The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About50 California Drive - Staff ReportItem # Consent Calendar PROJECT LOCATION 50 California Drive City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance Item # Consent Calendar Address: 50 California Drive Meeting Date: 9/24/07 Request: Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance for interior and exterior changes to an existing automobile dealership in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Sub-Area D(Auto Row). Applicant: Doug Robertson Architect: Proto Inc. APN: 029-243-020, 030, 040, 050 Property Owner: Kent Putnam Lot Area: 1.28 acres General Plan: Service and Special Sales Zoning: C-1, Sub-Area D CEQA Status: Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveniences. Previous Use/Proposed use: Automobile sales lot Allowable Use: Automobile sales lot Summary: The applicant is proposing to remodel the exterior of the primary frontage , the interiorof two vehicle showrooms, and to stripe the parking area of an automobile sales lot at 50 California Drive. This project is subject to Commercial Design Review since more than 50% of the building fa�ade facing California Drive is being changed. The existing 27, 553 SF automobile sales building contains 4,150 SF of office space, 4,452 SF of showroom space, 13,188 SF of service space, 2,229 SF of storage space and 3,534 SF of vehicle staging area that does not count towards the parking requirement. There is no change of use proposed with the project. All existing uses remain in their same locations with their same square footages. Changes to the exterior of the building include: all new aluminum framed windows and doors throughout the building, new aluminum composite panels in silver, red and black, new paint on existing stucco finishes and new signage which is not part of this application, but which will be approved under a separate application to the Planning Division. There are currently no striped parking spaces provided on this property. Because the applicant is proposing to stripe part of the existing parking sales lot in order to provide the required parking for ADA requirements, the Planning Division had to establish a baseline of the uses existing on-site and the parking spaces that they derive. The building contains five different uses (office, 1:300; showroom, 1:600; service, 1:800; and storage, 1:1000) which require a total of 40 parking spaces on site. There is also 3,534 SF of vehicle staging area that does not count towards the parking requirement for this property. The applicant is proposing to stripe 8 code compliant spaces to meet the ADA requirements. The site plan indicates that the applicant can fit 32 additional code compliant spaces on-site, but the applicant wishes to not stripe these spaces in order to park inventory close to one and other in this location. The applicant also shows 18 additional non-code compliant spaces at the rear of the lot where more inventory will be parked. No employees will park on-site. A Parking Variance is required for providing 8 code-compliant parking spaces on-site where 40 are required. As part of the project, the City Arborist has recommended to Planning Staff that the applicant provide three (3) new 24"-box size street trees along California Drive. He also recommended that the trees be Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus Calleryana) which are the recommended species for this area of the City. Lastly, the City Arborist provided the applicant with the specs for tree planting and the specs for sidewalk grates. The applicant has included the requested trees and sidewalk grates in the revised plans, date stamped September 13, 2007. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Commercial design review to remodel an existing automobile dealership building in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Sub-Area D(CS 25.57.010 b, 2); and • Parking variance for providing 8 striped parking spaces on-site where 40 parking spaces are required (CS 25.70.040). Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 50 California Drive EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D 8 striped spaces Office = 13.83 spaces 32 un-striped spaces Showroom = 7.42 spaces Parking: 0 striped spaces Service = 16.5 spaces 19 non-compliant spaces 8 spaces total' Storaqe = 2.23 spaces 40 s aces total Parking variance for providing 8 striped parking spaces on-site where 40 parking spaces are required (CS 25.70.040) Staff Comments: Staff would note that no signage will be approved as part of this application. All signage requires a separate application to the Planning Division. See attached. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on August 27, 2007, the Commission had some comments concerning street trees along California Drive, the width of the sidewalk in this area, and whetherthere was enough room in the public right-of-wayto accommodate streettrees and allow room for pedestrians. The Commission placed this item on the consent calendar when all of the comments had been addressed and revisions were made to the plans (August 27, 2007, Planning Commission Minutes). Planning staff spoke with the Engineering Department concerning the width of the sidewalk along California Drive at this location. The Engineering Department records show that the sidewalk is 9'-0" wide along California Drive between Peninsula Avenue and Bayswater Avenue along the east side of the street. The City Arborist spoke with the applicant on September 12, 2007, concerning the placement of street trees along California Drive. He determined that three new 24" box size Chanticleer Pear trees with the City approved sidewalk grates would be an acceptable solution at this location, and that there is adequate width to accommodate the tree wells and pedestrians. The applicant submitted revised plans and a response letter, date stamped September 13, 2007, to address the Planning Commission's and the City ArborisYs comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows: 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 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. -2- Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 50 California Drive Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's August 27, 2007, Design Review Study meeting; that the mass and bulk of the project is consistent with the mass and bulk of the existing structure and other structures in the immediate area; and that the proposed street trees along California Drive will enhance the street appearance; for these reasons the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's six commercial design review guidelines. Required Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a Parking Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Variance Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's August 27, 2007, Design Review Study meeting; that there is no change or expansion of use proposed on the subject property; that the addition of eight striped spaces, including ADA spaces, improves the on-site parking supply; and that there currently are no striped spaces existing on the property; for these reasons the project is found to be compatible with the variance criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for the Commercial Design Review and parking Variance. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 13, 2007, A.101, and date stamped August 17, 2007, sheets A.201 through ES.301, and that any changes to building materials, exteriorfinishes, footprint orfloor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 3. that three 24" box size Chanticleer Pear trees shall be planted along California Drive, along with the city approved sidewalk grates, prior to final inspection, as required by the City Arborist; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; -3- Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 50 California Drive 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Erica Strohmeier Planner c: Proto Inc., Hugh Hines, architect. � I'ROTO�r-�c 1 1 BA Tiffany Avenue San Francisco CA 941 10 P: 415.518.4612 F: 415.642.4305 E: info��proto-inc.com to: Erica Strohmeier City of Buriingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Phone: [650] 558-7252 Fax: [650) 696-3790 September 13, 2007 Dear Erica, REC� i'�E�� SFP 1 3 2007 C;1TY Or ("J�: t'�1;=,'•,'J�E from: Hugh Hynes PROTOinc Phone: (415) 518�612 Fax: [415] 641-5393 RE: 50 California Drive, Commercial Design Review We are writing this letter to summarize our response to the Burlingame Planning Commission's comments during the August 27, 2007 meeting, and the subsequent meeting minutes. The Commission requested that we (the design team, in consultation with the owner) coordinate with the City Arborist to reach an agreement on the number and placement of street trees along the California Drive edge of the property. Upon further examination, we have identified a stretch of sidewalk alongside the property's surface parking area that could benefit from the addition of trees and "softening" this edge. Other locations along this sidewalk were rejected either because they conflicted with existing drive aisles and curb cuts, created visual obstructions to the showroom and signage, or otherwise �ould interfere with the operation of the dealership. We have submitted a revised site plan showing three street trees - of the Chanticlair Pear variety recommended by Steve Porter, City Arborist - in this location. Best regards, Hugh Hynes Principal, PROTOinc CA Architect #C-29866 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 27, 2007 ■ The prope is for sale; the applicant will obtain approval nd sell them with the pro rty. ■ The staircas p to second floor does not meet current co requirements, will need be revised (sheet A4.0). ■ Building Code mi �mums on other items such as the shower wi s are not met. Check n before they affect the floo lan. ■ Asked if all windows e to be replaced. Make the window grid tterns consistent. ■ Generally, the mass and Ik of the structure are okay, but may need to ange some of the mass g. ■ Mullion patterns need to b onsistent. ■ ign second floor windows the dormers above. ■ B e rafters seems quite larg , he rest of the house does not have such la e elements. ■ Car through the wood battens t ughout the design. ■ Impro accuracy of drawings, show tails for existing elements to remain as w as new elements. ■ Add an ic vent. ■ Second flo roof on north elevation doe ot look like it belongs on the house. ■ Provide a m ified and improved landsc e plan. Taller shrubs and add trees fill out the landscaping. vide full automatic irrigation. There were no other com ents from the floor and the p lic hearing was closed. C missioner Osterling made motion to refer the project to esign reviewer, with direction to revie the com ents contained in the min s and review the recording o e Commission's discussion. This mo n was seconded by Com sioner Vistica. Chair Deal c d for a vote on the motion refer the project to a design rev er The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0- ommissioner Terrones a nt). The Planning Commission ction is advisory and not appealable. This concluded at 10:10 p. . 11. 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A REMODEL OF AN EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP (DOUG ROBERTSON, APPLICANT; KENT PUTNAM, PROPERTY OWNER; AND PROTO INC., ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Deal recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chair Cauchi assumed the role of Chair. Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Kent Putnam, 345 Miramontes, Woodside, represented the applicant. He noted that the parking can be striped to eliminate the Variance, if desired. Commission comments: ■ Noted lack of employee parking on the site. ■ Clarified that the project just revises the appearance of the structures, but doesn't change the use of the property. ■ Asked about the color palette for the project. ■ Asked about employees' means transportation to work. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes �� XI. Public comments: August 27, 2007 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame: Transportation Authority may have programs to assist employees. In San Mateo on east side of street, lots of trees. Recommends that Putnam put in the street trees. Expense of irrigation system — could use hose or bucket of water during the first year to establish roots. Industrial uses have been required to put in landscaping. Would be a great for salespeople to catch some shade. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ The City appreciates the Putnams and their businesses in Burlingame. ■ Bring the item back on the Consent Agenda, but would like to see where the street trees would be placed. Need to work with the City Arborist to determine where the trees would be placed. ■ No striping other than eight parking spaces as shown is sufficient. • Look at the San Mateo side of California Drive (San Mateo Drive) to determine width of sidewalk and other factors that may weigh into the decision-making process relative to the installation of trees along the site. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Chair Deal recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. Chair Deal returned to the dais. COMMISSIO�IERS' REPORTS DIR Subcom�ittee Assignments: Chair Deal ma� the following subcommitte�assignments Neighborho Consistency — Commissioners D� I, Auran and Cauchi Q Downtown Sp� cific Plan — Commissioners Vistica, Terrones and Auran Bicycle — Com 'ssioner Brownrigg (and possibly C missioner Terrones) Hospital — Com issioners Osterling and Brownrig (Commissioner Vistica substitute) Housing — Commissi ers Brownrigg, Vistica and Cauch R'S REPORT serve as a of City Council regula,� meeting of August 20, 2007: Comm ity Development Direct Meeker noted that the City Council ied the appeal and upheld the Plann Commission's recent ction approving an amendment to t roject located at 2212 Hillside Dri He also noted that the 'ty Council will conduct a study session regarding Economic Development at 6 p.m. on September 2007. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Departmenf 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F{650) 696-3790 www.burlinqame.orA .��"m � APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING C�MMISSION � . �'�E 4�+...s..... r Type of application: Design Review Conditianal Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: � d L�+�/��n%� : �� ' �PPLICAlVT PROPERTY OWNER projaci contad person? O Name: �T Q1f1' 1V�1'il Address: � l�. p�. CitylState2ip: � �NG+� � � Phone {w): ��D — r7� - SiD D 2 �h�: �--�--- (fax): D�• "�' �� Dv�hD[w.A,�O• �Ov✓� (e-mail}: �d� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER pro)ectcontactperson�c� Name: Rt�T v 1 N L• Address: � � � � �� Please mark one box with � City/StatelZip: to indicate the contact person Phone (w):�L � CJ� � 4'% � 2 for this project. ih)." _ (fax):��_t . S °I 3 {e-mail): � � � � � � �+ G • Ll0 w� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: "' T�V`� u(o��% l V '�' �,,,,,_I ..�i��,r�o,, v-evh �C 1 0 `Tvu�a �... ..� AF�ADAVITISIGNATU : I h� by i er penalty of perjury th�t the information given herein is true and ect t th b k y knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: Z3 b I know about the proposed appl ation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planni Corr��'ssi Property owner's signature:, l°�� ,��"� Date: `�(Z3�� 7 Datesubmitted: f�� Y �� S:U-ia ndoulslPCAPP. FRM ppR 2 4 2007 __ _ _._.... _�.___ __. INGAME PLANNING DEPT. project contact person? [] ( c �,� -, � ` �. ,� �� (,�c� t��ti� � �"� �t �� ` � �� - � r e , �, I'ROTOiP�� 1 18A Tiffany Aoen: iE: San Francisco CA 941 10 T 415.51�.4612 F 415.641.5393 E info�lproto-mc.com RECE10/EC� APR 2 4 2007 CITY OF BURLtNGAME p�.ANN�NG C�Fi�T Meg Monroe [or Plan Checker) Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 558-7250 Hugh Hynes PROTOinc Phone: [415J 518-4612 Fax: [415J 641-5393 April 23, 2007 Dear Burlingame Planning Department: RE: Putnam Toyota/Scion Dealership Renovation 50 California Drive Applicant: Doug Robertson We are pleased to submit the attached drawings for Commercial Design Review for the Putnam Toyota/Scion Dealership at 50 California Drive. The proposed project is a renovation of the existing building, consisting of exterior cladding and signage, minor interior renovations, and minor site renovations. The objective of the project is to upgrade the building's appearance according to Toyota's current brand standards, and to provide ADA-compliant restrooms and entrances. The square footage of the existing building will remain unchanged, existing areas will retain the same occupancy and use, and the intensity of use of the facility will remain unchanged. For reference purposes, please find attached to this memo a photo showing the existing conditions, and a rendering of the project as proposed. We have reviewed the Burlingame Planning and Zoning Codes, and have incorporated this information into our design work. However, there are a couple of items that are worth noting for clarification relative to the existing conditions. 1] It is our understanding from Burlingame Municipal Code Title 25 (25.70.010] that only increases in floor area or changes in the intensity of use as the result of a renovation will trigger the requirement for off-street parking spaces. Since the floor area and intensity of use are unchanged as a result of this renovation, it is our understanding the allocation of off-street spaces on the property is not required; the majority of the striped stalls that are shown on the Site Plan [sheet A.101 J the owner plans to use primarily as parking for new vehicles. As part of a floor area increase approved under separate permit earlier this year (for the Vehicle Delivery areaJ, we provided five new off-street parking spaces on the property (adjacent to the Toyota showroom]. Given the location of new entrances described in this application, we are proposing instead allocating these customer/employee off-street spaces in front of the Scion showroom immediately along California Drive, in addition to the two new ADA-compliant stalls (7 stalls total). These customer/employee stalls are indicated on the site plan. 2J According to Title 25.74.010 Development of Automobile Parking & Sales Lots, a 2' high ornamental fence or hedge is required at the perimeter of the property for parking areas. Given the required dimensions for parking stalls [20' long with a 24' wide drive aisle for 90-degree spaces, per 25.70.020 &.025), there isn't adequate space for this fence given that the perpendicular distance between the front property line along California Drive and the front of the building at the Scion showroom is exactly 44'-0". Since a fence or hedge would either encroach into the parking spaces or into the sidewalk and present a hardship to the owner, we are proposing to not install one as part of this application. Please don't hesitate to call with any questions. Best regards, Hugh Hynes �ri• ��`�� BURLINGAME i � �� , CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APP�ICATION � �..� i��' 2007 �liaA'vtE 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. Descrfbe the exceptional or e�raordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. All available exterior site area is currently used for parking vehicle inventory; unlike other neighboring properties, there is no additional area available to allocate as specific parking stalls for customers or employees. The project application does not change the type or intensity of use, so the parking needs (for inventory) of the business remain the same: maintaining this parkin� area is of critical importance to the dealership's operation. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship rnight result form the denial of the application. The primary use of the exterior portions of the site is for parking automobile inventory. These vehicles will be parked by trained employees, at a density far greater than what the Planning Code stipulates as minimum requirements for public parking areas. This density is typical of dealership properties along Auto Row. Striping the stalls according to the Code standards will result in unnecessary additional costs for the owner, indicating that fewer vehic(es can be stored on the property than are necessary for the operation of the business. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. 'The majority of the exterior parking area will not be accessed by the public, and therefore the proposal to withhold stall striping will have no detrimental effect on public use or welfare. The commEinity benefit of parking vehicle inventory at this greater density is that it maximizes use of the property and reduces the need for off-site parking on adjoining properties or on-street. d. How will the proposed project be compatible wifh the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potentia! uses on adjoining properties in the general vlcinity? The proposed project maintains the current parking density found on this site and at other auto dealerships along Auto Row (California Drive). � �' ��;: �.:: i ��,� i� Handouts\Variance Application.2007 :� � 7 ?�107 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.55$.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org I'i CITY OF BI�F�LINGAME PLANNING UEP7. PI�OTOir�c 1 18A Tiffany Avenue San Franasco Cl1 94'I 10 P: 415.518.4612 F: 415.642.4305 E: info��proto-inc.com to: Erica Strohmeier City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Phone: (650) 558-7252 Fax: [650J 696-3790 August 16, 2007 Dear Erica, � � � ...,,� ��.� AUG 1 7 2007 from: Hugh Hynes PROTOinc Phone: [415J 5181t612 Fax: [415) 641-5393 RE: 50 California Drive, Commercial Design Review We are writing this let�er as an accompaniment to the City of Burlingame Planning Variance Application for 50 California Drive, under Commercial Design Review. The variance being requested is to stripe only a few of the required parking stalls (8 out of a total of 41 required for the given building area] for the following reasons: 1) 1t is absolutely critical for the successful operation of the dealership business to retain all of the available site area for inventory vehicle parking, as opposed to customer or employee parking. 2J The 8 stalls which are proposed to be striped will be adequate capacity for customer parking, given that the total showroom area (4241 s.f.] would require 7 stalls (at 1 stall / 600 s.f.J. 3) The remaining site area is more than adequate to provide space for the remaining minimum 33 required stalls, as shown on the site plan included in the CDR application. 4J The site area will be primarily used for automobile inventory, parked by trained employees who are skilled enough to position and maneuver these vehicles far more closely than would be advisable in a typical public parking lot [and far more closely than the Burlingame Planning Code stipulates). 5) Given that the inventory area can accommodate more vehicles than the Code would anticipate, striping the stalis (as indicated by dashed lines on the site plan) incurs unnecessary costs and burdens for the owner. Having to store inventory vehicles at other sites would of course be very costly. 6) The ability to park more than the minimum required number of cars on site reduces the parking load on adjacent properties, and therefore is a net improvement to the surrounding area. 7) Parking auto inventory at a density higher than a typical public parking lot is commensurate with other properties along Auto Row (California Drive). Best regards, Hugh Hynes Principal, PROTOinc CA Architect #G29866 �°� sa,. �d' 1�., X y e�.n., �.% AUG 1 7 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ('ROTOinc 1 1 aC, �1 �:ff�r�y� Ave��.:;E�. Seirz f=rt�r�cisc� CR �A'I 10 P: 415.518.4612 F: 415.642.4305 E i��;t�� =,n',_�ir�_rnn to: Erica Strohmeier City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Phone: (650) 558-7252 Fax: (650J 696-3790 from: Hugh Hynes PROTOinc Phone: (415) 518-4612 Fax: (415] 641-5393 July 20, 2007 [�ear Erica, RE: 50 California Drive, Commercial Design Review I am writing regarding our Commercial Design Review application for 50 California Drive. According to the plancheck comments that we have received, as well as conversations with your department and city arborist Steve Porter, we understand that the addition of street trees along the front of the property is recommended. Specifically, Steve recommended five Chanticlair Pear trees along California Drive. While we understand that these trees might be consistent with past city-funded installations elsewhere in Burlingame as part of a city beautification effort, according to our research there are no city ordinances that require the installation of these trees by property owners as part of commercial renovations, nor any specific documented guidelines for number or species of tree. While there are small street trees outside some commercial businesses along California Drive, these tend to be outside small storefront retail or office buildings, and do not appear outside the larger commercial properties along Auto Row. The scope of the current project also does not include replacing all of the sidewalk fronting the property, which would likely be necessary to install new irrigation lines and new tree wells. Given these conditions, mandating the installation of these trees as part of this Commercial Design Review seems inconsistent with the existing context and current city ordinances active in Burlingame. It places an unfair burden on the owner of 50 California Drive to install and maintain these trees on city property (ie: the sidewalk), the costs of which would be substantial. For these reasons, the owner has expressed concern about the effects of these trees on the budget, and therefore we are taking the city arborist's recommendations under advisement. Best regards, Hugh Hynes Principal, PROTOinc CA Architect #C-29866 R , •' i �. -,..-.-... � ' � � � � «� .,'�'-.w � � . � �w�. -'�-� . �;.� ��. � ._. �1t� ._ , � � �� F - . � .�.�.� . , � � � _ _ �.�.--.-�--�,s,�� , . � . _ � �- - - ��r�� . _�_ _ _ � �:�, �,�;� � � � , . �.__ . , �_ . . � . � ' : 4s� . '�"'� - ..mu.e� ..w.....« m:..,.,... . : � � �..�� '�P $e � - ,A� � y4 � ,. �^' � , � �j� �� '��- k � �.� � ^� ,. �- 'h ` �.y. �.�.. $ �� ^> ' :, _... 'm 3,� .. . , x . . _� � �e' s� �1�+'� � �a� �r� � s ��, . � �.� ,. ; _ ��,.� � �� . . , �.._� � .� . �. . %�. ;,� � i _ �, ' i � s � a -�� : . . � x a «a = . ... • . _ . j �. � � .�. .. '.s,� ^ ,� ,. `� < � , '�`�a� .�. . __ �.,o- -�.�.. . s , � w, �as,. ?»-+i;� � � � � i � � .,� � `1,i,?` � � � ('1 �,«�'',�` �s�E�� I�t� is ...,, �;;.r ox� ,. � . _ ' , .... . . ... �.. ik x , .. :. �� i � _ .-.. + _ . - . .. , � �1�4 g > . .- �x.. 9 ,v 4'Y' � � �"�� . iy £��4 . � � ^'=.;�i � �.. N � -�""' "` "'SK �„. yw.<,.:.: . 3 _ ,,�! x�. ., . W � } .1 �"•4. _ -t �<.. �Z n.1MM�e',..^�.e�� . . �f7 � .s`�.. �� €�` �i.: .r � ' R - � . .�- , x . . ` '^ � gg � . .-: � ;, e ` . •.�.. '7.sR �re � ��:�. , .... ,.,;� � �. �„ �� • � � • � � � .� � " f� ` � � ;.�'. �. "� «.� .,.r u . ` .�.�.. � --�_. . .' � .. ..a� �..�, �. �� . _. .s'� ` �� . ... _ ,. . . .. >_ ' �x:. �� ° �- . . � - � � ,,� - � .� �� 'e �„ � � . .. � « , � � � � r. F , '1�� }�, 1 ��,''y a � ., „ g .F . � ..... � � .�:... ��a'.,. '.. .3 � , �,� �, �t,,. : .. �f �� .," � _, .�.�... s �...�„�, _ .� ,. .�. . 3 . . . � . �. . .• �� =� - ..... .. ... .. —^..^ �x .. ... ., a -.� �.. ,',:� � : " .. � . �.. � .- ::, .. , � . � -., _ .. ... -�'>.. ._. , � ., � : --, .,a. � ' .. ._____.. ., .. x- _ . t .,�. � . .-.., .„, . � ' .. . -� .: ,... - .,. P . — � - .. ., . . . �.,. �e� �,.., e_ �.--m,...-^.�^- , <, . . . . � � � .. . _.. ......... .... ... ...... .. . , �..�._.. _..... °�:r �_ � � _ " . � � 'i�i,f � � �. r � , _ � lu`� li �mt�h�6d��`^-"�' ... ....... � , .,. . . _».. ,:. . �� '- ... -: �i�� '�'" . � � � � .._ , _ _ � . _ � , ...� "` _ _ ° ,,,.,.�r� ^�' }'' ' � � �� _ . �� . _ '�.:� n �� "�•� ' . � "_„ ,� � � � . . � � � �. . . _ �`.. , � � , . ,� w , , � .1" , _ � ; _ . �!'!�� .,,, EXISTING (APRIL, 2D07�: 50 CALIF�RNIa DRIVE .�� ' li �� t—� ��„:,1�' S'4 � ,. , i� PUT111AM �'C��'�-TA/SCION DEALERSHIP - - �� ,�,z=k= 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE _ :::-�.a ��:.;,- ��T01�1� �.xw u:°trc' ^.� ` .. ...�� ,.�.. � . , ' . • . �. . -d: �. '!' � N � � .�. a ,..�..�...,,,,�., �,... � � " . .. . -. .• _ � � /� �'.. _ « x ry _ qlpl�� 4: 1 � � , ; �°. _ _ _,.�,._.u. -�. � .. � � � � � �,�. � � _ �.,_ � � ��` � �p � � � ,._ � . , �� r: _ w � +,�_ ,. �� -�m s�w,,,�= �� =��.. _ � �� ._ �� _ _� � ,,... � d��_ .�= �,wv � ��`t`�-«,,, a� "i'• • � � �' j �' .'i ,�� ;�-� . � � 3 i �� . � � � -�--� 1 � �#� . ii i1�:11 �1�11� t 3�1�[ � � � � �. # � �� . . . � � o-�= . . � � ' ' � f,�:, ��.,e�' C�t3�` � � .. rk�,��+�� . F �.: �,. � � � � . . . �'.�� t}°#��%� E a� u'..� � � . ��,:�w� « :�::A . . .. _ ., � � � �. `�' . � � � �- � ' � � ` _ _.�w_..w� __. _ __�--� � � � ' �. � � _ � .� "`--�"."""�„�,..,_ . ..,.,�,;__.,� � _ �� i � � �r' ,�' ��; .�... k� s,*.�. �� `` `��` �UTRlAIVI TOYt�TA SGION DEALERSHIP / �- � �� --� _' 50 CALIF�RNIA DRIVE _. t � �3� F � ._.. .�,u �� .:.��r�, _�.:. � �►r�o-ro�� w. � � � �: � � � d�� -�,�.��. _ , _._� __ . ... se�r .r .. , _ _ _ _�� _ � �._ _.._ ____ _ ,- ;- ��.,. ._.. � _ _ .. . ,,,,, _ , � � � � � . � � . � __. , .. P � _ � . _ - � ° F°� � � - _ _. �!°` . , } , = r � ; � ,:, a �. . . _ . . �' ! - ,�. �s .. > � . �:.� ■ �: , . �., .� .�� . a, � , _, p., ,� , . _. , , ■ , . �r _ �r � � 1 � ;� � �.:+a" _ � � ..- _. '."I�IF' .�- F i �, �, -. Ar -^'�: �;fCsm. w.e . �' 'r•r+� ��'7l:<�_: .,..�� #�2n � � x � P $� � w � �a � � _ .�"• � � �� _�'�� . � __ , _ ,� : ,� -- � ...� � . � . . _ _� --� __-� _ �. _� � �_ _. _ �� - � _ _ � -� � � _� � � � '"'��LL �`� � CALIFORNIA ORIVE � BAYSWATER AVE. �..�..,��..� ��....�..■�..r.....��....�J TOP IMAGE DETAIL :� -�� .a � ��,� � �� ,� , ._. �� °�� , 7'9 � ' I � �� ..� Y .,��" � ��._�. . . .: .. .. . ..... . �� . y. �. - _� . � � , � � � �'�....—M"""'".-.�"� . ...�. .. ,»r"..�..�" ... «.... .. . . .. w�u.',�^�d'.e: ... 'aSC;-�V'"�;n'�d�W�`. ;�°'��y�x...u+..e.Pr.,.y.:.. 80 CA�IFaRRlIA DRiVE (NEIGHBORING PROPERTYj .�..� .� ..�_ �-:. �.�,�� _ --t,-_ � - a .�P. .... � . fi �� 1 . � � � � ._ � �_ �' > ; `� "" - `, _---�----_._,—_._� _. � . � � � � . _ � �\ � �,r #� s`y'.. � � t.` � ,.a.+s, �Ke�P �� 3�.e � ��.- �_ �.�. � , � � � � �� i �� , <� � r �, � �n. �f K �3 F, � �!� " : .�' �1+ �e� � � in 1•��=.v. -- � i� T '- e-v f11M wr-. I ...*a. ce�...,.�*°. � i � . � �... . . � .� � ti. ��;;��-�� .� ��_ ��;�;��-�� H � � � _ � � � �.,� _- .- � '��_ � ,. . � --.��. :, . s w: _ �—�,.,�.,,-.:. _- i.a �. � ^ � w �+� �� . �� .. �� # 4�,-�.. ..a R�� ,a.�'�..,v.,,.. M �. � _ • �, :, _ - �.. . .. _ _._ --.� ,,M,_,�. � 3 m � �_ � � � � � ��, � � , .> � � . . � � � I PENINSULA AVE. ... ... .�. ... ... .�. .�.. .� � ... ... .. � ... ... .� �. .. �, ..� ..�1 BOTTOM IMAGE DETAIL i :e•St°�' ��:� �-,..,,...: � aTa �. s � ' �g. �''` � ,�:- : ;.� �,' -� -� �. � 8�� r,� : __ � � � �+�; � .'��.�; �s , ; ,� . ¢' '� �} , � � , �t��. . � — �� a�»S•, s� „ae^a¢�^". .:. v � C'�3 � �1�, �,f, � � � � � : �� , . . �� a�a,. �s .. � �� ._:. �� i - ay '� 7 - �" . :..: ! _. � . ., r�r � A tm�s. K..K- ,� � � "' �.. � -�.�. �� $y ..� � : ,,;,. ; . � _ �� : � - � - a, ag ,� . .. . . . j! f � � �:.� ��t��. � � , � . �.-.�,-.. �� - � � _ _ � � _ -��R � . . . �,: p.:. -._ .. �c..riku'-:. +..�,�� i .-�- ! ' �._._ ' � . �- i . ' . � ., ., ��'''^*�,,� � . . �u*., . „�. ,,. � ., � a: �^^� s �� . . �. - . . "a . _.a � .. � � r � , . .. € .� Y ,j . '^^'""^^^„ 'g .. .. . . ... , .:._� �, . _ � ' ` t , .. '� � � - ; °. - �� y � � � � � �. .�� , � � � .�- - ° ., " �' ' y� � ' . � �.rx ._..� � .__� 'y�y _ �� ^ �' �`� ,}w.... �.�� . �� '.K �y 4�, E.. 53; .,�,3 ,.. �"�a � ` � '�.� s ��;2d . � � „ , a � * �' � „. � .a. . � ��, �� w � �� . .. q � � �, ., . � � ,-� � �� -, . �.::� .; kp'� � . ..;. _ ,� � . . � _.� .A...f �x , � �� a " . . � �rr� ��,,.��y��y�� a� .. ��J .. . . a '� _ � „ o N . , . r t �. � ^��._ ' v, � x '" -- j �\ . ... _ r �� k . � � .. � � .... �.�,...1" � ��I > � �,.,,. �� "�,a � ! r p ..�>..�"°` ::: . . . 5 . ..... . . . ,.. -. .. ..... .,..,x.a-m:. . . 1 -.. .. .,. . °�Su�w� � .. � � � � � �� i�I . a 'r..�„m'+'^* ... , . ,. ,�� - , -�"-"�_ " _ ....- ,« ' .,W„ '.� " �,% + . :. . «�, - +-- y �/{ �} {(�' ' . .....,. ...'c :... ..,- A� �_ _ - � .o. ' � a.. �^.��... . � . �y _ .- , . .� . � .'. . ._ . . �� 4 ...-..:.. '"' , s, - � � � +✓ Z / 7 ... � ' ' L�J7 A ' . � . a . .. ,. _ . -,. " � ..-�.��-.n� ..,v `.�`° � . _ .�.� '.� _ � , � � � ... : CITY C3� �i?d�AME . 2 CALIFORNIA DRIVE [[VEIGHBORING PROPERTYj ��':��: �� -. PUTNAM TOYOTAjSCION DEALERSHIP 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE i��QT�I��iC _� �� 4 9 s�w �.. � _ � .w en� �r � s .r. .�o .s �.. .. ..e � w�. .. _ � . .� ,� _� .� - � � �r w�r �r �r � � � w r .a�.�. � ;� _. . . � _ �_.�. _._. . ,� s� � ' � � � � , . . � � ,....------.--, . . . _ _ _ - � : _ .�._.�: _ � � , ., -�, , � . - � �.� c , r�� __ � �� , . �� _ 9 . ..�..�.. . � � , � _ s , �' r � r �t � _ . .�a , m .. �� _ �..�... - - � , - � _ .., ,� ; �� = � ,� __ . . s �� "; ` � � " - °��:i �' " ��I��ira. �, ,_.. . _. '� i., ,. • � ' �� — � � .m.� __ �`w ,�^�... � ' �•.� �2�-.: ,�'�i.��."+ , �:.?vMva" � � �� .€ ,. , - µr. , '^_.'� � _ � , ' _ . `°`� � �1�►� ' » »"�. ,� a . � � � �s � � _ �'�''�'� .. « � » : , . � �, � � ,� _____ . m- . . — �• a� �. . ,... .. � .... _ . _ . - . . ,'- _.._.... � .[.m_ .�r � ' ....._d,.r �:7rlWltiv.. ,„ � _._. _. ..... ._.�,�. �f , _..._...... _ _ . ,r . � � � � .... . . � �„�.."'°' �'�.""r`^=.�w�u.wW.��w � _ . . . ' ... � � , r. . . ' x CALIFORNIA DRIVE � � �s • .� �. �. � � � ... .,� .N. � � ..� ..� ..� � �.. .... ..� � PENINSULA AVE. T�P IMAGE � ,� .� „� ..�, ,,,.. ,� .� � .,, _ ,., ,,,,� ,.,,, „■ � .., �. „�, ,.., BOTTOM IMAGE � � � �S � �� ;.- ' i�S ti�,.�� 1� �ea n o �Ip r� ��..*[` --�r' F ..... �`�': � � �.� ��• � � x. , a �; ` � � � � � k � , � i I- _ � � � � } � � � ` � � �:: .,...._..._ , ,... . .. �,.�t � 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (BUILD(NGJ __ . . _�,.ww�w.e.»� �.. . : :, _. . 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE [LOT� �� - - . �,�� '" ^ ,^- _ . T ~ � �«��}" :..: �7 3`�..�� e,.+ `_ 's''. � •�M- 'S', .. _"�yer "'"M°�.. ..r � ^� �� ,r��. ,.,�, � -'�� ;.:: . , . � #`� '�Y , �' � ., a �. � � -� ;" �. • R . r`,� ' �'► �4.�` y"'�^' ..�+�'�..'�'^ � � � � � t—_"1 C-2!-`t », �°'� s , �.. _ ,� -'�-.�,-,,,.w�. `�- q -. i � � �� ' _. �-j ,� _ . (' i�1.wmAlf R �.. . ,:4� .� � � _ .. e � '�—t �'�" �i • ; � . � � , � � , �� •� .._.sr � �..,� � -� _. , � � �� - "�",.,,,,,a �:.1 � �=� � �.;� ''��« _ � "." _ . . _.. - ._..� ....,.. . � ... i%� '�b y`,�_:-.� . ...... .,:,�w.�� 0 � !� � �:... ., r , ; _ � cw;��. .� .. ... �,t. . � e,� ~ �'". �-,°"��° � w� _� ��.:- . . ....... :� ;„t ��i� .� z-�. �; �g; .,�., «.� ..sa� �...,- .,�' `.d.,, -a. a� :wc � ��. �^ �� 0 . � kw+r> ?i-�. � �,� ., .� r .. � ;,t;;. . . r,�., �3` .�" M-� . �w�'�-+'�„ �...w ��^ "�r+ " t. ` :I' ,e;� �'_`_- "��...�M"!-� _�_��,��. R -'t:.. y- ,... ., € . ��'�. < F �..r .r �.e , C �_ � �...� �...._,..� . � � � � _. . t '� , � t .� � • ��R« - ,a �� .,.... .. ... ... �� - a�, �a a , ,. � � �' �� '�--T'-� '�s � � �_ �,�.„� � i } � 7 �; �S^ � � . . . � ,_- � �,,. .�.,�.+ ,i��a , � ��--� ir�, .....� .a�.� i��; �-'�,. � §�. -�,>'Q . _....._ � __,.„„- , �� fc# ��'--`' . .. � d _.. , , �.."'"`""^' �'3 �� i�:-,P -A �' �� ,_'. ... . . . , : • - < �' �� ...:�. ...:... � �,��_.... � .. -� �, ..�.. ,... va � . �'• r�d � � � � . .,�*. , ..,,,� »:s�,�� . ..� i.. ^ � • �t _ tr �`h.. ,. - > ' � . ' Z. . . .. . �.. . _ ... .. _ . • : 'y�Y ,� µde��. �.. � `B �.. - . � �M '� 9' � +y � +: F�� 4�� : �J �' �� 2 � 2007 �`�'�«� � :;. :� G, — � .. .�...�r�7 PUTNAIV'I TQYOTA/SCION DEALERSHIP 50 CALIF�RNIA DRIVE ■ !i �TQf r ri.� BAYSWATER AVE. �>�� ; _�:�.b .�:�� ,x; —.. .. ' a�we_.A . —._,_ �� 't � �v �D �� _. ai� � 70 �� rn � -: �` r'"` `� i� � -',' ; � v, Z: D' � � � 0 � �. � �Z O W� � �� ZO O �� T T (�'p� T N A D y A� b �' �� 0 = m �-�fz O � N Zb . N ` i x � O �` � y > Q, ', Z • A � � z a � o �� o � o I _ —_ I � 1'-6' MIN. pvC LATERAL LINE � 4-PLY 1"x 2'-0" RUBBER n TIES INSTALLED W/A � � , TWIST & PUILED ��r � �P IN TO THE ST,11�SS Z I � o � 1"x 4" RWD TREE RUBBER TIES PLACED 6" MAX BELOW MAIN FORK OR BRANCH INSTALLED WITH /� TWISf AND NAILED TO STAI� -(2) 2" DIA LODGE POLE PINE STAKES 15 GAL.OR SMALLER (2) 3" DIA LODGE POLE PINE STAKES -24" BOX OR IARCER -1"x 4" ROUCH REDWOOD WITH (2) 2" CALV. NAILS FACH CONNEGTION (LOCATE ON PREVAIIINC WIND SIDE) PLACE ROOT CROWN V2 "- �/4 " ,�BOVE FINISHED GRADE 2" OF FINE SCREENED FIR BARK r— FINISHED GRADE � @� — I � �,��. � y MIN. � � 2 X CONTAINER 4" DIA. x 3'-0" LONC r 0 PERFORATED STYRENE PIPE WfTH � Z� STYRENE DRAIN GW1TE COVER AND W O� Np-�: BUBBLER IRRICATION Z USE 2 PIPES IN CONCRETE CUT-0UT AREi15. PUT PIPE '� ON UPHILL SIDE OF TREE. LEVEL SITE NORTH OF TREE SCARIFY SIDES ROOT BALL — FERTILIZER TABLETS AS SPECIFIED AMENDED PUNTING FILL MIX AS SPECIFIED PVC SCH 40 -� TEE �--PINE STAKE 1 1/4 " CJLLV. ROOFING NAIL (1 FACH END) COMPACTED TOPSOIL SCH.80 PVC NIPPLE l/ � PIPE SIZE - MA7CH BASE OF HEAD PROVIDE A 4" MIN., 6" MAX. SLOT TO ALLOW FOR �EffLEMENT WRAP OPENINC WITH UYERS OF MIRAFI DRAINAGE REALIGN TABLE CLOTH 4" DIA. x 3'-0" PERFORA?ED STYRENE DRA1N PIPE FILL BOTTOM 6" OF DRAIN — PIPE 1NRH DRAIN ROCK FERTILIZER SCH.80 PVC NIPPLE ��,� PERFOFLITED ;1 PIPE BUBBLER DEfAIL _F� :�.�r. � z 3 U _ Z J � a 1"x 4" RWD. . `�� Q' �'s � �%i �� g , e O, `� T � " - .� � 'A ��_,��' �i�'' � o� - � . � �ao� \ / i _ U t- O � U w O 4�� U� W LL � O H m �Z p s F O °Z S m� ��< a zm �� p N=O �z oc W Z ? � � q o N X in N z � c t0 4' DIA. x 3'-0" LONC PERFORATED STYRENE P(PE WITH STYRENE DRAIN GRATE COVER AND FILL BOTTOM 6" ONLY WITH DRAIN ROCKS. �PPROVED'' BY A. ' �� A.-\. DATE �-��l`i � �� r 1'-b' MIN. 2 x CONTAINER (2) 4PLY,1"x 2'-0"MIN. RUBBER TIES INSfALLED WfTH A 7WISf & NAILED TO THE STAKES. 2" PINE ST� (2 TYP.) 1 V4 " GAW. ROOFlNG NAIL(1 Ei1CH END) � �-• 2 TABLETS 2 OR 5 C11L 3 TABLETS 15 GAL 6 TABLE7'S 24" BOX 10 TABLEfS FERTIUZER (2) RUBBER TIES PUCED 6"MAX. BELOW MAIN FORK OR BRANCH (2)2" DIA. LODGE POLE PINE STAI�S TREATED WRH CHEMONITE OR APPOVED EQU�U.. INSTALL STAI�S OUTSIDE ROOTBALL (USE (2) 3' DIA LODGE POLE PINE STAI� FOR 24" BOX OR LARGEf� 1"x 4" ROUCH REDWOOD WITH (2)2" GALV. N�ULS EACH CONNECTION (LOC�TE ON PREVi11LING WIND SIDq PUCE ROOT CROWN V2 '- 3/4 " ABOVE FINISHED CRADE 2' OF FINE SCREENED FIR BARK MULCH i— FINISHED GRADE -,,;� ,�,�,.�,� ,, �— SG�RIFY SIDES r— ROOT RALL I FERTIUZER TABLEfS � AS SPECIFIED � AMENDED PLANTING FILL MIX AS SPECIFIED STANDARD TREE PLANTING & STAKI NG DETAI L DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS .�� " � � • ., , : fN,. ,. • , �, :��' , � ;i .��,�, � '� • : .�• _ . �., �". � �.�, „��:� � � � �. r .�_ 'VID' �-- , i _ , � � �� ,� � � NOTEs: 1. CAST IN � PC. ' 2, GRA7E5 ARE 3!�'� TFiICK 3. STANDARD OPENING 1 i'm 4, pREAKOUT RINGS AT 15" & 19"� , `. � SHOP DRAWINGS URBAN ACCESSOf�I�S 200Q4 144111 A�E NE WOODINV1Li.� WA, 98072 TEL:(2G6) ¢87-0�88 FAX: (2Q6) 56$-3033 � 3'� aT� Ti �' ��____ — �o..� ��T. JOB� � sH�T� DATEB� 4!_95 aR:G.ROSE CK �Y: SCAL.ENQN� , IMATERIAL � �� - ------ ..�,��. 3�. ��s�� , Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: April 25, 2007 a( City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for commercial design review for interior and exterior remodel at 50 California Drive, zoned C-2, APN: 029-243-020 April 30, 2007 1. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. 2. Pedestrian protection may be required where proposed construction is adjacent to the sidewalk area. Reviewed by: V V Date: 4/25/2007 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: April 25, 2007 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for commercial design review for interior and exterior remodel at 50 California Drive, zoned C-2, APN: 029-243-020 April 30, 2007 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 4) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 5) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 6) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 7) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 8) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 9) Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2001 CBC, Chapter 11, for existing buildings including: a. Accessible paths of travel b. Accessible countertops c. Accessible bathrooms d. Accessible parking ., Reviewed��t;.._ . __. . ..; ��_.-, _ _ I�;-- Date: �� - Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: April 25, 2007 a City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 O Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 d Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 O City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 O City Attorney Request for commercial design review for interior and exterior remodel at 50 California Drive, zoned C-2, APN: 029-243-020 April 30, 2007 No comment at this time. Reviewed by: �� f;��,�!y� �; .-��',' ;�� ` � Date: � � � Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: April 25, 2007 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Request for commercial design review for interior and exterior remodel at 50 California Drive, zoned C-2, APN: 029-243-020 April 30, 2007 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors implement construction Best Management Practices (as shown in attached brochure) during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Additional stormwater requirements may be issued as conditions of approval for this project. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Please see attached list of pollution control agencies for additional resources and references that (in most cases) can be viewed and downloaded. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: �� Date: 04/25/07 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Commercial Desipn Review and Parking Variance for interior and exterior chanqes to an existinq automobile dealership at 50 California Drive, zoned C-2, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Sub- Area D(Auto Row), Kent Putnam, propertv owner, APN: 029-243-020, 030, 040, 050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 24, 2007, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19 Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveniences. 2. Said Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of September , 2007 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance. 50 California Drive Effective October 4, 2007 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 13, 2007, A.101, and date stamped August 17, 2007, sheets A.201 through ES.301, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 3. that three 24" box size Chanticleer Pear trees shall be planted along California Drive, along with the city approved sidewalk grates, prior to final inspection, as required by the City Arborist; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD .� . ,� � � ,� � � • gURLINGAME, CA 94010 ��• PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) � � , � - www.burlingame.org � , .. �, �i� ` ��f T � .� '3 ; Site: 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces ihe following puhlic hearing on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 7:00 P,M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Rood, Burlingame, CA: Application for Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance for a remodel of an existing auto dealership at 50 CALIFORNIA DR11/E zoned R-1. 029-243-020 Mailed: September 14, 2007 (Please refer to other side) 016N16504325 � a�.26� Mailed From 9401D US PQSTAG� PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE , Ci� of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose ' Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refe� to other side)