
economic evaluation determined that it was easier and better to build new building same size without
basement, feel aesthetic aspects of new building are consistent with the neighborhood; there are structural
complications in the ability to have display windows on the Park Road side and in the ability to fit the retail
program into the interior space without columns.
The commission asked if the applicant had looked into providing code compliant parking. The applicant
noted that the proposed footprint replicates what is there now, adding six parking spaces difficult; looked at
providing parking off the alley with one to four parking spaces, in doing that gave up retail area, have to
keep the "back of house" area; this site is similar to site in Palo Alto in size, there was not a parking issue
there because it was an existing building with retail use and no additional parking was required.
Commission asked if public parking spaces along the streets and alleys would be impacted during demolition
and construction. The applicant noted that the contractor has put together a demolition and construction plan
that has all trucks accessing the site through the alley, they will construct pedestrian tunnels on Burlingame
and Park Avenues and put large gate across back during demolition and construction, leaving the Avenue
frontage free of impacts.
The applicant stated that the elements of this design which are critical to branding are the display window,
the doors and the perimeter frame; the materials, awning and height can vary; the interior space on either
side of display window is critical for product display space.
Commission discussion: with regards to environmental scoping, aesthetic considerations are a primary
concern, building is a big block with no respect for the pedestrian on Park Road; appreciate the modernist
vocabulary, but scale of the building is not appropriately handled for Burlingame Avenue, on the Avenue
there is gcnerally a lot of ins and outs at the entrances, corner buildings tend to have series of windows that
wrap around the corner to allow the pedestrian to see what is happening inside; this is a main intersection
that is critical to Burlingame; concern with the demolition of the existing building, could give more
consideration to reuse, the existing basement provides great opportunity for storage, there are a lot of issues
that should be addressed in a subcommittee.
Public Comment: Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, noted that she was branch manager of Bay View
Bank at this location until 1986, presented historical information on the building, it was built in 1916 as a
hardware store, in 1927 became Bank of Italy and in 1932 changed to Bank of America; building was
updated in 1977 when it became Western Federal Savings, may be some of original fa�ade under the stucco;
should look into the idea that this is an historic resource under CEQA, like to see use on street, but need to
respect the building's history. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission comment: don't see a problem with the use, the scenario is sensible for an urban street; but the
market in the Bay Area does not need a"shiny mall" look to entice them; personally not concerned with
parking, we should be walking anyway, would like the environmental study to look at the proportion of total
Page -9-
Ciry ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes
June 9,2001
landfilled in County from demolition each year and what is Burlingame's contribution to that total with this
building's dcmolition and what proportion of Burlingame's annual demolition material this material will
constitute; regarding cultural resources, aim at character of the street as designated in design guidelines with
respect to the scale of buildings; should be human scale based on pedestrian nature of the street; should look
at option of revamping original building back to style of Bank of America era; look at that entryway; because
there is a lot of pedestrian traffic, don't necessarily need six parking spaces, if project were made to fit in
aesthetically, could compromise on that issue; concerned with setting a precedent in granting a parking
variance.
Thc commission concluded that the project should be reviewed by subcommittee, but environmental review
should run concurrently, the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee was assigned to review the project,
and C. Bojues was appointed as an alternate to that committee for this issue.
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:48 p.m.
10. 1160 BROADWAY — ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING (RAYMOND
LEE, APPLICANT; BONANZA/LAMB PARTNERS LIMITED, PROPERTY OWNER; SPEAR
DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Glickberg, Spear Design Associates, 121 Spear Street,
San Francisco, was available for questions and comments. Commissioners asked if there were any permits
for the exterior freezer in the service area shown on the survey. The applicant noted that this exterior freezer
is on the Stanaway plans, there will be no freezer equipment in the new store. He also noted that he has
spoken with John Cimino, the neighbor to the north with an assisted living facility, and he has written a letter
of support.
Commissioner questions: how much of the architectural concept has to do with brand identification for the
tenant. The applicant noted that Walgreen's does have a prototype, very little of it was used in this case,
because the design is driven by keeping the existing building; will be similar to the grocery store, propose to
use windows at the entrance. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
,
Commission noted the following direction:
➢ one of the problems with chains is that they are more concerned with their needs inside the store, not
Page -10-
City of Bt�rliizganae Planrrirzg Cornrnissiori Minutes
August 12, 2002
11. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICA"rION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-
STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR
JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description noting that this public comment session was for both
environmental scoping and design review for the project proposed now. Commissioners asked: can the
awning shown on the rear of the building overhang the public right of way to the extent shown, staff noted
that an encroachment permit is required for an awning overhanging the public right of way and public works
will review the proposal; why were the last subcommittee minutes on this project not included in the staff
report, staff noted it was an oversight; what is a"bulb out", staff noted that bulb outs are a part of the
streetscape design for the area and function to extend the sidewalk at certain intersections in order to narrow
the walking distance across the street for pedestrians and slow up traffic, examples can been seen on
Broadway at Chula Vista across the street from the new Walgreens; why is the bank use nonconforniing, in
the late 1960's early 1970's there was a significant increase in the number of banks on Burlingame Avenue,
to the point that it was felt that they endanger the retail character of the area, so Council adopted an
ordinance prohibiting banks in Subarea A; since this site was used as a bank at that time and has been used
as a bank continuously since, it can continue to be used by a banking use; but when the banking use has
ceased for 6 consecutive months or the building is removed, the site looses its nonconforming status and can
no longer be used for a banking use.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Tim Kobe, architect, 8 Inc., represented the project. He
reviewed the project and the public improvements to the sidewalk which would be included with the
construction; he presented a rendering showing the proposed exterior concrete block material and a picture
board of the material as used on several buildings in Japan; he noted that the exterior material is a block
material with a brushed finish and tight joints without caulking, the material is attractive as well because it
speeds up construction, would like to be well along in construction before the holidays; in response to
previous concerns the design was changed and extended glass along Park Road increasing the active area on
Park to 33 feet and added a clear story window on the Park Road side to provide natural light in to the
storage area and further break up that wall; at rear have recessed access door and roll up door with awning;
the proposed height of the building is consistent with the existing height.
Discussion with commissioners: building no longer has mezzanine, previously looked at retaining the
building, architect noted that they looked at four different options for cladding the building but decided
before that they could not keep the existing building from a cost stand point; are the signs typical, yes no
longer use the colored apple, these signs are lit from behind in a deep light box which will be routed into the
concrete and the can will only project about one inch from the finished surface of the wall; are the new
Apple stores always this concrete block material?, no have evolved to this masonry unit, one like this is
proposed in Dallas and here, there are only about 4 street location Apple stores; concerned that a building
that looks like this may not be suitable for some other retail use years from now, would like to see an
example; troubled by the length of the wall on Park, this does not look like other Apple architecture in
Cupertino for example, Steve Jobs wants the street stores to go with this high tech looking material; are there
any exceptions? Michigan Avenue in Chicago, located in the Northwater Tower and Palo Alto. Can you
address how this material is consistent with the character of Burlingame Avenue; architect notes that the unit
is masonry which has permanence like the other buildings on the Avenue, it is not passive like stucco, it is
siinilar to brick which is a frequently used building material on the Avenue but brick is not suitable for a
high tech company, this building may not be seen as expected but it will have an elegance with,the way it is
built, it does not reflect an existing style but translates the qualities of the Avenue, is a good fit. Can you
13
C'ih� of Birrlrnga�ne Planraing Co�rarnission Minutes
August 12, 2002
explain the awning at the rear, one of the doors has no cover to protect from the elements and wanted to add
fornl at the rear of the building; why no awning at the front, found in Palo Alto by recessing the front doors 2
feet had effect of widening the sidewalk and announcing the store, large span of glass at front is pedestrian
friendly as well. Awning extends three feet with 8 foot clearance, is that sufficient in a fire lane; will do
what the Fire and Public Works Departments require. Has the streetscape sidewalk color been established,
staff noted yes it has been installed at several locations on Burlingame Avenue and on the cross streets.
When discussed before limestone was a possible exterior material, would prefer, the Park Road side is a
very long wall on a corner with high visibility to a lot of pedestrian traffic, stone would be a softer exterior.
Architect felt that some other materials discussed such as aluminum would not be suitable in Burlingame.
Could you lower the building by 5 to 6 runs of brick which would make it possible far the street trees to
screen it from view. Rear of this building looks industrial, architect noted that there was some relief because
one door was inset. Cannot see this design on Burlingame Avenue, cannot find any consistency on the
Avenue or Park Road, doesn't seem to be consistent with any commercial area in Burlingame; architect
noted difficult to say it is consistent in a literal sense, does have a sense of permanence, will age well, it will
rcflect its time and become a classic in the future, material will be consistent with brick when done, concrete
is an honest material. The building material is seismically qualified.
Russ Cohn, 605 Lexington Way and Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue spoke: As President of the
Burlingame Historical Society and Apple user would like to address CEQA issue and request a CEQA
required documentation of the historic value of this structure, Historical Society documents indicate that this
building was built in 1916 as a Wisdoms/Bonner hardware store; from 1927 to 1932 it was used as a Bank of
Italy which became Bank of America under Giannini who lived in Hillsborough. In 1977 the bank was
occupied by Western Federal Bank; hope that Apple will take a second look at retaining the historical value
of this building and think about a different project. Feel that there should be a full historical analysis of this
building, worked in it once and know that there is an old bank vault in the basement; as Jane Jacolos says
corners are the �nost important part of cities, they are where a lot of interaction occurs; the Fox Theater was
removed and replaced with a mall, has never been successful, would like Apple to consider that
Burlingame's downtown is over 100 years old, with nearly every building still standing, we do not want to
be a prototype, Burlingame is firmly rooted in its past and in its trees; feel that there is evidence that if you
pull the current skin off the building you will find the original 1916 Corinthian columns. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public cotnment for environmental scoping and design review were
closed.
Commissioners coinments: it is necessary to have an historical analysis to determine the significance of this
building as a part of the CEQA evaluation; design review discussion covered a lot of ground including:
• 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;
• 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 trees to screen
the mass of the structure 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.
14
Citv of�Bin�lingnme Plcir»ri�ag Corn»aissiori Mini�tes
August 12, 2002
This item should be continued to a future meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to decide what
changes they would like to make, this site is an important part of Burlingame Avenue; understand modernist
approach however more can be done to make this building user friendly and to treat the corner in a
pedestrian friendly manner; am not convinced about the exterior material proposed, hard pressed to say
Burlingame is ready for a concrete block building in the downtown area, installing a mock up wall would be
a good idea, understand better what the finish would look like, stone cladding would be better on
Burlingame Avenue, it is more "noble" and would appease the residents; history is relevant, people in
Burlingame take pride in historical features and this is a prominent location.
Chair Keighran moved to continue this item to give the applicant an opportunity to come up with alternatives
based on the input from this meeting; the CEQA document should include an historical analysis and
evaluation of the impacts of demolition and replacement of the building. The motion was seconded by C.
Osterling.
Comment on the motion: The CEQA review should also include analysis of the impacts of the demolition
and replacement of the building; feel should reconsider location of repair services with view into it from
Park Road, security can be addressed, this is a good site for Apple, they are a Pioneer and can do classical on
the outside and Apple magic on the inside, the contrast can be very effective.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion on the CEQA direction and continuation of the
design review study to a time when the applicant wishes to return with alternatives. The motion passed
on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPO
- Review of ity Council regul meeting of August 5, 02
CP Monr e reviewed the C' Council meeting of Au st 5, 2002. The com ission noted that there
were s' 1 issues to be solved regarding defini ' n of different vi s. Also that a broad
repr ntation of inter s on the Bayfront SAP visory Committee uld be important. It was
no d from the minut of the Neighborhood Co sistency Subcommit meeting that the address of
e house with the ents was 1108 Vancouv and that another w to address FAR might be to
change the parki requirements to two co red spaces for four drooms.
- FYI- win
Planning
- FYI- y�ri
Plani���n�
;e on DSR ap�
on acknowled
iow change on DSR
Commission acknov
XI. ADJOURNMENT
t 1480 Benito A
proposed chan�,
�l at 111 Peppe�Avenue
the proposed/�hanges.
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
IS
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes
14. 1381 HILL� �E CIRCLE — ZON � R-1— APPLICATI
AREA C�;�NSTRUCTION PE IT FOR A FIRST
HAR G, APPLICANT AN ARCHITECT; KURT N�
(40 OTICED) PROJEC LANNER: ERIKA L IT
Octo6er 15, 2002
3N FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
� SECOND STORY� ADDITION (ELLEN
JULIA DEGROS7��PROPERTY OWNERS)
Planner Barber brie presented the project escription. There were n questions of staff.
Chair Keighra opened the public co ent. Andrew Young, pr �ect architect, was present to an er
questions. plained that this is mi r project, owners wanted t expand the kitchen and master b room,
but keep t e project in character ' h the existing house. A lo of the floor area in this house is ' abitable
area and covered
were no other
area.
from the floor and the�ublic hearing was closed.
Chair Keighran mad a motion to place this item the consent calendar. This otion was seconded by C.
Bojues .
Comment on otion: architect has done a ne job with this project; this ' a small addition that blends well
with the e� ting house.
Chair�eighran called for a vote o�f the motion to place this i m on the consent calendar The motion
pas �d on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Q'sterling absent). The Pla ng Comtnission's action is dvisory and not
a�ealable. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m.
15. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-
STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR
JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED
FROM AUGUST 12, 2002 MEETING)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Bob Bridger, Apple Computer retail sales, stated that they are
eager to be part of the Burlingame community. Tim Kobe, Apple Computer, store designer, stated that since
the last meeting they have had a historical study done on this property by Thomas Hardy, who is here
tonight to answer any questions. This study concluded that because of all of the previous alternation made
to this building, interior and exterior, it would not be considered historical. There was no historical value
found on the interior of the structure. Revised Apple proposal focuses on exterior material, using dark
charcoal color brick, with two bands of soldier coursing, follows around the building from the top of the
windows at the front and one at the parapet line. Brick proposed will not fade, an extra pallet of bricks will
be stored for future repairs or in-fill. This particular size brick was picked based upon the average size brick
found on Burlingame Avenue buildings. The grout to be used in between the bricks is 10-15% lighter than
the brick, providing texture. The height of the structure has been lowered 4'-10" from the previous design.
The mechanical equipment has been relocated to the west side of the roof to screen it from view from the
street. The linear glass area display window along Park Avenue has increased to 45 feet long to increase
visual interest for pedestrians. Needed to keep existing floor plan to allow for storage of materials and to
retain the graphics panels and product displays that would be located against the wall, opening up the Park
Avenue wall to the interior would not allow for those displays. The metal awning at the rear of the building
16
Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes
October 1 S, 2002
has been removed, because it projected into the fire lane and was too high for protection if it met fire
requirements. Applicant tried to find balance between respecting the existing structural environment and
being unique, tried to keep it simple and elegant; sometimes that does result in departing from the norm.
Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, had a question regarding the historical survey. If the existing fa�ade were
striped away, and the old architectural features were still in tact, would it change the conclusion of the
historical survey? Thomas Hardy responded that because of the method of fastening of the existing facade
the old architectural details are beyond repair, and he would not change the conclusion of his historical
analysis. Mr. Cohen requested that the applicant please salvage any historical and architectural finds during
demolition send them over to the historical society. Asked if Apple sign would limit future use of the site
because it is partially inset in the brick? Applicant explained that there will be extra bricks kept on-site for
infill and repair. Would window along Park Avenue temp vandals? Applicant noted that there would be a
security system in place and that the glass used for this window would be very thick glass that is difficult to
break. "I'here were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: design is a departure from what is normally seen on Burlingame Avenue;
concerned with Park Avenue fa�ade, long monochromatic expanse, can this be broken up; design is a very
strong statement, minimalist approach, introducing other types of materials might help; but bricks are nice,
gray gives warm feel, each brick has some color.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calcndar at a time when the
environmental review has been completed and Planning Commissions concerns have been adequately
addressed and reviewed by Staff. This motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Comment on motion: design fits Burlingame Avenue, support quality of design and materials; concerned
with Park Avenue side of building but notice that the existing windows along Park are not pedestrian
friendly, this fa�ade will also be softened by installation of 4 trees and new sidewalk; the lowering of the
height of this structure definitely helps; window along Park Avenue is at a pedestrian scale; would like to
get feedback from the community on this project; simple, eloquent design, intriguing addition to Burlingame
Avenue, could have lasting effect.
The p�3nning Commission expressed the following concerns that should be addressed in the environmental
document:
• What procedures will be taken for safety of pedestrians during construction,;
• What traffic controls will be used;
• Where will delivery and construction vehicles be parked;
• Where will debris boxes be located; and
• What routes will delivery trucks be taking to and from the site during construction.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the
environmental document has been completed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling
absent). The Planning Commission's aetion is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:20
a.m.
17
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENCY SUBCOMMITTEE
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
September 5, 2001
Conference Room A
Planning Commission Subcommittee Members Present: Commissioners Vistica, Osterling and Bojues
Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; Zoning Technician Erika
Lewit
I. Review of a revised design for the proposed commercial building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue
The meeting commenced at 12:10 p.m. Tim Kobe and Robert Bradsby, Eight Inc., Sidney Scarborough and Rob
Aerts, Gensler, and Don Watts, Apple, representing the applicant were in attendance. Applicants commented that an
in depth analysis done since the last meeting showed that retaining the existing building was not feasible due to
safety and cost issues. CP Monroe pointed out that any remodeling of the existing building that amounted to a sum
that was greater than 50% of the value of the existing structure would negate the non-conforming parking status of
the existing building. The applicant commented that there was no question that the cost of retrofitting the building
was much higher than 50% of the value of the building.
The applicant presented revised drawings for an entirely new building. Applicants explained that the proposed is
smaller than the present building. The mezzanine will have elevator access and will accommodate offices, public
restrooms, a repair area and merchandise storage. The building is designed to replicate the existing building. The
new structure occupies virtually the same footprint as the existing, however it is extended 2'-0" at the rear. The new
building has a similar scale and uses similar materials to the existing building. Where possible, salvaged material
from the existing building will be incorporated into the new structure. The revised design will have no basement.
The mezzanine area will be larger than currently in the building but overall the new building will be approximately
7724 SF. No on-site parking is proposed. Two sketches were shown for the Park Avenue elevation, one exhibiting
two large windows at either end of the wall on that frontage, the second showing four evenly spaced windows
extending almost to the sidewalk level on that frontage.
The applicant noted that they understood in the last subcommittee meeting that preserving the existing building
might be considered justification for a parking variance on the site; they now know that it is not feasible to preserve
the existing building. However, they would hope to receive similar variance consideration for making an effort to
preserve as much of the existing building and its character as is possible in erecting a new structure.
II. Parking Discussion
The applicant provided approximate square footage calculations for the proposed building, including first floor retail
and second floor storage and office. There is no proposed basement. City staff noted that the existing building,
though non-conforming in parking, generated a parking requirement of 5 spaces. It was estimated that usage in the
proposed building would generate a parking requirement of 5 to 6 spaces. CP Monroe commented that the
Subcommittee did not have the authority to grant parking variances; a variance must be granted by the Planning
Commission and must be granted on the basis of a physical hardship on the property. CP Monroe noted that the in-
lieu parking fee of $31,500 per space could be considered as a mitigation for not providing required parking on site.
Ciry of Burlingame Design Review Subcommittee Minutes September 5, 200!
C. Vistica inquired if the applicant was aware of the in-lieu fee and if it had been considered in their cost analysis.
The applicant responded that they had knowledge of the fee but had not included it in their analysis.
III. Design Comments
The applicant commented that their intention is to bring a building into the Burlingame community that will not feel
alien to the citizens. The commissioners made the following comments on the revised project:
• preferred the Lorton elevation showing the 4 windows extending to the sidewalk level; this window approach
achieves a nice rhythm;
• have been convinced that the old building cannot be preserved, however with a new building there is no
justification for a parking variance- this is a large, level lot and there is no hardship evident;
• architecturally, don't agree with the idea of creating a replica of the existing building; the existing structure has a
good scale and nice details, but beyond that is not a great building;
• if a new building is to be attempted, the applicant has free-reign to design a new structure;
• new structure should have a similar scale to the old and fit into Burlingame; walk the avenue and look to the good
examples for the types of materials used and the articulation of the facades;
• articulation along the street is important; include insets between curb and building front where shoppers can step
out the traffic on the sidewalk and peer though the windows; and
• pedestrian-friendly design is important; pedestrian should have view into the building; but take care that design
blends amount of glazing, roof element and pediment so that no single element among these is too large or
dominant; for example, huge windows will create too much glare on the street and a massive pediment does not
fit in with a human scale;
The applicant commented that the proposed building would be slightly taller than the existing because of alterations
that are required for the new mezzanine and elevator. Planning staff discussed the requirements for roof top
equipment. Planning staff noted that the height limit, without a variance, is 35'-0". Commissioners commented that
the height could be increased without significantly changing the scale.
Commissioners commented that the rear elevation should also be a consideration. Planning staff pointed out that the
rear elevation fronts on a public alley and parking lot and has a great deal of exposure at present. It would be
possible to have a customer entrance on this frontage. Signage can also be installed on this frontage, although all
signage must be applied for under a separate permit. It was recommended that the applicant omit any signage for the
proposed building on the plans submitted for this permit, or it should be noted on the plans that all signage will be
part of a separate permit.
IV. Procedure Outline
The applicant inquired about the steps remaining in the process and noted that time is a concern for them. After
discussion, the subcommittee members noted that another subcommittee meeting would be useful to review revised
sketches for the new building. Following that, full sets of schematic plans, including site plan, floor plans and
elevations, should be submitted to the Planning Department for a plan check and for the environmental review. The
project will go to the Planning Commission for study and then a meeting for an action hearing.
2
City of Burlingame Design Review Subcommittee Minutes September 5, 2001
The applicant inquired about the timing of the in-lieu parking fee. CP Monroe noted that it would be set forth as a
possible mitigation in the environmental review and the Planning Commission would consider this mitigation as one
of the conditions of approval for the project at the action hearing. The applicant has the right to comment on and
refuse any conditions of approval at the action hearing.
The applicant asked for additional information about the construction and demolition restrictions for the city. CP
Monroe commented that because the demolition must be addressed in the environmental document, no demolition of
exterior building walls could occur until Planning Commission approval was granted. It was noted that Planning
staff would consult with the City Engineer to see if asbestos removal or some interior demolition could proceed.
Staff will also discuss the restrictions on work during the holiday season.
All persons present agreed that revised to-scale sketches for the proj ect would be reviewed at a meeting to take place
in the same location, City Hall, Conference Room A, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, on September 12, 2001, at
12:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENCY SUBCOMMITTEE
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
August 3, 2001
Conference Room B
Planning Commission Subcommittee Members Present: Commissioners Vistica and Dreiling
Staff Present: Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Zoning Technician
Erika Lewit
I. Review of proposed commercial building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue
Tim Kobe and Robert Bradsby, Eight Inc., Rob Aerts, Guensler, and Don Watts, Apple, representing the applicant
were in attendance. Applicants commented that they would first like to discuss conceptual issues associated with
the parking variance and then discuss the project design.
Parking discussion: A study was presented assessing the issues involved with providing parking on site for
a new building. Applicants noted the following hardships with providing parking:
• the prominence of the corner building is diminished;
• massing proportions in the building are altered;
• reduces the ground floor sales area; and
• there are circulation issues because the parking spaces must be exited via the one-way alley at the rear of the site.
Subcommittee members noted that providing parking on site for a new building is still a viable solution, even with
the complications. There is no hardship on the site to justify a parking variance for a new building.
Applicants asked if parking variance would be required if the existing building was preserved? One alternative is to
keep the existing building and use the existing basement storage as office area. This would require excavation to
make the ceiling height habitable. Another alternative is to keep existing basement as storage and make
improvements to the mezzanine level.
Staff explained that proposed plans would have to go through additional plan check, but it is likely that a proposal to
keep the existing building would reduce the number of spaces for the required parking variance. The need for
environmental review might also be eliminated due to the fact that the existing building will be retained and any
additions may be minor in nature and qualify as a categorical exemption.
Subcommittee members asked what type of a study had been done to assess the possibility of a retrofit for the
building. Applicants noted an independent engineer had performed study. Summary of study is that is a retrofit is
feasible, but is costly, would reduce the interior square footage, and the end result would not be as safe as a new
building.
Subcommittee members stated that the primary issue is to preserve the character of the Burlingame Avenue. The
intrinsic value of preserving the existing building outweighs the importance of increased costs or a slight difference
in overall safety. The effort to preserve the existing building could be considered a hardship that justifies a parking
variance on site.
City of Burlingame Design Review Subcommittee Minutes August 3, 2001
Applicant inquired about the feasibility of a parking variance with a new building. It was noted that in light of the
adopted commercial design guidelines, a new building would offer the opportunity to create a gateway site for the
city. Subcommittee members noted that location is not a gateway corner, but an interior element of the streetscape.
The community will most likely not support the loss of the existing building, in addition to which there must be a
justification for a parking variance with a new building
Design discussion: Subcommittee members and applicants agreed that the existing building is lacking many of its
original details; the building has been compromised from the gutter down and the windows along Park Avenue are
too far off the ground for a pedestrian experience. However, the massing of the building and the proportions of the
openings are still important. Subcommittee members suggested the applicants should keep the massing and
proportions and add some of the modern elements that were a part of the original proposal. The Commission
discussed:
• keep the pattern of the openings, but extend them to the ground, particularly along Park Avenue; view on the
street is important to make sure the building has both physical and visual access from the street level;
• treatment of windows, including materials, can be given a more modern vocabulary;
• front facade on Burlingame Avenue requires some relief from the street; notch in the entrance and bring the
entrance doors down to a human scale; and
• recommended that some interior element of existing building be left so that it can be communicated to customers
that this is a preserved building.
Applicant inquired about possibility of filling in some of the square footage at the rear of the building. Currently,
the building is set off the property line at the rear right corner and this extra square footage would be valuable to add
an elevator if the existing building were preserved. Subcommittee members commented that applicant should not
think that in preserving existing building they must stay within the existing envelope; would be acceptable to
increase height sli�htly at existing mezzanine level or minor additions at rear of building.
Summary: Applicants explained that their main concern was the processing time. Their impression from the
discussion is that a new building proposal would require more processing time; there would be added time to arrive
at an acceptable design and there is the added risk of having a parking variance denied due to the lack of a hardship
on the property. Commission concurred that preserving the existing building could be used as justification for a
parking variance and that future discussions regarding minor design elements added to the preserved building should
not be time consuming. Staff noted that the possibility of a less complicated environmental review involved with
retaining the existing building would also reduce the amount of time to process the project.
Applicant noted they would revise drawings and contact the Planning Department to set up a second meeting with
the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee before the project goes before the full Planning Commission for a
study hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
2
��4. ciry a� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURUN(',AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� - BURLINGAME, CA 94010
b,,,,,,,,„�.�'� TEL: (650) 558-7250
1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Application for environmental scoping
and commercial design review for a new pUBLIC HEARING
single-story, retail building at 1301
Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A. N OTIC E
(APN: 029-202-060)
The City of Burlingame Planning
Commission announces the following
public hearing on Monday, August 12,
2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed August 2, 2002
(Please refer tn othef• si�le)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this project nlay be reviewed prior
to the meetinQ at the Planniiig Departinent at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge thc subject application(s) in court, you uiay be li�.��;�d to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the nolice or in written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearinb.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.�� For additioaal information, ple�se call (650)
558-7250. Thank you.
.�. �, � ;�''.�_�i <;,
Margaret Monroe :�w�%s''�� ��� '' . -��---,� /�
City Planner ''r
PUBLIC HEARING NOTlCE
(Please refer to other side)
- �
A��. ciry o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
����E 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�. TEL: (650) 558-7250
1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Mailed October 4,
2002
Application for environmental scoping
and commercial design review for a new P U g LIC H EARIN G
single-story, retail building at 1301 N OTIC E
Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A.
(APN: 029-202-060) ----- `
The City of Burlingame Planning '
Commission announces the following
public hearing on Tuesday, October 15,
2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
. '�
(Please refer to other side)
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, Ca]
If you cha
raising on
- described
at or prior
Property c
tenants at
558-72' �0
Margaret Mc
City Planner
CITY OF BURLINGAME : �' =y:�-
a��in ang'ic ��ans�for thi proJe ay be reviewed prior `: '
��f �� Plai�g� D�pa�nent t,� , 1 Primrose Road, �
�a< � �` "�
��:K", s..t. . _ . /�
subject ap�lication(s) in court, ��, u
ues vou or somccme else raised ��
Y'!'—yp�yi` k. '�q. ��
�;j3U I1G �Ie�I�lil � '' '� ,
� „ Ya . _ . . . -. €� e9�
��, ..
•s o eeeivc this notice are re�ponsi6 or i
thi �notiCe, . For acidiCic�nal, informatioi - ple
Zk u. r
� "�� ,.
����s� : �, ' r-..:.6J�
��, r� ' ��t�� Q@
+C%� ,�t� ,�
���
�� ��� � �_r.a .. �,�. � �, 4�
PU � ���LI��=iE�►,R��I��IOTICE
h:�_.�..�m�.�,. - . �._��...�.���:��
(Please refer to other side)
be limited to
iblic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
,�r�' `�T� °t CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�'�e, TEL: (650) 558-7250
1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Application for a mitigated negative
declaration and commercial design review PUBLIC HEARIN�
for a new single-story, retail building
at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, NOTICE
Subarea A. (APN: 029-202-060)
The City of Burlingame Planning
Commission announces the following
public hearing on Monday, November 25,
2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed November 15, 2002
'Please refer to other side)
CITY' OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the application and planti for this project n��ay be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the Planning Dep�irtme-nt aC 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Californi�i.
If you challenge the subject applic�ition(s) in eol►rt, you may be limited to
raising only thos� itisucs you rn� somcoue else raised at the puhlic hearing,
described in the. notice or in written correspondencc delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for ini�orming their
tenants about this notice. F�r a�iditional information, please call (650)
558-7250. Thank ycw.
; � :. . ; � ��3�_. ,���
Margaret Monroe � ,�� — �
City Planne►- '� ------ �:� f
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to otlrer• side)
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING
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
commercial design review for a new one-story commercial buildin� at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1,
Subarea A of the Burlin�ame Avenue Commercial Area, Avtar Johal Familv Trust, propertv owner, APN:
029-202-060;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 25, 2002, 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, is hereby approved.
2. Said mitigate negative declaration and commercial design review are approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such mitigated negative declaration and
commercial design review 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, Ralph Osterlin�,, 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 25th day of November, 2002 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for commercial design review
1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE
effective December 2, 2002
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped November 15, 2002, sheets A0.01 through A3.1 and C 1.0 through C6.0, with
tan-colored brick, a brick soldier course below the parapet and above the windows on each
elevation, and a recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame
Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display 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 proj ect shall obtain Planning Commission commercial design review approval before
demolition of the existing structure (exctpt 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
requircd to reccivc a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to
issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Department; 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, 2002 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 Deparhnent for the
scaffolding in the public right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road;
9. that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not
block any on-street parking spaces;
10. that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J;
11. 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 via Carolan Avenue;
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`d through January 5�'; 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 �11 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
tl�a� 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;
18. that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and
19. 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.
�`/� `?�� � ` !' 4 ; ` � C • ��` I , �/ � , `
L ,� , \ , \, ^ � _. � � .\ '
.,j .. � \ ' i♦ �. ��: / I `{�1��11`.
` �1,; • �� ♦ � / � Ii '�� '11 't4 T � 1
�� � . . ' J���a�( �k. ',� ' � .
.' r � �A ' ,.
. '�;; . , a�
, �I �� � � � � ', � '� ,
��.� . e ;:�., � ;.� f�d1�� � �,� : �.�• ti;�
" ' j ` ;� � ' ' � ` ,�� �`� � �,, � ¢ f ,11�:n,
,, \ '��, �'' „ � � . il \ `' p. � � ���;:�'�' �
+� " —n . �f \ '�>�a. �' k. � �`'''
\�I�,� � �,�� . -s'�� �".�` '�i�► ,S�j`� �. � � 4 ��;t�`;c.�'� . �\
�� �,^; ��. . .r< � ,� ' � / y s .
. ^ . .. ` , � >� ��,� �\ � ��: '� • �> d � .
�i• 1
� ��j � �' � �
�D► �� .� t .
� �ti�jv'� ,.�1 ,�`+'i+ �\ , °� •`�,y� ,� .��� C l. ✓ �` � y�, 1- "Ni1�,
�r� ,
�y ��, , � , , ., � � �,r� - -� � y � . ��.,�
��.� �. � . � � � � , . : �� �.< < �. -;
�:�, . � , � �
��� �y� , .. , v' i • ' /� . � ^• ' \•a % �� `i�� e� �,� i
� � . •
� � � ��. '���t� .� . '�` . � � .J,! �A'�.�.� ..� � ^'Y�S
� j - , . � cr ,,.;� '. �r � '� �.
\ �37 � ^ e�;. .. . �� �, � .��, -.�� -. ``� ' .
� ;, � � '� • ;; � o � � � �' ' � ;'� �, � �
� t'#� ��,., �' a :�� � � ' � '„� ;%�` =�"
-��'"':� -� � ��� % �' ` � �, • � �: ..f, , j, y • � ' d1
;� `� :.� ` S '� - -` `�►
. . . , ,s ,� � -� .!, , ; �� : -°t' � , ` ,
;�,�;.ry. , �„ •, � . �; �
p:K'"P� 1� '�. 1. ;\ ' . I y.. . ,� ��.
`' .t� � �'1�, .� ..�� . ��t . }� :�
,� �� >
<t\ ,,+ . ;.: .
. : ' ;. F .' ,. �,'.*� 9 :.� � � ` ,�, .�y��`
, ��` �' � . �- � �
� ' ��' ��^ ^ �'� '' ° `��- . �; � � .
4 ', ` �, q�� � � ! � � y, , �
;� : ' ; � . .w �� � 4',.; � ��` , ,1.,��� �. { .f�
� r.
�� 1 ` .r � "� , i � � r ��.�•. �'.�•
� � � • < A �' t :�„ , � � �
'i�� i ' .•`n �. . . . �Ey < 1 0 ' ♦ .�� /J� �� '� .a� ..
�
:� . �1 . � • �1 � }� �y'jQ�5' a ., i ". �,' ♦
•. �i.. .�� �� ''� � r .,IA�' . �'�/�A� _ �\ ��.��� �`.�,�► � cY.'�'�
�i � .^, , �� � ;` s * . � �` `'� . 3 � �.`' .
\ ` \',` � �, ' I � � T'� ♦ * � .. ``� .
�Y �1� � � y��,• l , , ` l ' • - ��1+,• ` ` �\#!�%` . � :
�\� �� �� i' . ^ � � R�, ` + /� � �
'"�. 1 . , � �; � 'a . . � •,�. ~� .i � �� . � � rr,�� �
� .. , � �* ' �!. ; f,�� S � � �„ " � -� ~ •� r ' N. Y' . .. �
I' ` � • _ � �: �y. ,�/ , i!� � ��' a � ,��
� _ .�' %� � � �
• ` i !' y� ^ ; �,; ., � -� , ti
� �
,t �"s�' �� ', •:� � �',� . � . � _.. . y�' , � + Y,�
� �� -'i��.' ��,"' � � �, � ;�+ .. • '` �` � � 3 ' �
,s-, e. �; �� � � �y �+ � ��, . `�� '`� =;�, �.
4� �A ,` �\ �� �''� '1 \\�' � %/i � , ��v .
.� . ♦ 4 tr�`'►�` `` .�� �� � , i a ': (`�1D
.� _�.
�.a� ,.! ' �,' .� '� � Q; A��: � � ' , .� �'J
.�,' � r � . , , � � .r\,,
� y �; r � ' �, � � • ��; ,, ,p '
. ^ .�� ��� / M1'��"� 1 i~ �. _ �" � _ ��` � � .. � • '\la�l� __ � .
I3 ' r
. i
�' T77 �
/• \�
� ,�� :���-��
���� ��� �
�,.r
� � . �� �� �;� � �
. .y ,� �. r+s-,.
s`
. �
�
;�
'�, �� -i
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a mitigated negative declaration has been proposed and application has been made for
commercial desi�n review for a new one-story commercial buildin� at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1,
Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Avtar Johal Famil�Trust propertv owner, APN:
029-202-060;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the City Council of the City of Burlingame on Januar�, 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 City Council 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, is hereby approved.
2. Said mitigate negative declaration and commercial design review are approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in E�ibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such mitigated negative declaration and
commercial design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
MAYOR
I, Ann Musso, City Clerk 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 6`h day of Janua
2003, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for commercial design review
1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE
effective December 2, 2002
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped November 15, 2002, sheets A0.01 through A3.1 and C1.0 through C6.0, with
tan-colored brick, a brick soldier course below the parapet and above the windows on each
elevation, and a recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame
Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display 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 e�sting structure (except for asbestos removal or reconstruction) or
construction of the new building takes place on the site;
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 Department; 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;
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, 2002 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;
8. 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;
9. that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not
block any on-street parking spaces;
10. that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J;
11. 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 via Carolan Avenue;
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 3rd 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 to the limits on 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 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;
18. that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and
19. 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.
�,t,� O1T1 0,� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURUN�sAME 5�1 pRIMROSE ROAD
,�. BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�. �p, ��•�'� TEL: (650) 558-7250
Site: 1301 Burlingame Avenue
Appeal hearing for a Planning Commission approval PUBLIC HEARING
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and commercial
design review application for a new, single-story NOTICE
commercial building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue,
zoned C-1, Subarea A. (APN: 029-202-060).
The City of Burlingame City Council announces the
following public hearing on January 6, 2003 at 7:00
P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: December 27, 2002
(Please refcr to other side)
A copy of the a
to the meeting
Burlingame, Ca]
CITY OF BURLINGAME
icat�on`and,p�ans=•�ir=t'���ay be reviewed prior
��he� Plannin�� D�pa ., ent �,t ,;Ql Primrose Road,
i�[iia: ��
.�;�,�`<: �' ;�
If you chall� a�ige tlie s��bject applicatiop(s) in eocirt, � u
raising onl hos ��`ssucs you or somrone else raised�
deseribed i t �'ce or in written wn-eSpondeiic ��
at or prior t t ���p�g.�� �4 `� `�,�,
_ i'k . y. � � . . . ..
`1F3:�.e:iYt.4 "` :.. .. ., , . :.. ..:�n's.Td
Property o�, ers o reeei�e this notice are responsibl �ei:i
�:
tenants aba' t thi �� notic�: �:.� For addit�ional iiiformatio�;
558-7250. ank �ou. ,1 � Y.- �;
?����"• � ,���,,
"�� �....w�7�,1 � �_ �4!
�.� f/
�'�;'",�`��f4.
I�TICE
Margaret od.`� ,
City Planner � �;��,�'�
�,,,, �,
�.�. �
PU
be limited to
�blic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
i
�
(Please refer to other side)
City of Burlingame Item #
Environmental Scoping Session and Commercial Design Revie Commercial Design
For a New, Single-Story Commercial Building Review Study
Address: 1301 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: 8/12/02
Request: Environmental Scoping Review and Commercial Design Review of a proposed new, single-story, 4342
SF commercial building located at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A(C.S. 25.57A10).
Applicant: Robert Bradsby, 8 Inc. APN: 029-202-060
Property Owner: Avtar Johal Family Trust
Lot Area: 4544 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 C-1 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 f ve 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 Consistency
Subcommittee (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 scale and the prominent location of
the proposed project, the City Engineer requires that the demolition of the existing building be included in the
environmental review for the proposed project.
Project Summary: 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 C-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. The retail use will be for the sale of
(�p�-C)`Ev< ic; `� "� , {�_.
Scopir:g Meeting for Environmental Review for a A�r�f��� 1301 13urlingnme Aver:ue
for a New, ��.Commercial Building
�, �, ^�.a', � - `-; i � �
computers anc� 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).
The building fa�ade will be 8" x 16" masonry. The applicant will provide a sample of the masonry at the study
hearing. The recessed entry at the front of the building will have 1" thick clear "starfire" glass, frameless glass
doors and a concrete header beam. There will be display windows at the front of the building on either side of the
recessed entry. There is a single 30' lon� x 3' deep display window that is 3'-4" high along the Park Street
Elevation. At the rear of the building there is a roll down service door, an alcove door, and a glass and metal
awning that runs approximately 2/3 the length of the rear elevation. Signage is shown on the building for
reference, but is not a part of this application.
As part of the proposed proj ect, 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 futurc 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.
The applicant is requesting the following:
■ environmental scoping for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of the 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: 26'-0"
(two proposed AC units
approximately on the roof will extend to
2g�_p�� 30'-0" 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-conforming use
2
�
�� rt�., � � 'r-', �" � ,"'� A � ,.;y J�..
Scoping Meeting for Environmental Review for�1�P 1301 Burlingame Avenue
for a New, �3.(ibry Commercial Building
��;�,. � .
t �, . � ,
Staff Comments: See attached. Before and 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 staging and traffic control
(see City Engineer's memo dated August 6, 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.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and review the proposed
project and take the following action:
identify any effects of the 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
■ review 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
Zoning Technician
Robert Bradsby, 8 Inc.
3
�
City of Burlingame�� Item # �
Scoping Session for Environmental Review Study Calendar
for a Parking Variance for Proposed
Commercial Building
Address: 1301 Burlingame Avenue
Meeting Date: 7/9/O1
Request: Environmental Scoping Review of a proposed new, two-story, 7530 SF commercial building located at
1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A(C.S. 25.04.080).
Applicant: Meyrick Jones APN: 029-202-060
Property Owner: Avtar Johal Family Trust
Lot Area: 4544 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: Two-story commercial building proposed by Apple for computer retail sales. The lower floor will
be used for retail sales and the mezzanine level will be used for storage and employee offices and facilities.
Allowable Use: Retail Sales are permitted in the C-1 Subarea A zone.
Environmental Scoping: The City of Burlingame is the lead agency and has a contract with an outside consulting
iirm for the preparation of an initial study for environmental review of this project. Prior to determining whether
a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required,
staff is requesting that the commission commcnt on any potential environmental effects which you feel should be
investigated as a part of the environmental document. Potential environmental effects identified by staff include:
impacts on public facilities, including street, sidewalk, and lot J parking during both demolition and
construction; and
impacts on traffic and parking for the proposed retail use.
The comments provided by the Commission will be incorporated into the initial study and will assist in determining
the type of environmental review. The standard list of items investigated in an initial study is attached at the end
of the staff report.
Project Summary: The applicant is proposing construction of a new two-story, 7530 SF commercial building at
1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A. The existing 2-story 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 which was an existing and non-conforming use in the C-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 2-story building with 4544 SF of
retail space on the first floor and a 2986 SF mezzanine, for a total of 7530 SF, compared to the approximately 7,411
SF in the existing building. The first floor retail use will be for the sale of computers and computer related
merchandise. The mezzanine level will be divided into several uses, including 1827 SF of storage, 1012 SF of
employee offices (including bathrooms, hallway space, elevators, and stairs), and 147 SF of repair space. There
will be no basement in the new building.
The proposed commercial building will be built from lot line to lot line. The retail space on the first floor is exempt
from parking requirements in Subarea A(C.S.25.36.040,c,3). The combination of uses on the mezzanine level
require the following parking:
Scoping Meeti�ig, for Environmental Review for a Parking Variance 1301 Burlingame Avenue
for a NeN�, 2-Story Commercial Building
• 147 SF repair space (1 parking space : 800 SF) = 0.18 parking spaces
• 1012 SF offce (1 parking space : 300 SF) = 3.37 parking spaces
• 1827 SF storage (1 parking space : 1000 SF) = 1.83 parking spaces
The total required parking on site is 6 spaces. There are no parking spaces proposed on site and the applicant is
seeking a 6 space parking variance.
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 a bulb-out at the corner of Burlingame Avenue
and Park Road, several benches, new trees with ornamental grates, an ornamental street light, trash cans, and a new
sidewalk. For reference, some of these streetscape improvements have recently been installed at 1420 Burlingame
Avenue. The proposed streetscape improvements will require the removal of 1 public street parking space.
The following variances to zoning standards are required:
1. parking variance for providing 0 spaces where 6 spaces are required.
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS: none none none
LOT COVERAGE: 4544 SF 4544 SF 4544 SF
100% 100% 100%
LANDSCAPING: none none none
HEIGHT: approximately 28'-0" 32'-7" 35'-0"
PARKING: 0 spaces 0 spaces* 6 spaces
USE commercial bank** retail sales on the retail sales and
first floor and personal service on the
supporting uses on frst floor
the mezzanine
* parking variance required (0 spaces provided where 6 spaces are required)
* * existing non-conforming use
Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that his application was made prior to the effective date
of Commercial Design Review (Ordinance 1652). So it is not subject to Commercial Design review based on the
criteria set out in the code. Based on the scale and the prominent location of the proposed project, the City Engineer
requires that the demolition of the existing building be included in thc environmental review for the proposed
project. In addition, the applicant must provide for the City Engineer's approval, a complete plan for demolition
and construction, including staging and traffic control. (See 5/21/O1 City Engineer's memo). The City Engineer
will not issue a demolition permit until the Planning Commission has granted approval for the project.
�
Scoping Meetitlg for Environmental Review for a Parking Yariance
for a Ne.w, 2-Story Commercial Building
1301 Burlingame Avenue
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the proposed project and the areas of
potential signifcant environmental effects suggested by staff. The Commission should identify any additional
effects of the project that they anticipate should be investigated as being potentially significant. The areas of
investigation for environmental evaluation as defined by CEQA are listed on the attached sheet for your reference.
Erika Lewit
Zoning Technician
c. Meyrick Jones,
Rob Aerts, Guensler
Sid Scarborough, Guensler
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DGPARTMENT 501 1'RIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
� ��� CITY ��
BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�_i
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance�_
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Project address: 13�� �V�-I.IrJ �,� �E ��J�'�V�
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
Name: ME`(1Z1 GIF- �I d� �S Name: d� �,' rr�7� �1r;_';:, ;_ � F� ��l � �'/ !�' �'� 7
Address: 14�s L�AYS�"IOrQE e�.1/D �IS2 Address: i��%- 1;'c ,��,,ti�',�4-i�-ft" ���
City/State/Zip: �f't� FRf�n�G1SC� �A City/State/Zip: �'i-'��� �^'�'�'��� � C'o4, `���_�� C'
Phone (w): �' 1 S. 33a , s'gl $ ���" Phone (w): ! �� " � �( � - � � ��7 C'
(h): �h�: � `�c - �� � - -7`� 7(,
(�: �N f 4G� - 3 4�1 S"
AR ITECT/DESIGNER
Nam ��
Address: �OD CALiFC�N{Ac ST
City/State/Zip: SH� ��=��--X�SCA CA
Phone (w): �I S. �2�?.3-7�-�' q410 8
�n�: 4►�. q 81. o S� 8
(�: 4S: �2?.3�02
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: N�w 2 —
[�
(�� �` . ���, -� i-;' (
�� ,
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
Y . St� � v.
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of my.�l�rx�vledge nd belief.
%
Applicant's signature: � � � � -'� . Date: �/ ����� �
I know about the proposed application and lie'fe� authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission. � I' f
j, ,
Property owner's signature:
��
Date: ' � " �-' � - ��
RECEIVE[�
MAY 1 4 2001
Date submitted: � ly D/
PCAPP.FRM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Pl aNn�inlG nFcT.
r� :
�
' °�R""4"�` COMI��RCIAL APl'LICATIONS
�`•:..:.._.••'� PLANI�TING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM
1.
2.
3.
4.
Proposed use of the site. ��Pt l l, Si�-�
Days and hours of operation. � DP't� � W�� - l��' lU r°�+
Number of trucks/service vehicles to be pazkerl at site (by type). �
Cunent and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location:
Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years
Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After
Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM
Weekdays 6 � 6 A 6 �
Full-time ��
Part-time � � 2 1 2 �
Weekends �. � -� s � S
Full-time
Part-time 3 Z 3 2 3 Z
5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site:
Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years
Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After
Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM
weekdays 3C7 ZO q 0 '�O �� 30
Weekends sQ 3d (�O � (fl0 �{'O
6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner,
employees and visitors/customers):
30
7.
�
,r'�
Where do/will the owner & employees park? �1/�� (.�c O�—SII� P�a��
Where do/will customers/visitors park? St��.tRth�Nd��� 571�-E�
P���N�' �� PA-���-w 5 �1�iS iN ��
Present or most recent use of site. �.�4'�� US�: �� �,
10. List of other tenants on properiy, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach
list if necessary).
N��
RECEIVED
MAY 1 4 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
P�LATVNING DEPi,
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
��� c�rr o.�.
BURIJNGAME
� o
`'�.,�....�.>'
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's
Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist
the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for
your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance
with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
P�-�s� �.�-�.�_ -a �-��-�-+-�� �.-� t�- �
V�v2..� �--s c� � P� �,�--10�-� 0�-1-�-1 � S.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right and what unreasonable properry loss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial of the application.
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, safery,
general welfare or convenience.
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?
RECEIVED
MAY 1 4 2001
VAR.FRM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 '
a. Describe the e�ceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
properry w{:ich do not apply to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not
common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree
specimen, steep tenain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others
in the neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and wlzat unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result fornt 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 detriinental or injurious to
properry or improvements in the viciniry or to public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlighbshade,
views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water
supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals,
situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public saferv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or
sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise,
unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially
dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city•'s policy and goals for
conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site
or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped?
d. How will the proposed project be compatible witlz the aesthetics, mass, bu[k and character
of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties i�i the genera[ viciniry.
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.
VAR.FRM
Architectt�are, Design c: Plartning Worldwide �71@i1S�@i
5 May, 2001
RECEIVED
MAY 1 4 2001
City of Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA
Re:
Subject
Proposed new Retail Building
1301 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA
City of Burlingame Variance Application from section 25.36.040 (d) 3
Dear Sir/Madam:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Section 25.36.040 of the City of Burlingame District Regulations requires that wc provide on
site parking for the second floor office and storage to the number of three stalls. Per our
consultation with the City of Burlingame Planning Department, the entire ground floor is
exempt from parking requirements. Based on 85 sq.ft. for office space (1:300) and 2900 sq.ft.
of storage space (1:1000), we are requesting a variance for 3 parking stalls.
Following the format of the City of Burlingame Variance Application, please find below a
description of the hardships we believe justify a variance in this case.
a. Describe the exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
If our request for a parking variance is approved, the obligation on our property will remain
consistent with all other properties on the block. As City Hall Lane runs behind all these
properties, there is very little room to accommodate both retail and parking. The proposed
building would nearly replicate the existing building footprint, which occupied the entire lot,
and all the neighboring buildings.
Based on our understanding of banking operation, we believe the new retail store would employ
equal or less employees than the previous tenant on this property, BayView Bank. The net
result would be no change or an improvement on the surrounding parking and traffic congestion
due to employee parking.
i:\01.1746.00Oklocumentation\3_regulatory�3pdUt0l OS 10ra.doc
��u�; C.tlilurni.t �rrc�•t
S�x��1 Fi�rz:ac•z�io California 9 4 i o 8
�Iel: 4i5• 4i3• 3700
Fax: 4i5. 6z7• 3737
City of Burlingame Planning Department
5 May, 2001
Page 2
��'�'l,�i���;
RECEIVED
MAY 1 4 Z001
CITY OF BURLIIVGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Currently, there are two parking spaces behind the site on City Hall Lane. The existing building
defines the edge of City Hall Lane as it runs directly behind the property. There is enough
space to accommodate cars that are parallel parked and maintain the existing one way
directional traffic through the Lane. Parking currently occurs along the lane, and the spaces are
not metered. Other tenants in this block have posted "No Parking" signs to claim these spaces
far their employees. We would hope to reserve these spots for Apple staff and customers. In
addition, this store location has access to street parking on two sides and a large parking lot on
the property directly behind the site.
b) Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
the substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
The development at 1301 Burlingame Avenue would not be feasible without being able to
maximize the ground floor sales area. There are two reasons for this: one is the maximum sales
floor is needed to house the Apple Retail Concept, and the second is the large expense and
investment made to construct the new building can only be recouped with the maximum gross
sales area.
1. The A�ple Retail Conce�t
Without the full depth of the site, the Apple Retail Concept cannot be executed. The concept
has been developed over the last 18 months to a highly refined layout and design. The
proposed sales area depth is 75'. This is already 10' shorter than the desired depth and at the
absolute minimum. The Apple Retail Concept reflects the same kind of thorough and
complete design that makes Apple products so engaging and distinctive. The entire ground
floor is required to make this store work.
2. The expense of makin� the building safe.
The current building is seismically unsafe in the event of a moderate earthquake. The bearing
walls of the current building are constructed with un-reinforced brick masonry walls. From
the expert opinion of our structural engineer Tom Adamo & Associates, the current un-
reinforced brick bearing wall represents a tremendous risk to both occupants of the building
and to the general public.
We have estimated that the initial investment required for a seismic upgrade of the existing
building or the construction on a new building would both be approximately $800,000. This
sum, in addition to the cost of the fit-out, makes every square foot of sales floor crucial to the
c _ (;alit�>rnia 5u��i
__ ..._,�.'_-,��� Cailifornia 9 4 i o 8
7e1: 4iS. 4i3• 3700
Fax: 4i5. C,2?. 37;?
City of Burlingame Planning Department
5 May, 2001
Page 3
viability of the project.
G�r����r
RECElVE(�
MAY 1 4 2001
CITY OF BURLfNGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Providing three parking stalls reduces the effective sales area on the ground floor by at
1000sq.ft. This selling space is critical to the financial success of this retail project.
c) Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurous to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience.
As mentioned above, the new construction will replace a building that currently poses a
building and life-safety issue to the public in the event of an earthquake. Working conditions
within the building will be vastly improved and the building is designed to be accessible to all
segments of the community including handicapped persons. The new store will add an exciting
new component to Burlingame Avenue, and we are sure it will enhance the Burlingame
community.
d) How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass bulk and
character of the e�cisting and potential users on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The existing building on the site was developed to accommodate retaiUmercantile uses. In this
way it matches the neighboring buildings and exists in accordance with the current designation
for the properties on Burlingame Ave. We are proposing a replacement building that is also a
single use retail building.
The proposed construction respects the original bi�ilding without emulating it. The existing
building footprint will be almost exactly replicated, while the overall building height will be
increased marginally to accommodate a more functional second level. The exterior walls will
be finished in stucco to match the adjacent properties, and blend in to the existing feeling of
Burlingame Ave. By keeping the existing building footprint, we will be maintaining the
alignment of the rear facade with the neighboring properties. This alignment will be visible
from both park Road and the large parking lot behind the property.
The new storefront on Burlingame Avenue and Park Road comprises steel sections finished
in black (low-gloss) with clear glazing. The storefront on Burlingame Avenue and Park Road
will be utilized for the innovative display of product.
�>ou l:aliiornia Jn��rt
Sart Fs•cancisco California 9.} i o 8
�Iel: 415• 433• 3700
F:ix: .}is. Gz7• 3?37
City of Burlingame Planning Department
5 May, 2001
Page 4
���t���E•
Apple is committed to enhancing the Burlingame Avenue experience. Apple will extend their
pursuit of excellence found in their products to the people that they serve. They would like to
become a part of the Burlingame community, and hope that the parking variance can be granted
to make this happen.
Sincerely,
�
Rob Aerts
Project Architect
Enclosure
cc: Don Watts/ Apple Computer Inc.
Sidney Scarboro/ Gensler
RECEIVED
MAY 1 4 2001
CITY OF BURLiNGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
boo l„tliturnia Su�cet
San Francisco California 9 4 i o 8
"1'el: 415. 4;;. ;�oo
Fax: 4r5. C�7• 3?37
Project Description
RECEIVED
MAY 1 4 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
1301 Burlingame Avenue is currently a vacant, single use retail building. Formerly
occupied by BayView Bank for many years, the opportuniry has arisen to house a new
retail store of a well-known, worldwide company in their own local area of
Burlingame. The presence of Apple Computers will create a dynamic retail space in a
currently disused building, adding an amenity to both Burlingame Avenue and
Burlingame.
The existing site area is 4543 square feet. The existing building will be demolished
because it is seismically unsafe in the event of even a minor earthquake for both
occupants and the general public. It would be cost prohibitive to retrofit the existing
building structure. The site and all neighboring properties are zoned C-1, sub-area A.
The proposed 2-story building will entail completely new construction. The building
will be 7409 square feet with 4425 square feet on the ground floor and 2984 square
feet on the upper floor. The existing basement will be abandoned, filled in and not
used for the new building.
The proposed construction respects the original building without emulating it. The
existing building footprint will be almost exactly replicated, while the overall building
height will be increased marginally to accommodate a more functional second level.
The exterior walls will be finished in stucco to match the adjacent properties, and to
blend in with the existing character of Burlingame Avenue buildings.
The new storefront comprises steel sections finished in black (low-gloss) with clear
glazing. Z'he storefront on Burlingame Avenue and Park Road will be utilized for the
innova�ive display of product. With the exception of a small service area, the ground
floor is devoted to sales. The upper floor is dedicated to toilets, support areas and
storage.
The Apple store provides an intelligent, comfortable, and inviting environment where
the power of well-designed technology is made accessible without anxiety or pressure.
Both its exterior and interior reflect the same kind of tasteful, thoughtful design that
makes Apple products so engaging and distinctive. The layout is very open and
accessible, so that customers can easily find the products that are most interesting to
them. The environment is not visually busy; the product is the star.
The setting is alive with technology, conveying the vitality and the soul of Apple
products.
The feasibility of developing the site at 1301 Burlingame Avenue hinges on the abiliry
to maximize the ground floor sales area on this small lot. The maximum sales floor
area is required to accommodate a highly refined Apple Retail Concept, and to offset
the expense of the initial investment to replace the existing building.
By constructing on the footprint of the existing building, the proposed building
matches the neighboring buildings, which also completely cover their lots. The three
parking stalls which we are requesting a variance for we believe can be accommodared
in the street parking on both Burlingame Ave and Park Road, and the large parking
lot directly behind the site. The new construction will be in the interest of public
safety and an asset to the Burlingame communiry at large.
Ge1151er App�e Computer Store, Burlingame May O5, 2001