HomeMy WebLinkAbout567 Airport Boulevard - Staff Report10.25.21 PC Meeting
Agenda Item # 8d
567 Airport Blvd.
Page 1 of 5
Telephone
(650) 918-5760
Law Offices Of
Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd
Burlingame, California 94010
www.bronitskylaw.com
October 25, 2021
�,ll;t/[�:�'IC.4T10:�' RECEII�ED
AF'TEIt PRF_P.�R-lTIUN
n � ,�"'-' "fi - - ;
Fax
(650) 649-2316
r-����I�v"��
f; 2;; iu[i
Planning Commission
Ciry of Burlingame � � �I;RUNGA�,-1F
Community Development Department ,��•�;^. � - -,�,
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Re: 567 Airport Blvd. - Proposed Negative Declaration, CUPs and Variance
Applications
Dear Planning Commissioners:
As stated in my prior letter, I am counsel to the property owner at 533 Airport Boulevard,
Burlingame, California and I am submitting the following additional comments on its behalf.
We initially provided comments during the comment period on the proposed Mirigated
Negative Declaration. We then provided an update to you earlier this month, followed by an
email commenting on the requests for two Conditional Use Permits and one Variance. We
have since again met with the applicant but been unable to resolve our concerns. I am
therefore sending you this letter, to be part of the record in connection with your hearing
regarding the above-referenced property now scheduled for Monday, October 25. My
purpose in sending this letter is to provide some background and some of my personal
observations and experiences on the site and traf�ic issues.
My client's building is the one at 533 Airport Boulevard. It was originally a single tenant
building but when that tenant vacated, my client purchased the property. My client's
principals are two long-time local families and the individuals are all seniors using the income
from the building for their retirements. The building has a master tenant, whose principal is
also a small local businessman, and his business is to sublease small and virtual office suites to
other small businesses. The principal of the master tenant also uses the income from this
business for his retirement.
The tenants at the building are all local small and single-person businesses. The tenants are
able to rent space because the rents are kept at a modest level and the amenities shared.
There are, unfortunately, few such buildings in our area.
The building itself is visible from 101 but, as shown in the first page of the Applicant's plans,
should the applicant be allowed to build what it is proposing, 533 Airport Boulevard will be
completely screened from view.
Burlingame Planning Commission
October 25, 2021
Pa�e 2
�
�
!�- V • .. �
.w�.�..
�'��
ti
`��.: ,>; �
�s, ��
�.��� _ «��f � � '�+�.... �� «; �31
- ' �
In addition to an eight-story building on a site zoned for a maximum of five stories, the
applicant also seeks to build a five-story parking structure. As shown in the submitted plans,
this parking structure will be built as close to the property line as possible and will span longer
than the entire building at 533.
- ' %"� -
� � .
�,, �
•,�, \
/' , ^ .
.� � .
�� � �
�� . .
/ �� � �
i � �
i�i � � �'�
, �Q �
� i .
� �� �
r � ; i ..
i ' .
% '' �'t0 , � p� .
' O �'
,
, ; �� � �y � � ,f
// / // / '��l
. . / ��i� � , � .��:
i
� �"= , i� �_�) ��.
i `�� , ^ .
/ i / �
� �`. i� : ,.. ,
. � c' �� �s -, � ;� � ; _• '.
,.� , ; <�
10.25.21 PC Meeting
Agenda Item # Sd
567 Airport Blvd.
Page 2 of 5
rr,•:
-,: �,, r.
-LJ Pxking Structuro
Suiace - �S lavels
', . T --�-, � K
:�� ` in
i; �•�i
i�s,_ i_
�� ; �_:
ir1"` .
O :
r
i O
i�
�
;:,
Burlingame Planning Commission
October 25, 2021
Pa�e 3
10.25.21 PC Meeting
Agenda Item # 8d
567 Airport Blvd.
Page 3 of 5
The view from 533 today is a serene view across 101 and into the coastal hills. This
rendering, taken from the Applicant's plans, will be the view from all of the windows on the
side of 533 facing the parking structure.
����■ �
��■■
Tr'Tl � � ■
i �:i-� ■ � ■ i
�� � _ :n,��.,�
i � ��
; �::..
, --;'; � -fi��--
L-."�..�
Even this rendering does not really demonstrate what it will look like, as the parking structure
will be quite close to the property line and so from a sight line perspective, a portion of the
parking structure will take up the entire view from all the windows on that side of the building.
In the latest meeting with the Applicant, the Applicant suggested that a solution would be for
the owner of 533 to redevelop its building into something much larger and newer enabling it to
substantially increase its value by effectively tripling its rents. Whether that is true or not, it
is irrelevant, as the owner of 533 is not a developer and not interested in further developing the
property and further exacerbating the problem of commercial over-congestion in this area.
This solution also fails to address the loss of affordable office space for small businesses that is
far too rare in our region.
As noted above, the Applicant is seeking two Conditional Use Permits.
Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.52.010:
(a) Conditional use permits may be issued as provided in this chapter for any of the
uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this article
upon conditions designated by the planning commission.
(b) The purpose of the use permit is to allow the proper integration into the
community of uses which may be suitable only in specific locations in a zoning district, or only
if such uses are designed or arranged on the site in a particular manner.
Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.52.020 provides:
The planning commission may grant a conditional use permit in accord with this tide if, from
the application or the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds:
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or
Burlingame Planning Commission
Octaber 25, 2021
Pa�e 4
10.25.21 PC Meeting
Agenda Item # 8d
567 Airport Blvd.
Page 4 of 5
injurious to property or unprovements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title.
These findings cannot be made for either of the the two Conditional Use Permits being sought
by the Applicant. As noted in my prior email, according to the Staff Report, Floor Area Ratio
for an Office/R&D building is .6. The applicant is proposing an FAR of .9 which is a 50%
increase above what is allowed. Similarly, building height, by Code is limited to 65' or 5
stories, whichever is less. The applicant is proposing 133' which is more than double the
legal limit. Allowing this level of alteration from the exisring code would be detremental to
the surrounding properties, including the building at 533 Airport Boulevard.
These proposed excprions are also detrimental to the general welfare in that our region
continues to suffer from overbuilding of office and commercial space. The ratio of
commercial development to housing development in the region is the highest in the nation.
As a result, housing costs and the cost of living have skyrocketed. Traffic, further addressed
below, has adversely affected the general quality of life, such that the employees of many
businesses in the area are fighting against the post-pandemic return to the office.
The parking variance being sought also does not meet the required standards for a variance.
Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.54.020 provides that a variance must be supported by all of
the following findings:
(a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the properry 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 viciniry
None of these findings can be made in this instance. There is nothing exceprional or
extraordinary about this property. Rather, there is only the desire to build something bigger
than cunent zoning allows. Nor property loss would result from a denial of the variance since
Burlingame Planning Commission
October 25, 2021
Pa�e 5
10.25.21 PC Meeting
Agenda item # 8d
567 Airport Blvd.
Page 5 of 5
the Applicant can still build something smaller that is within Code. Granting the variance
will, for the reasons set forth herein, be injurious and finally, the mass and bulk of the
proposed project overwhelms the properties in the general vicinity, it is not consistent with
them. Thus, granting a variance would be inappropriate.
In Foster City, where I currently serve as a planning commissioner and formerly served as a
councilmember and planning commissioner, the City Council had to pass an ordinance
prohibiting left turns at several intersecrions along Hillsdale Avenue to stop the cut-through
traffic during commute hours. While this was an unexpected consequence then, that is no
longer the case. Airport Boulevard runs parallel to 101 and likely serves as a cut-through from
San Mateo to Millbrae along what is, in some areas, a one-lane road. The exisring tra�c
study fails to address this issue, it fails to address the long rumored southbound 101/Peninsula
interchange, it fails to address emergency egress in the event of damage to the Peninsula
Avenue and/or Burlingame Avenue overpasses and thus, presents an incomplete analysis of
relevant issues that can and should be addressed in a full EIR.
The issues relating to the proposed Mirigated Negative Declaration were addressed in my
previous letter and so I will assume that is part of the record and you do not need me to repeat
them.
In closing, we believe that this project is in wholly inappropriate for this site for many reasons,
including those we have discussed in the various communication and based on the comments
from others, including the City of San Mateo. It is our hope that you will therefore not vote
to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, that you will not grant either of the Conditional
Use Permits being requested and that you will not grant the Variance being requested.
Thank you,
�� � �
Charles S. Bromtsky
Attorney at Law
City of Burlingame Item No. 8d
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Regular Action Item
and Conditional Use Permits for New 8-Story Office/Research & Development
Building and Parking Garage
Address: 567 Airport Boulevard
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Request: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, and Conditional Use
Permits for floor area ratio and building height for a new, eight-story office/research and
development building and parking garage.
Applicant and Property Owner: Peninsula Owner, LLC APN: 026-363-590 and 026-363-470
Architect: DES Architects Zoning: AA (Anza Area)
General Plan: Bayfront Commercial Lot Area: 558,962 SF (12.832 acres)
Adjacent Development: Office buildings, Sanchez Channel and Burlingame Lagoon
CEQA Status: Refer to attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-609-P
Current Use: Office
Proposed Use: Office/Research & Development (retain two existing office buildings)
Allowable Use: Office, including research and development office with associated laboratories.
Project Summary: The project site has an address of 555-577 Airport Boulevard; the proposed
Office/Research and Development (Office/R&D) building would have an address of 567 Airport Boulevard. The
project site is located on Airport Boulevard, however the majority of the site is located behind three existing
office buildings (on separate parcels) fronting Airport Boulevard (411, 433 and 533 Airport Boulevard). The
subject site is comprised of 555 and 577 Airport Boulevard, as well as a leased parcel (State Land
Commission) bordering the site along the Sanchez Channel and Burlingame Lagoon; the total site area
measures 12.83 acres.
The project site is bordered by three existing adjacent office buildings at 411, 433 and 533 Airport Boulevard;
Anza Parking (615 Airport Boulevard) is located to the west of the parcel; and the Sanchez Channel,
Burlingame Lagoon, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
shoreline bands are located along the east and south sides of the site. Uses in the area include offices,
office/life science uses, hotels and long-term airport parking uses.
The project site currently contains two multi-tenant office buildings (120,579 SF office building at 555 Airport
Boulevard and 139,154 SF office building at 577 Airport Boulevard), surface level parking and landscaping.
The existing office buildings will be retained. The project plans show a parcelization which would create two
parcels (Parcels 1 and 2) for ownership/management purposes. However, for review of development
standards, the review is based on one parcel since it will continue to function as one parcel (e.g., parking,
vehicular access, etc.).
The proposed project consists of constructing a new eight-story, 241,679 SF Office/R&D building and a six-
level parking garage. The garage will contain five levels of covered parking with the sixth level being open to
the sky. The applicant notes that the proposed density and floor plate size is intended to allow tenant flexibility,
particularly focused on life science and information technology. At this time a tenant has not been determined.
The new parking garage and existing surface level parking spaces would provide parking for all three buildings
on the site. The total building area on site (existing and new buildings) would increase to 501,412 SF. The
proposed project also includes the following improvements:
New surface parking area and access driveways.
New service / trash enclosures, and truck parking area. The existing trash enclosure next tothe bay trail
will be demolished.
New landscaped promenades connecting all three buildings and parking garage.
New Office/Research & Development Project
567 Airport Boulevard
• New landscaped open space and paved plaza on the south and east side of the new building.
■ New stormwater treatment areas connecting to existing pump and outfallto Burlingame Lagoon.
• New and re-located site utilities and equipment supporting the buildings.
The following applications are requested for this project:
■ Environmental Review in accordance with CEQA; Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; a
determination that with mitigation measures there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of
this project;
■ Commercial Design Review for construction of a new 8-story, office/research and development building
and parking garage (Code Sections 25.47.060 and 25.57.010(c));
■ Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio greater than 0.6 FAR (0.9 FAR proposed) (C.S. 25.47.040
(a)); and
• Conditional Use Permit for Building Height (133'-0", 8 stories proposed to the top of the office building
and 65'-0", 6 levels proposed to the top of the parking structure, where 65'-0" or 5 stories, whichever is
less, is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.47.025 (I)).
A total of 1,520 on-site parking spaces would be provided in surface level parking and in a proposed six-level
parking garage, and would serve to provide parking for all three buildings on the site. The top (or sixth level) of
the parking garage would be open. There would be 376 parking spaces provided in open surface parking
areas throughout the site and 1,144 parking spaces in the proposed parking garage. All of the parking spaces
provided would be independently accessible and are code compliant (see Off-Street Parking section for
additional details).
The Bay Trail, seating nodes, mature trees and vegetation currently exist along the shoreline. The project
intends to maintain public access to the BCDC shoreline during and after construction, including the Bay Trail
and 15 public Bay Trail access parking spaces. The Bay Trail, vegetation, and other amenities within the
BCDC shoreline bands would not be altered. During construction, the parking areas along Burlingame Lagoon
and Sanchez Channel will be fenced off. The 15 public access parking spaces will be relocated temporarily
during construction (still close to the Bay Trail) and will be restored back to existing location afterwards.
For a more detailed description of the proposed project, please refer to the attached Project Description
submitted by the applicant, dated November 12, 2020.
November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study Meeting:
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission for Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study
on November 23, 2020. Please refer to the attached November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes for a complete list of comments and concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and the public.
The architect submitted a response letter, dated September 17, 2021, and revised plans and graphics
package, date stamped September 30, 2021, to address the Commission's comments. Please refer to the
applicant's letter for a detailed discussion of the changes made to the project since the initial design review
study meeting, which also includes a summary of changes initiated by the property owner.
Informational Meeting: The applicant held an Informational Meeting via Zoom on November 10, 2020, where
they provided an overview of the project and answered questions. Information about the meeting was included
in the Burlingame eNews digital newsletter and was also sent to persons on the project interest list.
Page 2 of 21
New Office/Research & Deve/opment Project 567 Airport Bou/evard
The following table provides a summary of the project's compliance with the AA District development
standards.
567 Airport Boulevard
Lot Area: 558,962 SF (12.832 acres) Plans date stamped: September 30, 2021
Proposed Allowed/Required
Use and Floor Area Ratio: Office/R&D Office/R&D
0.9 FAR ' 0.6 FAR
501,412 SF Total 335,377 SF
(120,579 SF (e) office at 555 Airport)
(139,154 SF (e) office at 577 Airport)
(241,679 SF new office/R&D at
567 Airport Blvd)
SETBACKS:
Front: 277'-7" to building 30'-0" for 1 S� two stories/
Parking structure is not adjacent to 40'-0" for above two stories
front property line
Left Side: 410'-0" to building 10'-0"
235'-0" to parking structure
Right Side: 340'-0" to building 10'
10'-0" to parking structure from
interior property line
Rear: 142'-0" to building 25'-0"
342'-0" to parking structure
Shoreline Setback: Complies Average of 65' between structure
& shoreline
(Burlingame Lagoon): 142'-0" to building
342'-0" to parking structure
(Sanchez Channel); 410'-0" to building
235'-0" to parking structure
' Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio greater than 0.6 FAR (0.9 FAR proposed) (Code Section
25.47.040 (a)).
Table continued on next page.
Page 3 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project
567 Airport Boulevard
Lot Area: 558,962 SF (12.832 acres)
567 Airport Boulevard
Plans date stamped: September 30, 2021
Proposed Allowed/Required
BUILDING ENVELOPE;
Lot Coverage: 25% 35%
141,891 SF 195,636 SF
Building Height: 133'-0" (8 stories) to top of building 65' or 5 stories - whichever is less
parapet 2 CUP required for heights
65'-0" (6 levels) to top of parking exceeding this limit
structure 2
View Corridor: 56% unblocked 50% unblocked
OFF-STREET PARK/NG:
Number of Parking Spaces: 1505 spaces for office buildings + 1,672 spaces based on
15 public access spaces 1:300 SF ratio
1,520 total spaces
1,520 spaces based on reduction
by implementation of TDM Plan
(3 cars per 1:1000 SF or
1:330 SF ratio)
C/ear Back-up Space: 24'-0" or greater 24'-0"
Parking Space 8'-6" x 18'-0" (standard) 8'-6" x 18'-0" (standard)
Dimensions: 8'-0" x 17'-0" (compact) 8'-0" x 17'-0" (compact)
LANDSCAP/NG
Total Site Landscaping: 35% 15%
Front Setback 690�0 60%
Landscaping:
Parking Areas: 11.7% 10%
Trash Enclosure/Truck Located between 567 and 577 Airport Must be located at sides or rear
Loading Access: Blvd buildings, is setback more than of building(s), must be setback at
100' from the shoreline least 75' from rear property line,
and not within 100' of the
shoreline
2 r....,J�a�,.....i � �,.,. n__.Y:a c__ r,..:i�:__
� �.���na ivi vuiitaiiit,, i iciyi�l � IJJ-V �O JWIIC') fJfUFJUS@Q LO Lil@ t�P 0
65'-0" (6 stories) proposed to the top of the parking structure, where 65'-0" or 5 stories,
maximum allowed) (Code Section 25.47.025 (I)).
r tne ornce auiiaing and
whichever is less, is the
Page 4 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project 567 Airport Boulevard
General Plan: In January 2019, the City adopted a new General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). The General Plan designates this site as Bayfront Commercial. The Bayfront Commercial
designation provides opportunities for both local and tourist commercial uses. Permitted uses include
entertainment establishments, restaurants, hotels and motels, retail, and higher-intensity office uses. The
proposed Office/R&D development would be consistent with those permitted under the Burlingame General
Plan, as well as the Burlingame Municipal Code.
The General Plan includes various goals, policies, and implementation framework items pertaining to growth,
development, design standards, and roadways and infrastructure in the city. The General Plan also includes a
vision specific to the Bayfront. In addition to the existing land use designation and zoning, numerous policies
have been adopted for the purpose of reducing environmental impacts. Overall the proposed Office/R&D
project is consistent with General Plan goals and policies (see Section XI. Land Use and Planning on pages 3-
78 through 3-91 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for more information).
The City is in the process of reviewing a comprehensive update of the Zoning Code. The update is intended to
provide better consistency between the General Plan and zoning regulations. Until the new Zoning Code is
adopted, projects may submit planning applications under the existing zoning regulations (in this instance, the
AA District regulations) provided the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan goals and
policies.
Commercial Design Review: Commercial Design Review is required for new commercial buildings pursuant
to Code Section 25.57.010(c)(1). Commercial Design Review was instituted for commercial projects in 2001
with the adoption of the Commercial Design Guidebook.
Materials proposed for the exterior of the Office/R&D building include pre-finish metal panels, fins, columns
and rooftop screening, and metal sunshades and canopies. High-performance glazing is proposed for the
exterior window system. The new Office/R&D building would be located between the two existing office
buildings at 555 and 557 Airport Boulevard and behind the proposed parking garage.
Materials proposed for the exterior of the parking structure include painted concrete columns and spandrels,
pre-finish metal panels, metal fins, metal wire mesh or perforated metal panels, cable railing, and Low-E
green/blue tinted vision glazing. The new six-level parking garage would be located behind the adjacent
buildings at 433 and 533 Airport Boulevard and associated parking deck on the northwest side. The garage
will contain five levels of covered parking with the sixth level being open to the sky. The parking structure is
approximately 73 feet from the proposed office/R&D building and the top parking level is setback another 60
feet. There are two access points from the main campus driveway into the parking garage.
To better help visualize the proposed project, perspectives of the proposed project are provided in the
Graphics Package submitted by the applicant, date stamped September 30, 2021. For additional information
with respect to the proposed design approach, please refer to the Project Description submitted by the
applicant (attached).
Floor Area Ratio — Request for Conditional Use Permit: Planning staff would note that the maximum FAR
allowed under the adopted new General Plan is 3.0, so the proposed 0.9 FAR proposed on the site with this
project is in compliance with the General Plan. In the AA District an application for a Conditional Use Permit is
required for the proposed 0.9 FAR on the site (Conditional Use Permit required to exceed 0.6 FAR). Please
refer to the attached Conditional Use Permit form completed by the applicant.
Page 5 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project 567 Airport Boulevard
Building Height — Request for Conditional Use Permit: The maximum building height allowed by right in the
AA District is 65'-0" or 5 stories. Code Section 25.47.025 (I) allows for projects with a structure over 65'-0" or 5
stories in height to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for
the Office/R&D building (133'-0" proposed to the top of the building) and parking six-level parking structure
(65'-0" proposed to the top of the parking structure). Staff would note that the existing office buildings
surrounding the project are five to eight stories in height. Please refer to the attached Conditional Use Permit
form completed by the applicant.
In addition, the project must also comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. On January 8,
2021, the FAA issued an approval letter to the applicant that identified that an aeronautical study was
prepared. This study found that the proposed structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not
be a hazard to air navigation. This FAA approval includes an expiration date of July 8, 2022, therefore staff has
included a condition of approval requiring that the FAA letter on file with the City at the time of building permit
issuance be current and renewed if necessary, dependent on the date that a building permit is issued for this
project.
View Corridor: To provide a view corridor, the width of any structure or combined structures on a lot shall not
obstruct more than fifty (50) percent of the street frontages. This is an irregularly-shaped lot with three
segments of street frontages along Airport Boulevard, two of which serve as driveway access points from
Airport Boulevard to the buildings on the site. The applicant submitted a diagram on sheet A3.2 showing the
proposed building and the view corridor calculation. Based on the project's street frontage on Airport
Boulevard, the proposed project would comply with this requirement by preserving 56% of the view corridor.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project included an analysis of the view corridor in
Section I, Aesthetics (see page 3-7 and Figure 10).
Off-Street Parking/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan: With the proposed project, there
would be a total of 501,412 SF of office and office/R&D uses on the site (120,579 SF existing office building at
555 Airport Boulevard; 139,154 SF existing office building at 577 Airport Boulevard; and the proposed 241,679
SF office/R&D building at 567 Airport Boulevard). Code Section 25.70.040 requires 1 space per 300 SF for
office uses, which would result in a total of 1,672 off-street parking spaces for all three buildings. In addition,
15 spaces must be provided for for public Bay Trail Access parking. In total, 1,687 parking spaces would be
required. However, the required off-street parking may be reduced through implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management Plan.
Krupka Consulting prepared a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) for the proposed project (see
attached TDM Plan, dated November 6, 2020). The purpose of the TDM Plan is to define specific TDM
measures to be implemented by the Project to meet the City's TDM Program goal, which is: at least 20% of all
employees regularly commute to work using modes other than single occupant vehicles (SOVs) or use an
alternative work hour schedule. This would help to reduce traffic congestion, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and other air pollution, and reduce the demand for parking. Equally important with regard to
purpose is C/CAG's (City/County of Associated Government) stipulation that local jurisdictions must require the
developer and all subsequent tenants to reduce demand for all new peak hour trips projected to be generated
by developments. C/CAG established several choices for local jurisdictions, including implementing TDM
Programs that have the capacity to fully reduce the demand for new peak hour trips. Therefore, the purpose of
the TDM Plan was expanded to address the C/CAG requirement.
With this application, the applicant is proposing a total of 1,505 parking spaces for the office buildings and 15
required public Bay Trail access spaces, for a total of 1,520 parking spaces. This equates to a ratio of 1 space
per 330 SF (or 3 cars per 1,000 SF). This is accomplished through implementation of the TDM Plan, which
would reduce the parking demand by 20%, which in this case would be 1,338 parking spaces plus 15 public
Page 6 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Projeci 567 Airport Boulevard
Bay Trail access parking spaces. With the proposed project, 167 additional parking spaces are provided than
would be allowed with the TDM Plan (1,505 — 1,338 = 167 spaces). Implementation of a TDM Plan is
consistent with General Plan Policies M-7.5 (allowing creative parking approaches) and M-7.6 (reduction in
parking demand through travel options programs such as parking cash-out and other TDM strategies),
therefore a Variance for reduced parking is not required.
There would be 376 parking spaces provided in open surface parking areas throughout the site and 1,144
parking spaces in the proposed six-level parking garage. The 1,520 parking spaces provided would consist of
1,188 standard, 300 compact and 32 disabled-accessible spaces. Of those spaces, there would be 14 clear
air vanpool, 31 electric vehicle and 13 electric-vehicle ready spaces as required by code. Bicycle parking for
41 bicycles would also be provided on-site (4 short-term and 37 long-term).
Proposed TDM measures are described in greater detail in the TDM Plan, but in summary they include the
following:
■ Bicvcle Parkinq - The Project would include 41 bicycle parking spaces, with 37 Class I(secure)
spaces in the bicycle enclosure on the first floor of the parking structure and 4 Class II spaces in
2 bike racks near building entries.
■ Shower Facilities - The new building would include shower rooms for men and women on the
first floor, with a total of eight shower stalls, to support employees who bicycle and walk to work
or exercise during the day, or both.
■ Dedicated peak qeriod shuttle service to BART/Caltrain that serves at least 60 round trip riders
during the peak hour. This would be provided through direct contract or shared arrangement
with a shuttle service sponsored by another development or entity.
■ Subsidized transit passes for at least 25% of employees with value of at least $20 per month
per pass, or equivalent commuter benefit allowance or subsidy. This would be an employee
benefit for the duration of employment and subject to change and customization to meet
particular tenant conditions.
■ Parkinq Manaqement - The Project would include preferential parking of the following kinds:
- Accessible ("ADA Stalls") - 32 total stalls (6 van, 26 standard), located in the parking
structure and adjacent to existing buildings.
- Clean Air Vehicle - 14 stalls, located in the parking structure.
- Electric Vehicle Charging - 45 total (32 equipped, 13 ready), located in the parking structure
and adjacent to the new building.
- Bay access stalls ("BCDC Stalls) - 15 stalls located adjacent to the Bay Trail - 45 EV parking
(32 installed)
Evaluating the performance and success of the TDM plans is essential to ensure TDM measures are
implemented and effective. The TDM will require regular monitoring and reporting to ensure that tenants are in
compliance. The TDM Plan includes a monitoring and reporting plan that consists of an annual survey of
employees and preparation of an annual report (see conditions of approval 11-15).
A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the project by TJKM in March 2021, and revised in
September 2021 (see attached). The purpose of the report is to evaluate the project's traffic impacts to the
surrounding transportation system pursuant to requirements under CEQA. The TIA describes existing and
Page 7 of 21
New Office/Research & Deve/opment Project 567 Airport Boulevard
future conditions related to transportation with and without the proposed project. In addition, the TIA includes
information on regional and local roadway networks, pedestrian and transit conditions, and transportation
facilities associated with the project. Based on the environmental analysis, it was determined that the
proposed project would have no adverse impacts on transportation, and therefore no mitigation measures were
required.
Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plans (refer to sheets
L1.1 through L5). In their Project Description, the applicant notes the following:
"The landscape design incorporates the preservation of 148 existing trees on-site and adds 251 new trees. The
outdoor program incorporates flex amenity spaces adjacent to each building and ties the landscape together
with the use of similar plant material, hardscape geometry, and paving materials. The generous amount of
open space at the southern exposure adjacent to the new building provides ample opportunity for outdoor
amenities. It provides an overlook to capitalize on the lagoon and hill views as well as provides a variety of
seating, dining opportunities, and lawn games. The plant palette is derived from a combination of drought
tolerant native and adaptive plants which have a high success rate in this part of Burlingame. They are located
on the site to maximize on microclimate factors such as sun exposure, shade, wind, etc. The plant palette is
coordinated with C3 treatment measures such as bio-retention areas, such that the bio-retention areas fit
seamlessly within the landscape design."
The AA District standards required that 15% of the site be landscaped. The project proposes 35% site
landscaping and therefore complies with the site landscaping requirements. Within the parking area, 10% of
the area is required to contain landscaping (11.7% proposed). Lastly, 80% of the front setback is required to
be landscaped. The existing front setback landscaping is nonconforming, with only 69% of the front setback
containing landscaping; there are no changes proposed to the landscaping areas within the front setback.
Based on the unique configuration of the lot, much of the front setback areas consists of driveways that provide
access to the buildings on the site.
Public Facilities Impact Fees: The purpose of public facilities impact fees is to provide funding for necessary
maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on
the uses and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development
project. The Streets and Traffic impact fee is not assessed because it is addressed with the Bayfront
Development Fee (below).
Based on the proposed Office/R8�D building, the required public facilities impact fees for this development
project total $562,145.35 and is required to be paid in full, prior to issuance of the building permit.
Commercial Linkage Fees: Commercial Linkage Fees are based on the land use and square footage for new
commercial development projects. The intent of this fee is, in summary, to offset the demand for affordable
housing that is created by new development and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany
new commercial development. These fee calculations include gross square feet of floor area, excluding
enclosed parking areas. In addition, the rates vary for prevailing wage and non-prevailing wage for labor used
for the construction of the project. The fees for office uses are charged per square feet ($20.00 per SF if
utilizing prevailing wages or $25.00 per SF if not utilizing prevailing wages). Based on the proposed
Office/R&D building, the required Commercial Linkage Fee for this development project totals $4,833,580 (with
prevailing wages) or $6,041,975 (without prevailing wages) and is required to be paid in full, prior to issuance
of the building permit.
Page 8 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project 567 Airport Boulevard
Bayfront Development Fees: The purpose of Bayfront Development Fees is to provide funding for future
construction, improvement and enlargement of major arterials and traffic control devices for the primary
purpose of carrying through traffic and providing a network of roads within the Bayfront area on the east side of
US 101 and to impose charges to support and defer the cost of the benefits rendered to owners and occupants
of lands enjoying these improvements.
The fees for office uses are charged per thousand square feet ($2,781 per thousand square feet), and based
on the proposed Office/R&D building, the Bayfront Development fees for this development project total
$672,109.30. Half of this fee is required to be paid prior to issuance of the building permit and the second half
of the fee is required to be paid prior to scheduling the final inspection.
Environmental Review: The project requires discretionary review under the City's Zoning Regulations and is
therefore subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental review
is required because the proposed project includes a new commercial building that exceeds 10,000 square feet
in floor area and does not qualify for any exemption.
On November 23, 2020, the Planning Commission held an Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study
Meeting where the Planning Commission provided comments on potential environmental effects to be
considered in the CEQA document. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project
was prepared by ICF, the environmental/CEQA consultant for the project, and determined that there were no
environmental impacts that were identified that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels (see
attached IS/MND).
Based on the environmental analysis, it was determined that the proposed project would have no adverse
impacts on the environmental in the areas of aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, energy, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources,
population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.
Although the environmental analysis did find that the project could have a significant effect in the areas of air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources, mitigation
measures were identified to reduce adverse impacts to acceptable level.
The 30-day public review period for the IS/MND occurred from June 28, 2021 to July 29, 2021. The City
received comment letters during the public comment period from the California Department of Transportation
(dated July 28, 2021), the City of San Mateo (dated July 29, 2021), and the Law Offices of Charles S. Bronitsky
(dated July 29, 2021). A Response to Comments document (attached) has been prepared by ICF to formally
address each comment contained in these letters.
Based upon review of the comments received during the public circulation period, there is no evidence to
indicate that implementation of the project, including the proposed mitigation measures, would result in a
significant environmental impact under CEQA. Furthermore, based on the comments certain text revisions to
the IS/MND were included. The text revisions clarify, expand, or update information presented in the IS/MND.
The revised text does not provide new information that would result in any new significant impact or any
substantial increase in the severity of an impact identified in the IS/MND, therefore recirculation of the IS/MND
is not required.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-609-P) is attached for reference. The mitigation measures
in the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of
approval (in italics).
Page 9 of 21
New Office/Research & Deve/opment Project � 567 Airport Bou/evard
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Fire, Engineering, Parks, and Stormwater
Divisions. Staff would note that the applicant is currently working with the Fire Division to address their
remaining comments.
Design Review: The criteria for design review in the Anza Area is detailed in Code Section 25.47.052 and
requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations:
Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for the Anza
subarea and the role of the shoreline in creating a network of interconnected open spaces; and
2. Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the commercial
use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate
street frontages, and for properties with any water frontage, that the design is sensitive to the
surrounding bodies of water, physical and visual presence of the Bay Trail, and the orientation of the
prevailing winds; and
3. On visually prominent sites and sites with shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, the design shall fit the site, support the Bay Trail and its park and
recreational uses, provide for maximum user access and support recreational use by those who work in
the area as well as those who visit; and the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding
development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Anza subarea; and
4. Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Anza subarea
including materials used in existing development, location and use of plant materials, and compatibility
with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and
5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the lot that is consistent among
primary elements of the structure(s) and with the directives of the design guidelines for the Anza
subarea; and
6. Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as orientation to minimize wind
obstruction on San Francisco Bay, protection of the Bay environment, and landscaping and pedestrian
circulation which enriches and enhances the existing recreation opportunities of the area, including
extension of the Bay Trail as well as the commercial neighborhood.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: The project may be found to be compatible with the
requirements of the City's criteria for design review based on the following:
That the proposed building and parking garage, setback 142 feet and 342 feet from the property
line adjacent to the Burlingame Lagoon, respectively, maintains accessibility to the existing Bay
Trail along the shoreline, retains the network of interconnected open spaces in the Anza Area, and
continues to provide for maximum user access and supports recreational use by those who work in
the area as well as those who visit;
■ That the proposed building and parking garage, located more than 200 feet from Airport Boulevard,
are placed on the property so as not to dominate the street frontage; and that the proposed building
and parking garage, setback 142 feet and 342 feet from the property line adjacent to the
Burlingame Lagoon, respectively, provide ample open space to the Burlingame Lagoon and Bay
Trail;
Page 10 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project
567 Airport Bou/evard
That the proposed project includes a variety of materials, finishes, and architectural treatments,
designed in such a way that is compatible with the surroundings, including pre-finish metal panels,
fins, columns, rooftop screening, metal sunshades and canopies, and high-performance glazing for
the proposed Office/R&D building and painted concrete columns and spandrels, pre-finish metal
panels, metal fins, metal wire mesh or perforated metal panels, cable railing, and Low-E green/blue
tinted vision glazing for the parking garage;
that the site is surrounded by 5 to 8 story buildings and therefore would be compatible with the
mass and bulk of buildings in the area; that the projecYs parking garage is located behind an
existing 5-story building and therefore would be screened from Airport Boulevard; and
■ that proposed landscaping on the site, including retaining 148 existing trees on-site and adding 251
new trees, is designed in such a way that it enhances and creates a buffer with Burlingame Lagoon.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general
plan and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems
necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner
compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining
properties in the general vicinity.
Suggested Findings for a Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio: The project may be found
to be compatible with the requirements of the City's criteria for a conditional use permit based on the
following:
That the floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.9 proposed on the site (including the two existing commercial
buildings on the site), although greater than 0.6 FAR allowed currently in the Zoning Code, is
significantly less than and in compliance with the maximum allowed FAR of 3.0 under the adopted
new General Plan, and therefore 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, since it is well articulated with substantial recesses and will be compatible with
buildings in the area that are five to eight stories in height;
That the proposed commercial use, at the proposed FAR of 0.9, will be located and conducted in
a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; and
That reasonable conditions are proposed to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible
with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining
properties in the general vicinity.
Page 11 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project
567 Airport Boulevard
Suggested Findings for a Conditiona/ Use Permit for Building Height: The project may be found to
be compatible with the requirements of the City's criteria for a conditional use permit based on the
following:
That the proposed eight-story building, measuring 133'-0" in height and the proposed six-level
parking garage, measuring 65'-0" in height, at the proposed locations, 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, since it is well articulated with substantial recesses and
will be compatible with buildings in the area that are five to eight stories in height;
That the proposed commercial use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; and
That reasonable conditions are proposed to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible
with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining
properties in the general vicinity.
Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must
review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant (negative) effect on the environment.
Suggested Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration: In accordance with Section 15063(d) of the
CEQA Guidelines, the environmental analysis in the Initial Study was conducted to determine if there
were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. Based on the environmental
analysis, it was determined that the proposed project would have no adverse impacts on the
environmental in the areas of aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources,
population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and
wildfire. Although the environmental analysis did find that the project could have a significant effect in
the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, noise, and tribal cultural
resources, mitigation measures were identified to reduce adverse impacts to acceptable level.
Therefore, based on the Initial Study there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of this
project.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Affirmative action should be
taken separately by resolution and include findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision. The
reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record.
■ Environmental Review in accordance with CEQA; Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
■ Commercial Design Review.
■ Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio.
■ Conditional Use Permit for Building Height.
Page 12 of 21
New Office/Research & Deve/opment Project
567 Airport Bou/evard
Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures taken from the IS/MND (shown in italics).
The mitigation measures are included below in italics as part of the conditions of approval. The mitigations will
be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property and constitute the mitigation monitoring
plan for this project. At the public hearing the following mitigation measures and conditions should be
considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
September 30, 2021, sheets A1 through A11.1, C1.0 through C5.0, L1 through L5, and LT-1 through
LT-2B; and that the maximum elevation at the top of the building parapet shall not exceed elevation
145.00 feet as shown on the plans;
2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior
walls or parapet walls, or changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural
features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning
Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
4. that the conditions of the Building Division's September 21 and May 19, 2020 memos, the Fire
Division's November 3, October 7, and June 20, 2020 memos, the Engineering Division's October 19
and May 19, 2020 memos, the Parks Division's October 7 and May 28, 2020 memos, and the
Stormwater Division's October 27, October 1 and May 27, 2020 memos shall be met;
5
0
that the applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division any required
applications for a tentative and final parcel map for processing in conformance with the Subdivision
Map Act;
that construction of the foundation systems for the building and parking garage shall not include pile
driving;
7. that if the City determines that the structure interferes with City communications in the City, the property
owner shall permit public safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for City
communications to be located on the structure in a location to be agreed upon by the City and the property
owner. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply source for use by the equipment. The applicant
shall permit authorized representatives of the City to gain access to the equipment location for purposes of
installation, maintenance, adjustment, and repair upon reasonable notice to the property owner or owner's
successor in interest. This access and location agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent
and meaning of this condition;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the
Bayfront Development fee in the amount of $336,054.65, made
submitted to the Planning Division;
applicant shall pay the first half of the
payable to the City of Burlingame and
Page 13 of 21
New Office/Research & Deve/opment Project 567 Airport Boulevard
9. that prior to approval of final framing of the building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the
Bayfront Development fee in the amount of $336,054.65, made payable to the City of Burlingame and
submitted to the Planning Division;
10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the affordable housing
commercial linkage fee in the amount of $4,833,580 (with prevailing wages) or $6,041,975 (without
prevailing wages), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the Public Impact Fees
in the amount of $562,145.35, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning
Division;
12. that the project shall include the Project Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures as
proposed in the TDM Plan, prepared by Krupka Consulting, dated November 6, 2020;
13. that a TDM annual report shall be prepared by a qualified, independent consultant and paid for by the
owner and submitted to the City of Burlingame annually; with the initial, or baseline, commute survey
report to be conducted and submitted one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy for 75
percent or more of the project and annually after that;
14. that the TDM annual report shall provide information about the level of alternative mode-uses and in the
event a 20 percent mode shift (i.e., proportion of occupants that use something other than a car to/from
the subject property) towards alternative transportation is not met, the report shall explain how and why
the goal has not been reached; in such a circumstance the annual report shall identify a work plan, to
be approved by the City of Burlingame, which describes additional or alternative measures for
implementation that would be necessary to enhance the TDM program to attain the TDM goal of 20
percent mode shift;
15. that the City may consider whether the employer/tenant has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM
goals and may allow the owner a six-month "grace period" to implement additional TDM measures to
achieve the 20 percent mobility mode shift;
16. that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a covenant agreement shall be recorded with the
San Mateo County Assessor and Recorder's Office to provide constructive notice to all future owners of
the property of any ongoing programmatic requirements that discloses the required Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) provisions and any conditions of approval related herein to compliance
and reporting for the TDM;
17. prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction, the project sponsor shall verify that the
January 8, 2021, FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation for the project is still current and has
not expired (July 8, 2022) and if expired a new FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation shall
be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to building permit issuance for vertical construction;
18. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the City of Burlingame Parks Division to
remove any existing protected size trees on the subject property and that the project shall comply with
the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame and enforced by
the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of
building permit application for vertical construction and the street trees will be protected during
construction as required by the City Arborist;
Page 14 of 21
New Office/Research & Deve/opment Project
567 Airport Boulevard
19. 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;
20. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall
not occur until a sitework 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;
21. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the
project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site;
22. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be
prohibited;
23. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public
right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods;
24. that the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffic control plan for the duration of
construction for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit
for vertical construction; the construction staging plan shall include construction equipment parking,
construction employee parking, timing and duration of various phases of construction and construction
operations hours; the staging plan shall address public safety and shall ensure that worker's vehicles
and construction equipment shall not be parked in public parking areas with exceptions for construction
parking along the street frontages of the project site;
25. that the project applicant and its construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction management
plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan must include at least the following
items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic and parking congestion
during construction:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and
deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs,
cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes;
b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts
on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to
minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area;
c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding
when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur;
d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris
attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant; and
e. Designation of a readily available contact person for construction activities who would be
responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding traffic or parking. This coordinator
would determine the cause of the complaint and, where necessary, would implement
reasonable measures to correct the problem.
26. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to construction
during the wet season the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential
for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment
control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout
Page 15 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project
567 Airport Boulevard
temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit
dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and
other chemicals;
27. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface
drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall
be provided that discharges to an interceptor;
28. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation
plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application for vertical construction;
29. 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;
30. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance;
31. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
32. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, as
amended by the City of Burlingame;
The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the
inspections noted in each condition:
33. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
and set the building envelope;
34. that prior to the underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure;
35. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of
perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division;
36. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
parapet and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
37. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans;
Page 16 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project
Mitigation Measures from Initial Study
Air Quality
567 Airport Boulevard
38. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment greater than
50 horsepower used during construction is equipped with engines that meet EPA Tier 4 Final emission
standards.
Biological Resources
39. The Project Sponsor shall protect nesting birds and their nests during construction through
implementation of the following measures:
a. Construction shall avoid the avian nesting period (February 1 fhrough August 31) to the extent
feasible.
b. If construction occurs during the bird nesting season, a qualified wildlife biologist* shall
conduct a nesting bird preconstruction survey within 7 days prior to the start of construction at
areas that have not been previously disturbed by Project activities or after any construction
breaks of 10 days or more. The survey shall be performed within a radius of 100 feet and 500
feet of the construction area to locate any active nests of passerine and raptor (including
peregrine falcon) species, respectively, and shall be in those areas that constitute suitable
habitat for the species.
c. lf active nests are located during the preconstruction nesting bird survey, a qualified biologist
shall determine if the schedule of construction activities could affect active nests; if so, the
following measures shall apply.�
If the qualified biologist determines that construction is not likely to affect an active nest,
construction may proceed without restriction; however, a qualified biologist shall regularly
monitor the nest at a frequency determined appropriate for the surrounding construction
activity to confirm there is no adverse effect. Spot-check monitoring frequency shall be
determined on a nest-by-nest basis, considering the particular construction activity,
duration, proximity to the nest, and physical barriers that may screen activity from the nest.
ii. lf it is determined that construction may cause a direct impact or abandonment of an active
nest, the qualified biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around the nest(s), and
all Project work shall halt within the buffer to avoid disturbance or destruction until a
qualified biologist determines that fhe nest is no longer active. Typically, buffer distances
are a minimum of 50 feet for passerines, 250 feet for raptors, and 500 feet for peregrine
fa/cons; however, the buffers may be decreased if an obstruction, such as a building, is
within the line of sight between the nest and construction.
iii. Modifying nest buffer distances, allowing
and/or modifying construction methods in
the qualified biologist and in compliance
other applicable laws.
certain construction activities within the buffer,
proximity to active nests shall be approved by
wifh fhe California Fish and Game Code and
Page 17 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project
567 Airport Boulevard
iv. Any work that must occur within established no-disturbance buffers around active nests
shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If adverse effects in response to Project work
within the buffer are observed and could compromise the nest, work within the no-
disturbance buffer(s) shall halt until the nest occupants have fledged.
v. Any birds that begin nesting within the Project site and survey buffers amid construction
activities are assumed to be habituated to construction-related or similar noise and
disturbance levels. Work may proceed around these active nests, subjecf to the measure
above that begins with "Modifying nest buffer distances..."
40. The Project Sponsor shall protect bats during construction by implementation of the following
measures:
a. A qualified wildlife biologist (i. e., experienced with roosting habitats in trees and the life histories
of local bats) shall examine trees for suitable bat roosting habitat (e.g., large tree cavities, basal
hollows, /oose or peeling bark, large snags, palm trees with intact thatch) prior to removal or
trimming. Trees that provide suitable or potentially suitable bat habitat shall be flagged and
identified as habitat. Because of the limited timeframe for tree removal (September 15 fo
October 31), the tree habitat assessment should be conducted early to provide information for
tree removal planning. Riparian woodlands, orchards, and stands of mature broadleaf trees are
considered potential habitat for solitary foliage-roosting bat species. Because signs of bat use
are not easily found, and because trees cannot be completely surveyed for bat roosts, the
protective measures listed below shall be implemented for trees that contain potential roosting
habitat.
b. Removal or disturbance of trees that provide bat roosting habitat shall be avoided between
April 1 and September 15 (the maternity period) to avoid effects on pregnant fema/es and active
maternity roosts (whether colonial or solitary).
c. Removal of trees providing bat roosting habitat shall be conducted between September 15 and
October 39, which corresponds to the time period when bats have not yet entered torpor or
begun caring for nonvolant young.
d. If a maternity roost is found, whether solitary or colonial, that roost shall remain undisturbed until
September 15 or until a qualified biologist has determined that the roost is no longer active. The
qualified biologist shall determine the extent of suitable no-work buffers around roost and/or
hibernaculum sites. Buffer distances may vary, depending on the species and activities being
conducted.
Removal of trees (September 15 to October 31) that provide suitable roosting habitat shall be
monitored by qualified biologists. Trees that provide suitable habitat for bats shall be trimmed
and/or removed in a two-phase removal process conducted over two consecutive days. In the
afternoon on the first day, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter, using
chainsaws only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided, and only
branches or limbs without those features shall be removed. On the second day, the entire tree
shall be removed. Biologists shall search downed vegetation for dead and injured bats. The
presence of dead or injured bats that are species of special concern shall be reported to
CDFW. The biologist shall prepare a biological monitoring report, which shall be provided to the
Project lead, sponsor, and CDFW.
Page 18 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project
567 Airport Boulevard
The /oss of occupied roosting habitaf shall be mitigated by constructing and/or installing
suitable replacement habitat on the Project site. Suitable replacement habitat could include
a bat house mounted on a po/e or on the side of a building or sfructure at least 10 feef off
the ground to protect it from predators. Bat houses are usually made of wood or a
combination of wood and other materials (e.g., metal and plastic) and vary in size. Bat
Conservation International recommends that bat houses be at least 24 inches high and 16
inches wide. Existing and new buildings as well as landscaped areas on the Project site
afford ample opportunities for placement of a bat house.
Placement and installation methods for replacement habitat shall be designed so as not to
affect riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities or state or federally protected
wetlands. In addition, the installation of replacement habitat shall avoid the avian nesting
period (February 1 through August 31) to the extent feasible. If not, Mitigation Measure 810-
1 shall be implemented prior to installation. A roosting habitat design and monitoring plan
shall be developed in coordination with CDFW. The roosting habitat shall be monitored to
ensure it functions as intended.
41. The applicant, or contractor, shall implement the following measures to minimize hazards for birds:
a. Reduce large areas of transparent or reflective g/ass;
b. Locate water features, trees, and bird habitat away from building exteriors to reduce reflection;
c. Reduce or eliminate the visibility of landscaped areas behind glass;
d. Turn non-emergency lighting off at night, especially during bird migration season (February—May
and August—November);
e. lnclude window coverings that adequately block light transmission from rooms where interior
lighting is used at night and install motion sensors or controls to extinguish lighfs in unoccupied
spaces; and
Design and/or install light fixtures that minimize light pollution, including light trespass, over-
illumination, glare, light clutter, and skyglow, and use bird-friendly colors for lighting when
possible. The City of San Francisco's Standards for Bird-safe Buildings provides an overview of
building design and lighting guidelines to minimize bird/building collisions that could be used to
guide the applicant.
Cultural Resources
42. The applicant shall retain a professional archaeologist to provide a preconstruction briefing to
supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor and alert them to the possibility of exposing
significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project sife. During the briefing, the
archaeologist shall discuss archaeological objects that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation
at the site of the discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding protection of the discovery and
notification of the Project Sponsor and archaeological team. An "Alert SheeY' shall be posted in
conspicuous locations at the Project site to alert personnel to the procedures and protocols to follow
regarding the discovery of potentially significant prehistoric archaeological resources.
Page 19 of 21
New Office/Research & Deve/opment Project
567 Airport Boulevard
In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work shall halt within at
least 100 feet of the discovery and the area avoided until a qualified professional archaeologist has
evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If the find is determined to be
potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall
develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
43. If human remains are unearthed during construction, pursuant to Section 50977.98 of the Public
Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, there shall be no further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the nature of the remains. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Lead Agency shall work with the NAHC
and the Project Sponsor to develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains.
Geo/ogy/Soi/s
44. In areas containing Middle to Late Pleistocene—era sediments where it is unknown if paleontological
resources exist, prior to grading, an assessment shall be made by a qualified paleontological
professional to establish the need for paleontological monitoring. Should paleontological monitoring be
required after recommendation by the professional paleontologist and approval by the Community
Development Director, paleontological monitoring shall be implemented.
Noise
45. Best practices to minimize construction noise include the following:
a. Limiting heavy equipment use to daytime hours not regulated by the City (i.e., between
8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday);
b. Locating stationary equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, cement mixers, idling trucks) as far
as practical from noise-sensitive land uses;
c. Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound-
control devices such as exhaust mufflers fhat are at least as effective as those originally
provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize
noise generation;
d. Using equipment powered by electric motors instead of gasoline or diesel-powered engines;
e. Preventing excessive noise by shutting down idle vehicles or equipment;
Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment;
g. Construcfing barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land uses or taking
advantage of existing barrier features (e.g., buildings) to block sound transmission to noise-
sensitive land uses (the barriers should be designed to obstruct the line-of-sighf between the
noise-sensitive land use and onsite construction equipment); and
h. Notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work.
Page 20 of 21
New Office/Research & Development Project
567 Airport Boulevard
46. As required, the applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for building mechanical equipment, such
as the HVAC system and emergency generator, to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the City
daytime noise level limit of 60 d8A Leq or the nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA Leq at the property line.
Required performance standards for acoustical treatments can be specified by a qualified acoustical
consultant. Treatments include, but are not limited to:
a. Constructing enclosures around noise-generating mechanical equipment,
b. Using mufflers or silencers on equipment exhaust fans, and
c. Limiting the testing of emergency generators to daytime hours (7: 00 a. m. to 10: 00 p. m.).
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
c. Peninsula Owner, LLC, applicant and property owner
DES Architects, architect
Attachments:
ApplicanYs Response Letter, dated September 17, 2021
November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Applications
Project Description, submitted by the applicant, dated November 12, 2020
Email submitted by Joe Fitzgerald, IBEW Local 617, dated October 12, 2021
Email submitted by Charles Bronitsky, dated October 12, 2021
Letter submitted by Charles Bronitsky, dated October 8, 2021
Email submitted by Gregory S. Kuhl, dated November 23, 2020
Letter submitted by Jeff Philliber, dated November 27, 2020
TDM Plan, prepared by Krupka Consulting, dated November 6, 2020
Division Plan Review Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed October 15, 2021
Area Map
Separate Attachments:
Response to Comments, prepared by ICF, dated October 2021
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared by ICF, dated June 2021
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TJKM, dated September 24, 2021
Page 21 of 21
Peninsula Innovation Points
567 Airport
9.17.2021 Design changes
Responses to Planning Commission Study Session's comments
1. Commissioner Richard commented that the design of 567 trash enclosure / service yard
feels inferior to that of 555. Preferred the wrap around green screen elements with
groundcover/ shurbs, over the "applied panels" concepts.
a. Applied similar "green screens" concept to the trash enclosures for 555, 577 and the
new building, as well as, fire pump room.
Refer to Sheets A11 and A11.1.
2. Commissioner Loftis wanted to understand the design detail of the vertical fins and
horizontal sunshades
a. North curved fa�ade - 18" deep vertical metal fins as extension of the mullions.
Alternating between the floors to emphasize the horizontality of the fa�ade.
b. South straight fa�ade - 12" deep vertical mullion / beauty caps spanning between 2
floors, with off-set arrangement similar to the north fa�ade. This language of
"compressing the building mass" is reinforced by 2' tall metal bands and 2' deep
sunshades at every floors.
c. Extended the horizontal sunshades on the south-facing fa�ade for solar and glare
control.
d. Adjusted location of the vertical fins (every 2 window bays) to match north facade
Refer to Sheet A6.1, Page 10 and 11 of the graphic package.
3. Commissioner Richard wanted to have third party verification of the view corridor.
a. MND confirmed that the view corridors are maximized from Airport boulevard, within the
confines of existing buildings on project site and along the street.
Refer to Sheet A3.2
4. Commissioner Tse wanted to see bird-safe design standard being addressed.
a. Bird-safe fritted glass will be incorporated on the south facade, from grade to 60 feet (per
San Francisco Bird Safe Building standard).
5. 533 Airport's owner (Eugene Vlhaos) is concerned about the parking garage fa�ade design
facing his building and view to the Burlingame Lagoon
a. Moved the ramp to the outside edge facing 533 Airport, and steps down to a lower
height at property line
b. Added substantial amount green screen to soften the fa�ade
Refer to Sheets A8.1 and A10.1.
Owner's design changes —
1. Extended the shuttle stop parking (from 2 to 3 shuttles) and re-aligned the pedestrian
walkways to 555 Airport building. Refer to Sheet A3
2. Added balconies / terraces at the south-west corner of the new building. This would provide
additional outdoor meeting / working spaces for the tenants. Refer to Sheets A5.2, A5.2,
A5.4 and A6.1.
3. Moved the fire pump and storage room to the south side of the new building, next to the
proposed transformer and generator cluster. Existing utilities (electrical line) running
between 577 and the new building made it challenging to place new fire water line and fire
pump room between the buildings.
4. Added landscaping and stormwater treatment area to screen the service yard and truck
parking areas (2 trucks space) at 567 Airport.
5. Moved 555's new trash enclosure from the east side @ parking lot to the south-west corner,
adjacent to the proposed transformer and generator locations. The idea is consolidating the
service yard in one location.
6. BCDC Area — Bay trail improvement. The projecYs working with BCDC staff on these bay
trail improvement concepts:
a. Enhance existing nodes with site furniture upgrade (wood tops and backs on existing
concrete benches, trash receptacles).
b. Bike station.
c. Drinking fountains.
d. Added shoulder at portions of the Bay Trail by the Burlingame Lagoon, and repair
uneven surface as needed.
e. Relocate and consolidate the public access parking spaces to the south-east corner,
next to 555. Added one accessible parking space.
f. New enhanced landscaped area to the north / project side of the Bay Trail.
� CITY
'`s' ; I 1
� r
_� .
.tico'�, - �o°
4vnw•ry
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, November 23, 2020
7:00 PM
Online
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting followed by Planning Commission Meeting
d. 567 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application for Environmental Scoping, Commercial
Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for floor area ratio and building height for a
new, eight-story o�ce/research and development building and parking garage. ( EW-PG
Airport Owner, LLC, applicant and property owner; DES Architects, architect) (42
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Attachments: 567 Airport Blvd - Staff Report
567 Airport Blvd - Attachments
567 Airport Blvd - Graphics
567 Airport Blvd - Plans
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff.
> In terms of the entitlements there's a 0.6 FAR allowed by right, is that correct? And a 0.9 FAR thaYs
proposed, but this area allows for up to a 3.0 maximum with a CUP. (Gardiner.� This is an instance where
our Genera/ Plan is ahead of our zoning. The Genera/ Plan does allow a 3.0 FAR in this land use district.
However, our zoning thaYs still in place has the old 0.9 FAR in there. If they wanfed fo do a 3.0, that can
be discussed, but thaYs where the 0.9 comes from.) That's why there's a huge gap between what's allowed
by right versus whaYs allowed with fhe CUP iYs because of the new General Plan? (Gardiner. Yes.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Tom Gilman and Kenny Hung, DES Architects and Chris Kenzel from KZN, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Will the buildings at 577, 555 and the new building be under the same ownership? (Gilman: That's
correct.) The other two buildings c/oser to Airport Boulevard, will those have separate owner-ship? (Gilman:
Separate parcels, yes.)
> There's an existing 260,000 square feet of office space, you're adding a new 241,000 or so, do you or
the property owners have any statistics of the vacancies for office in this area or is there confidence in
adding this additional office space? (Gilman: ThaYs one of the reasons why we've been asked to look at
this building from a design point of view and as either tech office, R&D or life science. We have deve/oper
clients who are now interested in doing life science because based on our experience right now that
market is red hot.) So regardless of vacancies, this may open it up to a greater amount of leasing profile?
(Gilman: Absolutely. Yes. ThaYs why we designed it in terms of the floor heights and designed it for the
outdoor area for service and those kinds of things.)
> Can you talk more about the employee amenities? Specifically there was mention of lawn games .
Where would that occur? Is that in the area facing toward the lagoon? (Gilman: That area just on the
City of Burlingame Page 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
lagoon side of the building, we've got about 40 feet of width from the building to parking. The parking is
down about four feet from this whole landscaped area. So that was the concept there, being able to have
a variety of recreational activity so there could be both some passive landscaped area as well as more
active. I'm not talking about tennis, but maybe ping pong, those kinds of things.)
> There was mention of some existing shore access parking spots. Are there 15 parking spots to get
relocated temporarily? Are those spots currently along the lagoon somewhere or where are they? (Gilman:
They are along the lagoon and I believe we're moving them to the left behind the 577 Airport Boulevard
building temporarily. The area between the building and the lagoon will be fenced for the contractors, just
staging and construction activity. ThaYs one of fhe things fhat we've had preliminary discussions with
BCDC, they are requesting that we do an administrative application. In the initial meetings they fee/ like
there's probably little that they will be asking for since our work is outside of the BCDC area. However,
they were interested in knowing and wanted to follow where the temporary spaces will be during
construction.) Will they have c/ose proximity to that bay trail? (Gilman: Yes. We'll make sure there's the
maintenance. The bay trail swings off the edge.) It looks like the edge of the existing parking along the
lagoon is going to be the same both in the new and the existing plan, is that correct? (Gilman: ThaYs
correct.)
> It may sound trivial in the context of the overall program, your rendering and drawings for the trash
enclosure. Looking at the rendering of the pump room it is not quite the same as what is shown on the
sheet for the trash enclosure. Not trying to point out a mistake, just want to make sure that's what is going
to happen because that's much nicer. Your landscape screen wraps around it on three sides and hugs it
versus in the other renderings, it looks like they're applied panels. (Hung: We have two trash room
locations. One is between 577 Airport Boulevard and the new building which is a shared surface lot and
there's anofher one on the east side of 555 Airport Boulevard which is the smaller trash enclosure just to
serve that building.) ThaYs the one that has the landscape screens that hug it on three sides? (Hung:
ThaYs right.) Like what's happening there because the othe� one is more applied panels and maybe thaYs
intended, but they look like mosaics hung on the wall. (Gilman: Those were modern panels we were
floating from the wall, is that right, Kenny?) (Hung: Right, and planting screen as well. Down that area, on
sheet A11, we have quite a lot of landscaping around that area.) Then this is a different trash enclosure
thaYs over here? (Hung: Right. And if you look at the right-hand side and the top of the north side
enclosure, we have a lot of landscape and we have trees and vegetation. They have to screen the trash
enclosure.) They're going to be in front regard/ess of the panels you have attached to the building?
(Gilman: Seeing your point in terms of the reference to the other trash enclosure.) It was a pretty nice
detail.
> Are you hugging the property line at the parking structure? It looks like there's a small walkway or
paved for fire access. About how wide is that? (Gilman: Yes. We are ten feet from property line. We had
meetings with the fire and public works departments and have worked out a fire fighting recommendations .
I believe we have wet stand pipes and a walkway that the firefighters would use to pull hoses and so on.) 11
not mistaken, there's a drop down to the parking structures behind you at the 533 and 433? (Gilman:
Yes. We will have a retaining wall right at our property line and there's a 3'-6" drop to the lower level of their
parking structure.) Pretty familiar with this parcel. One of fhe thoughts was, there was a lot of water that
would accumulate in that parking area. So you guys are obviously going to do a good job on that parking
structure, correct? (Gilman: Yes, absolutely.) You did a really nice job on the building. It looks like iYs
respectful to fhe other (wo buildings, so thank you for that.
> The area behind 555 Airport Boulevard, perhaps part of that could belong to the State Lands
Commission, not sure if fhaYs right or wrong. There's an opportunity to create some new landscaping that
can help with being respective of what you're already creafing inside the complex. Have you looked at
doing additional work? There were older trees and grass that may have needed some work. (Gilman: It is
interesting. Somewhat recently, there had been some work done in that landscaped area you're talking
about. One of the reasons we tried to create this promenade space behind on the south side of the new
building was to give, not just people from that building but all three buildings, a place for people to be
outside that was wind protected and it was sunny where you can be warm because of all of the tree growth
behind the 555 building. I have such a hard time cutting down trees, but that it was an intentional move to
create some useab/e areas onsite that weren't shaded constantly. Clearly on a hot summer day, it would
be great to be in those areas and be under those very mafured trees in those areas, but theyll be two
City of Burlingame Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
options or two types of things to deal with. Certainly not opposed to taking a look at how we can create
some more usability in that area.)
> There's a little bridge right there that takes you over to the Burlingame Point project, correct? Is that
open and useable? (Gilman: I believe it is open, but it turns out, it drops down to private property on the
east side of the channel. I think Burlingame Point starts about here. There's a project that occurs down
that has a parking lot which extends out to a cu/-de-sac that extends on to Airport Boulevard. If's privafe
property. At one time, we were working with the previous owners of Burlingame Point and there was a
missing link to get to that bridge from fhe Burlingame Point property because iYs a diffe�ent land owner in
that area.)
> �ll BCDC make you work on that little parcel on your side? (Gilman: I don't know. The pathway goes
this way as well as going across.)
> Have you looked at creating some sort of a water feature or something in the front part of the
landscape like the entry in front of 555? /f seems to have a good frontage area. (Gilman: As we worked
with our landscape architect, this was one of the earlier concepts we had studied was a combination of
seating area as well as water. Working with our civil engineer, a bio detention area finally won out. We
have a pretty hefty need for creating spaces where we can have bio detention from the runoff from differenf
surface areas and so on. Part of the issue is the site has never had that before, but because of the areas
that we are working on, we have needed to create more of those new spaces even in areas like near both
577 and 555.)
> It looks like your floor to floor height is 16 foot, correct? (Gilman: Yes.) What are the heights from
floor to floor of the other hvo buildings, 555 and 577? (Hung: For 555 it is 13' floor to floor and the other
building is 11'.) Did you considerate a lower height fo be able to have as many leve/s as you have, the 8
stories, but to have a lower massing to be closer to the hvo neighbors buildings? (Gilman: When we first
started design, we weren't sure we were going to be considering life science, we were considering tech
office, R&D. In that setting, typically we have done 14' to 15' floo� to floor heights. When you get into a life
science scenario and in particular, what would be built as a speculative building, there may not be a
tenant when iYs built. We have some clients in life science that want 17 feet floor to floor because there's
so much exhaust requirements, so much HVAC, and so much chemistry that have to occur above the
ceiling that it requires that additional height. Sixteen feet is about the minimum that most developers will
consider for the life science use. Just so that a tenant may come along and say, I'm sorry, we will /ease
your building, but you don't have enough height. You don't know what a life science user may want to put
into their lab spaces.) Interesting to know there's a functional reason for the consideration on the height,
not just trying to be the tallest building.
> On fhe rear of the new building, there are some designations per your landscape plan for different
types of dining or seating. Wasn't sure where the dining space was. There was some seating areas called
out, but some are noted as dining. How are they different? (Gilman: lt is at fhe lower right-hand corner area
where the�e's that light tan color. There are trees that are set into a hard surfaced paved area. It will be
sidewalk cafe dining under trees which we're showing light autumn colored trees. Just left of that and then
further to the left, we have a coup/e of smaller areas where we would have seating which is more casual,
just an area for a couple of people who want to go outside and have a quick outdoor meeting or something
of that nature. We're finding people want to be able to have that opportunity to take a break or a small
team of two to four people working on a project, might be able to go outside and clear their heads and talk
about their project or something.) ThaYs great. In that sense, it seems that all of these areas can benefit
from a similar tables and chairs kind of situation whether iYs for dining or meetings or gatherings. Not just
seating without some surface. Is that what your thought process is as well? (Gilman: Yes. Absolutely.)
> People are commenting on the potential for traffic along this corridor both the north and southern
entrances off Airport Boulevard. Are there plans to coordinate a TDM plan? (Gilman: We have submitted
our draft TDM plan for the project. Our goal is to have a 20% reduction essentially alternative
transportation rather than just automobile traffic. Our plan includes shutt/e connectivity to Calfrain and
BART. We would have a TDM coordinator. There would be subsidized transit passes as part of fhat. Part
of that process, we would have employee surveys fhat would a/so determine where people live, how many
miles do they travel and so on with the new VMT regulations, with traffic. During CEQA you have to do a
survey to determine that and then encourage through these different measures, encourage people to use
different kinds of transit to cut down the miles traveled.)
City of Burlingame Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
> You mentioned there's bike storage at the parking structure, is that correct? (Hung: Correct. It will be
on the first floor of the parking garage that we'll have electrical vehicle chargers, EV parking and a bike
parking facility. Right outside the entrance of the building, well have a couple of bike racks for visitors to
use as well.) (Gilman: In the buildings, we'll have showers and changing facilities.) Do you fee/ you are
meeting code on the number of biking and parking spots? For bikes, is there a code requirement for the
number of spaces to provide? (Gilman: Yes, there is and we're providing those. That's a variable as well,
depending upon what LEED certification we end up having. As we get more involved in the final lead
checklist and so on.) Aware that you've proposed what meets code, but as that market grows, can you
plan the garage to be even more EV ready to take on more and more EV charging stations? (Gilman: Yes.
ThaYs something we're finding as tenants are starting to lease projects, we're starting to see that a
developer may provide a certain amount of EV stalls and so on. We're seeing that need to add more, and
parking structures are a great place to be able to do that.)
> Because of the sensitivity about the piles required out there, got the impression from some document
that you are getting some pre-construction guidance from the same contracto� as building Burlingame
Point, right? (Gilman: Correct.) Because of their experience, are they confident about the other cast pile
technical solution and the cost as well? Are you pretty confident you can pull that off out there? (Gilman:
Yes, as we've had initial discussions with them and not only this project, but other projects as well, we
have a number of projects that just happen to occur in low-lying areas near the bay. We're finding that a
few years ago, it seemed like the auger cast piles were a more expensive approach. They have changed
fheir methodology, but we've found those things have come into conformance. Both processes are similar
in terms of cost. There is consideration for auger casts and iPs a realistic consideration here.) ThaYs good
because that became a sensitive topic at Burlingame Point as everybody knows. As we move fonvard,
just wanted to make sure that it doesn't get flipped around. Understand that lots of things can happen .
(Gilman: It came up in our community meeting also.)
> Are the offset vertical fins on the building simple mullion caps or double mullions with a deep cap?
WhaYs the thinking behind those? On some of the facades, they're shown as a grid. lt looks like we're
looking at vertical mullion caps stacked for several floors. Some of the curve facade, they're off-set, right?
(Hung: Those are vertical caps and they're 12 inches deep. We're still working on the details.) (Gilman:
The offset helps to reinforce the horizontality as well.) Drove through Burlingame Point, and it's got a more
insistent pattern and liked how the hvo projects are talking to each other. These feel like they need some
more design thinking on them, but wanted to make sure to understand what was being proposed. You
have horizontal fins that are probably not mullion caps, they're probably more like sun shade features or
something, right? (Hung.� Right.) In the facade renderings versus the perspective renderings, those things
are casting a shadow and rt makes it look like they are stripes of blue glass, but thaPs the shadow of the
fins, right? (Gilman: Yes. Those shadows from the sun shades or beauty caps.) It's not patterned glass
but just shadows, can see the spandrel g/ass clearly but wasn't sure what the stripes were. (Gilman: Yes.)
That means the rendering on the paper copies show blue glass in the facade renderings, but this appears
fo be more c/ear with a green tint. ls this low e-g/ass or something? (Gilman: Toward the end ot
presentation, there's a photograph of the material board.)
> Are the exterior terraces at the two ends of the building serving the building or the floors? Do all the
tenants have access to them or if it's a multi-tenant building, they're seiving the floors and not all the
tenants, righf? (Gilman: If they were multi-tenants, this occurs on the seventh floor and depending on how
existing occurs as we have done the studies, those could be a multi-tenant and could be a connection to
circulation.)
> Is there an amenity center in 577 Airport Boulevard? Is there going to be another gym in this new
building or will people be able to access 577 if they want to work out? (Gillman: That decision is out there
depending upon tenant leasing. Not only for this building, but for the other two buildings as well. One way
or another, they would maintain a fitness function. All of our projects, one form or an -other, no matter how
small or whatever, they have some form of fitness capability. It's something that tenanfs are asking for. It
can be that maybe a tenant takes this new building and a fitness function would occur within the new
building.)
Public Comments:
> James Ruigomez: 1'm representing the San Mateo Building and the Construcfion Trade Council which
City of Burlingame Page 4
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
represents 24 construction unions and 16,000 highly skilled men and women, many of which live in
Burlingame and in the county of San Mateo. This is quite a project in front of you. As they were explaining
with the auger cast piles and the glazing and the glass. The building trade council is based off of a
working platform of earning a wage you can live here, healthcare for you and your family, something to
retire on and funding our education. IYs the largest private education system in the United States to make
sure facilities like this and the post office you heard before this earlier on in the agenda are built right the
first time, on time and on budget. Any skilled craftsman and women that take the time in their education,
they record from 5,000 to 7,000 hours on the job and in the classroom to ensure they build it right the first
time and on time and budget. I appreciate a lot of the commissioners detailed questions about building
materials as well as finishes and facades and fits. Very, very intelligent questions being in construction for
30 years, I'm impressed and hope this developer and contractor could commit through a letter of intent or
a community workforce agreement with the building trades to ensure you'll hire a local contractor that will
receive those local benefits and fund their own education to make sure they build if correctly. Thank you
for the consideration tonight and thank you for allowing me to speak.
> Eugene Vlahos, 533 Airport Boulevard: I'm very interested in whaYs going on here. Do the owners have
a tenant yet for this building? (Gilman: Not that l know of.) So they're building hoping to get someone? Do
you have a traffic impact analysis? Do you have a grade on that, a score on that? (Gilman: There has
been a traffic study that has been prepared and that will of course be turned over to the city to be part of
the CEQA environmental document.) One of my problems with this project is the impact on traffic. Did you
get a traffic impact analysis? What were the results? (Kenze/: I'm with PG Transportation Consultanfs. We
were retained to do a traffic impact analysis. We did a comprehensive one in conformance with the city
requirement for the traffic study. We looked at 12 different intersections along Airport Boulevard,
Broadway and Old Bayshore Highway. We did all in conformance with the city. We looked at short-term
and long-term conditions and build out to make sure the intersections were in conformance with the level
service requirements of the city and they were. In addition, we looked at the newer standard for vehicle
miles traveled and analysis of fhat in order to make sure that this project is consistent with fhe new city
and state requirements . There were concerns at the neighborhood meeting about the traffic to and from
this project thaYs using the San Mateo bridge. They want to find short cuts in Highway 101 and 92 than
traveling through the neighborhoods and there's a lot of that going on now. Our project, we think of the 250
or so peak hour trips leaving the site, between 20 and 30 of those might be bound for the bridge. Those
are ones that would be candidates to do cut-through in that neighborhood. There's not a lot we can do
about the cut-through. There are conversations held with the City of San Mafeo on the Bayshore
connection which is how these people would avoid the freeway and travel through that neighborhood. ThaYs
an issue we have dealt with. The only thing we can say is iYs a reasonably small number from this new
development.) (Does that answer your question?) No, it doesn't. It does bring up a huge red flag. To Tom
Gilman, you showed a lot of nice angles of pictures. I wish you would show a picture from my building
because I'm going to be looking at a six story parking lot. I hope you landscape that just as nicely as the
other side. (Gilman: Yes. In fact we had a section that shows the relationship from the 533 building.) As
one of the only local owners, many of our owners are residents of Burlingame, this is quite interesting and
1'm glad I sat through this. Those are my concerns. Looking at a six story parking lot where I had a nice
view before and the other is the traffic. Once Facebook comes in July, we're going to have you� buildings
and who knows what it's going to be like. Airport Boulevard is four lanes and funnels down to two lanes as
it passes Facebook. Five o' clock in the afternoon is going to be gridlock there. (Gillman: I wanted to
show the relationship of the 533 building at Airport Boulevard. Our parking st�ucture is about 115 feet
setback from the 533 building. You can see a little step down on the top of the parking structure, that is
fhe ramp area. We purposefully positioned the ramp on this side of the building in relationship fo that 533
building, so the building is a little bit lower here. When you look at the drawing and the liftle plan view, that
area of the top floor is the area where the ramp occurs and we tried to position that so it was across from
your building. So we're trying to reduce the apparent height of the building.) (Chair Tse: Mr. Vlahos, can we
take this offline and you can have this discussion with the applicant separately? This isn't supposed to be
a discussion.) l'm being filled in on this project and this is the first I've seen all these. I appreciate your
time. It was very important and informative.
> Jeffrey Philiber. Thanks very much for holding this forum and entertaining my question. I'm a resident
of San Mateo North Shoreview and we are very concemed with cut-through traffic from this area of
City of Burlingame Page 5
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
Burlingame. Could you just briefly tell us what the status is of the CEQA documentation, what level of
documentation, what's the anticipated schedule and availability? (Gardiner: We're anticipating it would be
an initial study negative declaration and that takes typically 6 to 9 months to prepare. There's generally
administrative draft and a public review draft, then there's a comment period of 20 or 30 days, not su�e
whether the 30 days would apply or if iYs 20 days. There would be a public comment period. Then that
would be reviewed when it comes back to the Planning Commission. It sounds like the traffic study has
been done in advance. Part of this is meeting a scoping for that study, so we're taking input from the
public and the commissioners on items to be sfudied in the environmental review.) Thank you for that. Is
there a chance for us to see the traffic study prior to the issuance of the public draft of the initial study? In
other words, can we see it sooner rather than later? (Gardiner: 1 believe so. As long as it's not considered
a draft then it is available for public review. We can work with the applicant to have that made available.)
> Sent via e-mail by Gregory Pool, 533 Airport Boulevard: We received notice of the possibility of an
eight story building to be constructed at 567 Airport Boulevard. It was seem to be an insane proposal with
regard to traffic. We already have over 800,000 square feet of unoccupied campus for Facebook with an
unknown solution on how traffic will be mitigated with only two access and egress points. Facebook would
occupy the campus in 2021. We already have a bottleneck at Broadway and Peninsula Avenue at the end
of business day without knowing the impact Facebook would have with 5,000 plus employees and Airport
Boulevard can't afford to fight through covid and a traffic nightmare.
Chair Tse c/osed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> In terms of architecture, the building itself seems to be well-crafted and thoughtful. It seems to fit in
nicely in terms of the context. Don't have too many issues in terms of the commercial design review. Am
accepting of the conditional use permit for the floor area ratio, particularly relative to what's been put in
place with the general plan and the specific area plan thaYs a little bit behind in that regard. In terms of
the conditiona! use permit for height, that goes hand in hand with the environmental analysis. So skipping
over to the environmental scoping, the c�itical issue was the noise analysis. Encouraged by the thought of
the auger cast piles. Would like to see if thaYs going to be baked into the project, then thaf can be
analyzed through the environmental initial study and then see what the impacts might be. The traffic
needs to be analyzed and thorough review of the traffic demand management plan thaYs been submitted,
so that clearly needs to be a part of the environmental analysis. Would like to see a third party verification
from the environmental team in regards to the view corridor. The architects have done a good job of
presenting some diagrams in terms of the view corridor calculations. It would be help to have that third
party verification by the environmental team.
> Would agree, the project /ooks nice. Understand the height and the density and don't have issues with
that so much. Can sympathize with the traffic concerns. We have a challenge there with our highways and
you can see it with Highway 92 being backed up most of the way to the Peninsula every evening. So thaYs
something that should be taken seriously and we need to look at how those two access points in and off
that area work. Having driven that small road through the Facebook campus yesterday, iYs not going to
handle a lot of traffic, so a lot of people are going to end up through Anza Boulevard, that's the biggest
concern with this project. Otherwise, the architecture /ooks nice and appreciate the effort and the hard
work being done on the project.
> The architecture is coming along nicely. Thank you for the nice presentation and the thoroughness of
your drawings and renderings on helping us to understand the space and relationship of the new building in
respect to others in the area. To add to the study, would like to see bird-safe design standards be
addressed in that area. As well as control over debris and trash blowing into the waterways during
construction and air quality control. The other concerns have already been mentioned by my fellow
commissioners.
> Looking forward to having the bay side revitalized with Burlingame Bay and Burlingame Point. This will
be a nice addition fo those buildings having a lab in that area and bringing a different type of tenant.
Looking fonvard to seeing the project move forward.
> The project is a good one. IYs a really good repositioning of a large surface parking lot. That's not the
City of Burlingame Page B
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
highest and best use for this project, but look forward to seeing the architecture develop some more. It
will bring a nice addition to the waterfront. It helps to bring some spatial structure to the water's edge in a
positive way.
There was no motion from the Planning Commission, as this application is required to return on
the Regular Action Calendar.
City of Burlingame Page 7
� PLANNING APPLICATION
BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING DIVISION
501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997
TEL: 650.558.7250 � FAX: 650.696.3790 � E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT(a�BURLINGAME.ORG
I = - - - --- — - -
- _ �-- _--« - -- -- -- —= � -- _ _ - -- :..-�.�-- = = - _ = =
Z �! 555-577 Airport (proposed address for new building - 567 Airport) 026-363 590, 025-290-470 Anza Area ��
0�', PROJECT ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #(APN) ZONING
��
� �� PROJECT DESCRIPTION
� The project site is located at a developed parcel at the south end of the Airport Boulevard, east of US Freeway 101. It comprises of parcel APN
Z 026-363-590 (555 and 577 Airport) and leased parcel APN 025-290-470 (State Land Commission). The total site area is 12.8 acres. The existing
Bay Park plaza consists of one five-story and one eight-story multi-tenant office buildings built in 1983 and 1998. Total building area is 259,733 sq.
V ft.. The project will add an 241,679 sq. ft. 8-story office / R&D building and a 5.5 level parking garage to the campus. The total building area on site is
' increased to 501,412 sq. ft.. Floor area ratio of the campus is 0.9. Parking for existing and new buildings will be provided at 3 cars per 1,000 sq. ft.,
� with the new garage and surface parking lots. Other site improvements include new driveways, surfacing parking lots, landscape plaza, patios and
� walkways, service yards, as well as, utilities / equipment supporting the new project.
- -- -� _ _ _ -- - - --,��- -
__ _ - _ _ _ - _
�Peninsula Owner LLC � 644 Menlo Ave, 2nd Floor, Menlo Park, CA 94025
I PROPERTY OWNER NAME APPLICANT? ADDRESS
' 650-838-0100 nick@lane-partners.com
O '�� PHONE E-MAIL
H
�a' DES Architects and En ineers
i 399 Bradford Street Redwood Cit
Oli ARCHITECT/DESIGNER APPLICANT? ADDRESS
Z (650) 364-6453 khung@des-ae.com
� PHONE E-MAIL
Q 951398 (Owner), 24614 (DES) I
v BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSE #
J '
a �� _ _
Q I� *FOR PROJECT REFUNDS* - Please provide an address to which to all refund checks will be mailed to:
��Peninsula Owner LLC 644 Menlo Ave, 2nd Floor, Menlo Park, CA 94025
NAME ADDRESS
- - - — -- -
-: - -
-- - -- - - - - — - - -_ - - - - - ---- - - -- - ---- -� �-- --_�- --�
a�� I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY �
=II
� � KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
�
w'
z
� APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE (IF DIFFERENT FROM PROPERTY OWNER) DATE
O
LL I
� I AM AWARE OF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO THE
�r
Q�I PLANNih'G COMMISSI�dNIDIVI � N. ,
LL ,!��w� - ��' - �✓���� � 10/7/2021
Q �20PERTY OWNER'S SIGM�ATURE DATE
A- - - - _- - -_ -_ - —_ _- = - = --- _
UTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS -� � 1
i� I HEREBY GRANT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THE AUTHORITY TO REPRODUCE UPON REQUEST ANDIOR POST PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THIS j
ii� APPLICATION ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY ARISING �
i OUT OF OR RELATED TO SUCH ACTION KH (INITIALS OF ARCHITECTIDESIGNERI
---- - - - - - -- - -_ ------ - - - - - - - -- ------ - - --
,-- _ _ _ _ - - - -_= _ - -_
----- - l
' APPLICATION TYPE _ - =T- __-` - -�-=T= ��I
Z,�❑ ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) ❑ VARIANCE (VAR) I�
D
W i� I� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) ❑ WIRELESS I�i T
? ��� � DESIGN REVIEW (DSR) ❑ FENCE EXCEPTION I� y
� �❑ HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ❑ OTHER: I m
� �I O
�,I, ❑ MINORMODIFICATION � Z
G� ❑ SPECIAL PERMIT (SP) DATE RECENED: �ili �
City of Burlingame Planning Department
a� cirr o
R �'
BURLINGAME
�.�'`„i.
'�:.
C1TY OF BURLINGAME
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION �
501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(65�) 696-3790 www.burlin a� me.or�
CUP for Building Height, 09.10.2020
,.�.� �� ��
�-t .� �, ,� ,,,
� � �.'�,� �.:;
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in
making the decision as to whether the tindings can be made for your request. Please rype ar write neatly
in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1
2.
Explain wl�y the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrinsental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience.
The project will develop a 241,679 square foot Office / RB�D building and a 5.5 Level parking structure at the existing Bay Park Plaza office
campus. The neighboring properties are office buildings and a rental parking lot for the San Francisco International AirpoR. Hence, the
proposed use is compatible with the existing uses on site and neighboring properties.
The project can be accessed from Airport Boulevard and US 101 Freeway. There will be sufficient on-site parking to meet the demand of
the entire campus. It will also have a TDM to support the use of alternative transportation and minimize traffic impacts. The site is aiso
connected to the existing sidewalks on Airport Boulevard and the San Francisco Bay Trails along Burlingame Lagoon and Sanchez
Channel. Existing public access parking will be preserved.
The project will be designed to the latest building and fire code standards and comply with City of Burlingame's municipal codes. New or
re�ocated sewers, utilities, power, stormwater treatment, and trash facilities will be provided for the new and existing buildings.
The new Office / R�D Building will have energy-efficient mechanical equipment and sustainable design features. It is intended to achieve
LEED certification.
How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
The siting of the new building and parking garage preserves more than 50% of the street frontages / view corridors from Airport Blvd to
Burlingame Lagoon and Sanchez Channel. No new structures are proposed within the 100 feet BCDC shoreline band. In essence, the
project is compiiant with (1) Zoning Ordinance Sec 25.47.040 - 6 View Corridor, and (2) Burlingame General Plan Goal CC-6.1 View
Corridor - ensures that new developments preserve public view to the waterfront.
The new 8-story Office / R&D building, at 133 feet tall (to top of the parapet), is above the 65 feet height limit for any properties with
frontages along Burlingame Lagoon (sec 25.47.040 - 7A). However, it is setback further from the Burlingame Lagoon than the other two
existing buildings. Its south side is setback 1421eet from the bayside jurisdiction line of the BCDC shoreline. This is more than the 1:1
height to setback requirement (sec 25.47.040 - 4C).
The new 5.5 level parking garage is located on the north side of the site. It generally complies with the 65 feet height limit, except at the
two elevator / stair towers (69 feet). The front portion of this garage is only 47 feet tall. The top parking level is set back further and 57.5
feet tall.
The project complies with other Anza Area's development standards, including building setback, minimum lot size, street frontage, and
landscaping design.
3. 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?
The existing and adjoining properties, including the Burlingame Bay project east of Sanchez Channel, are all office buildings. The
proposed Office i R8�D building, therefore, is consistent with these uses.
The proposed S-story Office / RS�D building is carefully sited beiv✓een the existing 5 and 8-story structures, to maintain views from these
buildings. There's ample of landscaped open space and separation between the new and existing buildings. The variety of building
heights on this campus is compatible with the massing and character of the immediate neighborhood, including the adjacent Burlingame
Bay campus. The new Office / R&D building also has a substantial setback (142 feet) from the Burlingame Lagoon and bay trails, while
preserving public access to the shoreline.
The new builaing's design compliments the architectural styles of the existing structures on site. The use of modern and quality building
finishes, such as highly-transparent curtain walls, metal panels and other aRiculations on the facade, enhances the aesthetics and
"business destination" character of the Bayfront neighborhood.
The parking garage is located on the interior side of the site. Its street presence is limited, including the two ends of the garage and a
small portion on the north side (between the two office buildings at adjacent parcels). These areas are treated as the main architectural
features - metal panel-clad portal elements, with perforated metal screen and alternating verlical fins.
City of Burlingame Planning Department
�r� CIT7 � 0�
BURLINGAME
� \ .
����-
b..
CUP for 0.9 FAR
i. ,,< .. ` ,1-Ra'.-.
�.r �. � `�� �. �'
� J � �? 202�
, �;Ui�1�lNG�1V;F
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in
making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly
in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vieinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience.
2.
The project will develop a 241,679 square foot Office / R&D building and a 5.5 Level parking structure at the existing Bay Park Plaza office
campus. The neighboring properties are office buildings and a rental parking lot for the San Francisco International Airport. Hence, the
proposed use is compatible with the existing uses on site and neighboring properties.
The project can be accessed from Airport Boulevard and US 101 Freeway. There will be sufficient on-site parking to meet the demand of
the entire campus. It will also have a TDM to support the use of alternative transportation and minimize Vaffic impacts. The site is also
connected to the existing sidewalks on Airport Boulevard and the San Francisco Bay Trails along Burlingame Lagoon and Sanchez
Channel. Existing public access parking will be preserved.
The project will be designed to the latest building and fire code standards and will comply with City of Burlingame's municipal codes. New
or relocated sewers, utilities, power, stormwater treatment and trash facilities will be provided for the new and existing buildings.
The new Office / R&D Building will have energy-efficient mechanical equipment and sustainable design features. It is intended to achieve
LEED certification.
How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
The site is zoned as Anza Area (AA) within the Bayfront Specific Area.
The Burlingame General Plan (2019) states that "The Bayfront will be a regional recreational and business destination." Goal CC-6.3 Infill
Development - encourages increased intensity via high-quality infill development on surface parking lots, and support the conversion of
surface parking lots into active commercial and hospitality uses.
The City of Burlingame's Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.47.025 Conditional Permitted Uses (a) - Offices with a maximum floor area ratio
greater than 0.6, including research and development offices with associated laboratory uses, as well as, instructional activities with an office
on the the site, requires a Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed project meets the above requirement. It is an infill development and increases the intensity of an existing office use. A new
Class A Office / R&D building (and associated parking garage) will be built at the surface parking lot of an existing office campus. Total FAR i�
increased from 0.46 to 0.9. The project also complies with other Anza Area's development standards, including building setback, minimum lot
size, streei frontage, view corridor and landscaping design.
3. How wi[I the proposed project be compatihle witl: the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
the e.zisting and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
The existing and adjoining properties, including the Burlingame Bay project east of Sanchez Channei, are all office buildings. The
proposed Office / R&D building, therefore, is consistent with these uses.
The proposed 8-story Office / R8D building is carefully sited between the existing 5 and 8-story structures, to maintain views from these
buildings. There's ample of landscaped open space and separation between the new and existing buildings. The variety of building
heights on this campus is compatible with the massing and character of the immediate neighborhood, including the adjacent Burlingame
Bay campus. The new Office / R&D building also has a substantial setback (142 feet) from the Burlingame Lagoon and bay trails, while
preserving public access to the shoreline.
The new building's design compliments the architectural styles of the existing structures on site. The use of modern and quality building
finishes, such as highly-transparent curtain walls, metal panels and other articulations on the facade, enhances the aesthetics and
"business destination" character of the Bayfront neighborhood.
501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ame.org
CITY OF BURLINGAME ` R::
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIOl'�1 ''
The parking garage is located on the interior side of the site. Its street presence is limited, including the two ends of the garage and a
small portion on the noRh side (between the two office buildings at adjacent parcels). These areas are treated as the main architectural
features - metal panel-clad portal elements, with perforated metal screen and alternating vertical fins.
BURLINGAME BAY �
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
November 12, 2020
Owner's Project Objectives
The goals of the project sponsor are:
DES . To develop an approximately 241, 679 square foot Office / R&D building and a 5.5 Level
AR( I-{i I If( Tti
,,�,, ,� 4 F w� parking structure on an existing 2-building corporate campus utilizing an existing surface
parking lot, suitable for a single major office tenant.
• To develop a Class A Office / R&D building in a high visibility location proximate to major
transportation corridors.
• To develop a Class A Office / R&D building that is LEED-certified and demonstrates
sustainable design principles and technology.
• To develop a Class A Office / R&D building with adequate density and floor piate size to allow
flexibility in user-make-up, particularly focused on life science and information technology.
• To develop a Class A Office / R&D building within an existing corporate campus with adequate
building height and density to provide usable open space between buildings that connects to
the waterfront edges and San Francisco Bay Trail running through the site.
• To develop a Class A Office / R&D building that has design elements that allow it to integrate
into the existing campus without overwhelming the design of the existing buildings.
• To develop a Class A Office / R&D building with a new parking structure that provides sufficient
automobile parking to meet the demand of the entire campus and allows for opportunities for
the use of alternative transportation methods.
Project site
The project is located at a developed site at the south end of the Bayfront Specific Plan Area, east
of US Freeway 101. It is comprised of parcel APN 026-363-590 (555 and 577 Airport) and leased
parcel APN 025-290-470 (State Land Commission). The total site area is 12.83 acres. Its
northwestern property line follows Airport Boulevard and three adjacent office developments — 411
Airport Bivd, 433 Airport Blvd, and 533 Airport Blvd. The Anza Parking lot (615 Airport Blvd) is to
the west of the parcel. The Sanchez Channel, Burlingame Lagoon, and the BCDC shoreline bands
are on the east and south sides of the site, and are the projecYs "public" frontage as seen from the
freeway. The San Francisco Bay is further to the north.
Vehicular traffic on site is primarily coming from and going to US Freeway 101 - via Broadway
Avenue, Anza Boulevard, and Peninsula Avenue exits - through Airport Boulevard. Commute.org
runs a shuttle service from Millbrae Intermodal Station (Bart / Caltrain / SamTrans) to the Bayfront
3J9 Grn�fjorr! Street R��devood Crty, Cn/ifnrnin 940G3 Tel 6,50-364-64,53 Fnx 650-364-2618 ratuu�.�les-ne.corri
�
Burlingnttie Bay � 10192.002
Projecf Descr-iptirnt
Noz�emhcr 12, 2020
Page 2 of 9
area, and has a stop right across the street from the project site, at Airport Boulevard and Bay View
Place. Airport Boulevard has bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides, along its entire length.
The existing Bay Park plaza consists of one five-story and one eight-story multi-tenant office
buildings built in 1983 and 1998. Total building area is 259, 733 sq. ft. The rest of the site is used as
surface parking lots. The south and east sides of the site are within 100 feet of the BCDC shoreline
bands. There are existing bay trails, seating nodes, mature trees and vegetation along the
shoreline.
Project Scope
The project will add a 241,679 sq. ft., 8-story Office / R&D building and a 5.5 level parking garage to
the existing campus. Total building area will be increased to 501, 412 sq. ft. Floor Area Ratio is up
from 0.46 to 0.9. (2019 City of Burlingame General Plan allows for a 3.0 max FAR for this site). The
new garage and surface parking lots will provide 1,520 stalls for new and existing buildings, at 3/
1,000 ratio. The project will also revamp the entire campus with these improvements:
• New surface parking area and access driveways.
. New service / trash enclosures, and truck parking area. The existing trash enclosure next to the
bay trail will be demolished.
• New landscaped promenades connecting all three buildings and parking garage.
. New landscaped open space and paved plaza on the south and east side of the new building.
. New stormwater treatment areas connecting to existing pump and outfall to Burlingame
Lagoon.
. New and re-located site utilities and equipment supporting the buildings.
The project intends to maintain public access to the BCDC shoreline during and after construction,
including the bay trail and 15 parking spaces. The bay trail, vegetation, and other amenities within
the BCDC shoreline bands will not be altered. During construction, the parking areas along
Burlingame Lagoon and Sanchez Channel will be fenced off. The 15 public parking spaces will be
relocated temporarily during construction (stili close to the bay trail) and will be restored back to
existing location afterwards.
The project is proposing a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The
intent is to reduce single-vehicle trips to / from the site and encourage employees taking public
transportation. Examples of the TDM plan measures include: 2 on-site shuttle bus stations/ parking,
multiple bike storage locations, and changing room / shower facilities.
I�ES Arehitccts + Enginerrs, Inc.
l�`2020
�
Burlingame Buy � 10192.002
Project Descriptinn
Not+entber 12, 2020
Pnge 3 o f 9
Site and Building Design
The proposed office building will be sited on the parking lot between the two existing buildings, with
roughly 70 feet separation from each of the existing buildings. The shape of the new building is
slightly curved at the ends for a smoother visual transition to the other buildings. It will be 133 feet
tall (measured to the top of the parapet) and is set back 142 feet from the Burlingame Lagoon
shoreline. This setback allows for a generous open space on the south side of the building, with
views to the Burlingame Lagoon. The building's primary entrance is on the north side, facing the
main campus driveway and Airport Blvd. This campus driveway not only connects all three
buildings and the parking garage, but also branches into a loop road to the service areas between
577 Airport and the new building. The trash enclosure and truck parking space will be screened
with new landscaping and existing trees along the shoreline. Another smaller trash enclosure will be
built on the east side of 555 Airport.
The new surface + 4.5 level parking garage will be tucked behind the adjacent buildings and
parking deck on the north-west side. It is approximately 73 feet from the new office building and the
top parking level is setback another 60 feet. There are two access points from the main campus
driveway. Accessible parking stalls and electrical vehicle chargers will be provided in this garage.
555 Airport Blvd and 577 Airport Blvd buildings are 68 feet and 90 feet (top of parapet) in height.
Both structures are highly visible from the US 101 freeway and the Burlingame Lagoon. 577 Airport
is wrapped in dark tinted glazing and pre-cast concrete bands throughout. 555 Airport has a curved,
bluish-green reflective glass fa�ade on the north side that then transitions to punched window
openings encased in pre-cast concrete pilasters and spandrels. The two ends of the building are
stepped down one floor. The buildings have a general off-white color tone.
The new office building's design respects the architectural and waterfront context of the campus. Its
north-south orientation helps with day-lighting and varying fa�ade treatment. The north side is
primarily clad in slightly tinted glazing, with vertical fins and narrow metal bands. The curved glass
wall continues into projected horizontal ribbon windows that wrap around the east end of the
building. To emphasize the view corridor to the Airport Boulevard, the first two floors at the north-
west corner are recessed and clad with highly transparent structural glass. The facade then
changes to tinted glass wall framed in metal panel pilasters. There is a view balcony at the seventh
floor of the north-west corner.
The south fa�ade is highlighted by the inter-play of various design elements. The arcades on the
first and second floors recall the architecture of 555 Airport and then transition gradually into
punched windows on upper floors, matching the taller massing of 577 Airport. The "encased"
glazing is a slightly darker bluish-green color for better energy performance and compliments the
blue-tinted glass elsewhere. At the east end, the ribbon windows continue one third of the south
fa�ade and then change back to the full-height glass walls with metal sunshades and off-set accent
L)ES Ardiitccts + Eitghtecrs, Inc.
�-2020
�
Burlingnn�e Bay � 10192.002
Project Description
Noz�ernber 12, 2020
Page 4 of 9
metal fins. This glass wall is very "dynamic" as it is reflecting the water of the Burlingame Lagoon in
high and low tides.
The top two floors at the building's east end are setback 25 feet to create a size-able rooftop patio
that is shaded with metal trellis and canopy. This design feature not only provides an amenity space
for the tenants but also a nice transition to the shorter 555 Airport building.
The new surface + 4.5 Level parking garage is naturally ventilated. Its design emphasizes the
concrete structural columns and spandrels with painted finishes and varied openings. The garage's
entries and street frontages (between the adjacent office buildings) are framed in off-white painted
"portals" with perforated metal panels. The two elevator / stair towers have an open glass fa�ade
and metal canopy that shares the design aesthetics of the new office building.
The new building and garage will use high-performance glazing, low-carbon concrete, metal
sunshades and fins, and other structural materials and finishes that are friendly to the environment.
Mechanical and electrical systems and lighting controls will be highly efficient and appropriate for
tech and life science uses, such as LED lighting fixtures, occupancy sensors, electrical
generators... etc. Electrical vehicle chargers and clean-air vehicie parking will also be provided on
site. The project will comply with the latest CalGreen and City's reach code (if applicable to the
project). It will also target LEED certification — an industry benchmark for energy efficient building
design.
Landscape and Open Space
The landscape design incorporates the preservation of 148 existing trees on-site and adds 251 new
trees. The outdoor program incorporates flex amenity spaces adjacent to each building and ties the
landscape together with the use of similar plant material, hardscape geometry, and paving
materials. The generous amount of open space at the southern exposure adjacent to the new
building provides ample opportunity for outdoor amenities. It provides an overlook to capitalize on
the lagoon and hill views as well as provides a variety of seating, dining opportunities, and lawn
games such as cornhole. The plant palette is derived from a combination of drought tolerant native
and adaptive plants which have a high success rate in this part of Burlingame. They are located on
the site to maximize on microclimate factors such as sun exposure, shade, wind, etc. The plant
palette is coordinated with C3 treatment measures such as bioretention areas, such that the
bioretention areas fit seamlessly within the landscape design.
Site lighting takes its cue from the geometry in the landscape design and the materials and rhythm
used in the architectural design of the new building. The site lighting concept is used to bring these
elements together and tie the site to the building.
L)ES Arcl�itccts + Engiirccrs, Inc.
?'-2020
�
Burlingnirte Bny � 101J2.002
Project Description
Noz�emher 12, 2020
Page 5 of 9
Existing Topography
The existing site is relatively flat, with grades varying between elevations 4 and 12 (relative to
NAVD 88 datum). The site grades gently to a low-lying portion of the property at the midpoint of the
property line shared with low lying properties along Airport Boulevard to the northwest of the site.
The site conforms up to elevations at the shoreline protection located to east of the site at Sanchez
Channel, and south of the site at Burlingame Lagoon.
Site Grading:
The proposed project will maintain existing grading for much of the site. The proposed parking
structure (565 Airport Boulevard) will have a finished floor elevation of 6.0. The proposed building
(567 Airport Boulevard) will have a finished floor of elevation 12.0. The site is located largely in the
FEMA Flood Hazard Area AE, with a base flood elevation of 10.0. 567 Airport Boulevard is
proposed to be elevated above the base flood, and the parking structure will be dry flood-proofed to
1 foot above the base flood elevation. The proposed grading will conform to grading at the shoreline
and will not add fill at the existing shoreline.
Stormwater Treatment:
As a redevelopment project that replaces or alters more than 50% of the existing impervious
surface at the site, the project will provide treatment for all impervious surfaces at the project site.
The proposed site will be treated by on-grade flow-through planters. The parking structure will be
treated by a treatment planter located behind the parking structure, and the remainder of the site
will be treated through several treatment planters. A new pump station will direct required runoff
from the remainder of the site to treatment flows distributed through the remainder of the site.
Planters will be sized based on local requirements and will be preliminarily sized at 4% of the
impervious surface for the site plan. Final sizing will be documented in the Stormwater
Management Plan to be submitted with the Construction Documents for the project.
Utilities
Existing site utilities will be removed as required for new utilities to serve the development. New
water services will be connected to the existing 12-inch municipal water main located south of the
site, running the shoreline along Burlingame Lagoon. Existing water will be rerouted as required.
Existing sewers will also be rerouted as required, with new sewer services extended to the new
buildings at 565 and 567 Airport Boulevard and will utilize existing sewer connections to the 10-inch
municipal sewer in Airport Boulevard. The proposed redevelopment will not increase runoff from the
site and will utilize the existing storm drain pump station connecting to Burlingame Lagoon. In
addition, a treatment pump station will be added to direct required runoff to treatment planters
distributed throughout the site.
D£S Architects + Engineers, liic.
2>2020
�
Burlingnttu Bay � 10192.002
Project Description
Noventher 12, 2020
Pnge6of9
Parcelization
The existing site is a single parcel. The project will subdivide the site, to create two parcels. Parcel
A will include existing 555 Airport Boulevard building, as well as the new Office / R&D buiiding (567
Airport Boulevard) and the parking structure (565 Airport Boulevard), and a portion of the remaining
site including landscape improvements and surface parking. Parcel B will encompass existing 577
Airport Boulevard and portions of the remaining site and surface parking. Parcel A will reserve the
right to create two commercial condominiums for 555 and 567 Airport Boulevard buildings to be in
their own respective condominiums.
Sea-level rise
The proposed commercial building is proposed to have a finished floor of 12.0. This is 2 feet above
the FEMA base flood elevation of 10.0, allowing 2 feet of freeboard for potential sea level rise. The
proposed parking structure is proposed to have a finished floor of 6.0 and will include mitigations to
dry floodproof the building to elevation 11.0.
Zoning Compliance
The project is zoned as Anza Area (AA), under the City of Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan.
Zoning regulations that would apply to this project:
Chapter 25.47 Anza Area
Chapter 25.70 Off-street Parking
Requirement Proposed Footnote
Use Offices - including research and Office / R&D Ch 25.47.020 (c)
development offices with associated
laboratory uses, as well as
instructional activities associated
with an office on the site.
Buildings and structures that None Ch 25.47.020 (h)
exceed forty (40) feet in height
when located within one hundred
(100) feet of the San Francisco Bay
shoreline as defined by the Bay
Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC).
FAR 0.6 Allowed 0.9, include 555, Ch 25.47.025 (a)
DES Architects + Engirucrs, Inc.
�c�2020
�
Burlingnme Buy � 10192.002
Piroject Description
Noz�emher 12, 2020
Page 7 of .9
> 0.6 CUP 577 Airport and new
8-story building.
Total gross floor
area is 501,412 sq.
ft. (excl. rooftop
penthouses)
CUP
SETBACK Front: 30 ft typical. Complies, Refer to Ch 25.47.040 (a) 1-
Side: 10 — 30 ft Sheet 3.1 of the 3
Rear: 25 ft planning set.
Setback from SF Bay and its Compfies, average Ch 25.47.040 (a) 4b
Estuaries setback: � 115 ft
Average 65 feet between any
structure and shoreline as defined
by BCDC.
For structures taller than forty (40) Complies. Ch 25.47.040 (a) 4c
feet, the minimum setback from the
BCDC bayside jurisdiction line shall Height: 133 ft
be equal to the height of the Setback: 142 ft
structure.
Parking No parking spaces in front setback. Grandfathered Ch 25.47.040 (a) 5
Location No parking spaces within twenty conditions, permitted
(20) feet from the inner edge of the per 20-82 BCDC
Bay Trail. permit.
View The width of any structure or Complies, refer to Ch 25.47.040 (a) 6
Corridor combined structures on a lot shall Sheet A3.2.
not obstruct more than fifty (50)
percent of the street frontages. Confirmed with
Planning on
9.8.2010.
Height 65 ft max Building height: 133 Ch 25.47.040 (a) 7
ft (A)
CUP
No building or structure shall None Ch 25.47.040 (a) 7
exceed forty (40) feet when located (B)
within one hundred (100) feet of the
(�ES Arc.lritects + Engi�ieers, Inc.
;c�2020
�
Burlingn»ie Bay � 10192.002
Project Description
Noveniher 12, 2020
Page 8 of 9
San Francisco Bay shoreline as
defined by the BCDC
Lot 35% Max 25% (555, 577 Ch 25.47.040 (a) 8
Coverage Airport, New office
building, Parking
garage and
accessory
structures),
Complies.
Refer to Sheet A3.2.
Lot Frontage 100 feet / 40,000 sq. ft min Complies, refer to Ch 25.47.045 (a)
/ Minimum Sheet A3.1.
Lot size
Landscaping Min 15% of the site Complies. Ch 25.70.050 (a — c)
Min 80% of front setback 35% of the site,
Min 10% of parking area including State Land
Commission land,
and 11 % of parking
area. Refer to Sheet
L5.
No changes to the
street frontage and
existing vegetation
to remain.
Trash / Fully enclosed, attached or Complies. Fully Ch 25.70.050 (d — e)
loading doc detached structure for refuse and enclosed trash
garbage containers enclosure and
75 feet from rear property line screened service
100 feet from BCDC shoreline yards as shown on
site plan. Loading
and delivery area
are setback 75 feet
from rear property
line and outside 100
feet BCDC shoreline
band.
Parking 1 car / 300 sq. ft. or 3.3 cars / 1,000 3 car / 1,000 sq. ft. Ch 25.70.040
sq. ft. (gross floor area) With TDM plan.
L�ES Architects + Engiuecrs, Inc.
5'2020
�
Burlingrtrru: Bay � 10192.002
Project Dcscriptian
Novcnther 12, 2020
Page 9 of 9
Provided a traffic
No CUP is required, study and TDM plan
per Planning's email to justify lowered
dated 9.8.2010. parking ratio.
DES Arcl�itccts + E�t�iueers, Inc.
��'2020
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Joe Fitzgerald <joef@ibew617.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:01 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Action Item: 8(fl 567 Airport Blvd.
Good Morning,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the upcoming project located at 567 Airport Blvd. This project is located
in an area that continues to be revitalized with new development that will help this part of Burlingame provide good
jobs and tap into the growing need for Bio-Tech and Life Science research facilities. In addition, the developer has
agreed to use local Union Contractors and the members that they employ that live and work along the Peninsula. This
provides good paying jobs for the members that have helped build these type of facilities over the last few decades
throughout San Mateo County. By using a local workforce, this will ensure that the wages earned are spent here as
opposed to the importing of workers and exporting of wages to another area.
I speak in support of this upcoming project.
Joe Fitzgerald
Assistant Business Manager
IBEW LOCAL 617
1701 Leslie St.
San Mateo, CA 94402
650-574-4239 Ext. 11
650-574-1408 Fax
[EXTERNAL EMAIL� DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Commissioners:
Charles Bronitsky <charlie@charlieblaw.com>
Tuesday, October 12, 2021 8:40 AM
GRP-Planning Commissioners
Public Comment; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
567 Airport Blvd - Agenda Item(8)(�
Planning Commission Letter.pdf
I represent the owner of 533 Airport Boulevard.
I sent the attached letter to Mr. Hurin late Friday afternoon and am also now sending each of you a copy so that
you can see our comments as they relate to CEQA and the intend to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. As
you will see when you read my letter, we believe that under CEQA a mitigated negative declaration is
inappropriate in this instance and urge you to require a full EIR and environmental review.
In addition to those comments, which primarily address traffic and to a lesser extent aesthetic issues, we agree
with and adopt the comments made by the City of San Mateo and we have some additional comments on some
of the other "exceptions" sought by the applicant.
FAR - CUP: According to the Staff Report, Floor Area Ratio for an Office/R&D building is .6. The applicant is
proposing an FAR of .9 which is a 50% increase above what is allowed. When we spoke with the applicant, we
requested that at the very least they agree to condition the project to lab or other lower density use to address the
significant increase in the FAR and although they noted our concern, they do not seem to have addressed that
issue. Other factors, addressed below, further compound that problem. We therefore urge the Commission not
to allow a Conditional Use Permit for the increased FAR as such a significant increase would be inappropriate.
Building Height - CUP: Building height, by Code is limited to 65' or 5 stories, whichever is less. The applicant
is proposing 133' w�hich is more than double the legal limit. This would significantly impact the surrounding
buildings, including my client's building at 533 Airport Boulevard. Allowing the applicant to double the legal
height would be tantamount to granting a special privilege for which there is no justification in this
instance. That the applicant wants to build a bigger building is not a proper basis for allowing an alteration of
this significance, especially given the impact on that increase on the surrounding property owners. We again
therefore urge the Commission not to allow a Conditional Use Permit for the increase in building height as it is
unjustified.
Parking - Variance: Finally, the applicant seeks a variance for the parking ratios which, much like the other
requests for special treatment, is unjustified and problematic. The traffic issues are addressed in the attached
letter, but it is relatively clear that given the location of the project with limited to no on street parking, that
allowing a variance for a 10% reduction in parking would become problematic over time. Again, we urge the
Commission to deny the variance for the parking.
California, and the Peninsula in particular suffer from an overdevelopment of office space and a lack of
development of housing, espccially affordable housing. Where are the thousands of people who will work at
these building live? Assuming justiiiably that living locally is not realistic, allowing further development of
office space where there are now a significant number of already empty office buildings would only further
exacerbate the problem with commute traffic. We therefore urge you not to appove this development for the
reasons noted herein and in out letter.
Thank you,
J==:_--__-
Q�O�
�
CharBie Bronitsky
Attorney at Law Office oi Charies S. Bronitsky
A 533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326, Burlingame, CA 94010
P 650 918-5760 M 650 532-3830 W www.bronitskylaw.com
E charlie@charlieblaw.com
Direct 650 532-3830
Skype csbronitsky
U::
��EXTERNAL EMAILJ DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Telephone
(650) 918-5760
Law Offices Of
Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd
Burlingame, California 94010
www. bronitskylaw.com
October 8, 2021
Planning Commission
Ciry of Burlingame
Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Re: 567 Airport Blvd. - Proposed Negative Declaration
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Fax
(650) 649-2316
We are counsel to the property owner of 533 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California we are
submitting the following comments on its behalf, having submitted comments to Planning
Staff back in July.
Approximately 600 pages of new material, including a revised traffic study of some 467 pages,
including new exhibits and new material, were not posted until this afternoon leaving us no time
to review the material prior to submission of this letter. Under California law, the City is
required to provide at least 20 days for public and agency review and comment on a proposed
negative declaration. Pub Res C§21091(b); 14 Cal Code Regs §15073(a). All proposed negative
declarations must be circulated for review and comment. See '�7.19. Once a negative
declaration has been circulated, it may need to be recirculated for another round of
review and comment if it is "substantially revised" after the public notice of the first
circulation period has been given. 14 Cal Code Regs § 15073.5(a).
Given that our most significant comments to staff related to traffic, we consider it prejudicial
and a violation of the notice requirements to have waited until the last minute to have
provided such a significant amount of additional material. We will do our best to review and
provide additional comments prior to the hearing, but that may not be possible given the
extent and technical nature of the material. This is also our first opportunity to see any
response from Planning Staff to the comments we submitted in July and we will endeavor to
review those and respond within the minimum amount of time we have been given.
We have reviewed the following documents that were publicly provided:
1. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Project Plants for 567 Airport Boulevard (Burlingame Bay)
3. Burlingame Bay Graphics Package
Burlingame Planning Commission
October 8, 2021
Page 2
4. 567 Airport Boulevard Project - Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration
including Exhibits A through F
5. November 23, 2020 Staff Report
6. 567 Airport Boulevard - Miscellaneous Attachments
Please accept the following as our comments on your proposed negative declaration.
GENERAL STANDARDS:
When adopting a negative declaration, the lead agency must find that there is no substantial
evidence in the record before it that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment. 14 Cal Code Regs §15074(b). To reflect this determination, a proposed negative
declaration must contain a finding that the project will not have a significant environmental
effect. 14 Cal Code Regs §15071(c).
The lead agency must also make a finding that the negative declaration reflects the agency's
independent judgment and analysis. Pub Res C§21082.1(c)(3); 14 Cal Code Regs §15074(b).
This requirement codifies the holding in Friends of La Vina v County of Los Angeles (1991) 232
Cal.App.3d 1446, that an EIR may be prepared by a consultant hired by the project applicant
but must reflect the agency's independent judgment. Under the facts as set out below, we do
not believe that such a finding can be made and thus a Negative Declaration could not be
sustained.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS:
The location of the proposed new commercial building has severely constrained access that is
already impacted and will be further impacted by newly constructed, but not yet occupied
buildings. The proposed building will be located in an area set back from a narrow, four lane
road which is the only ingress and egress point for a significant number of commercial office
buildings and hotels. The southerly portion of the road, Airport Boulevard, narrows to two
lanes not far from the location of the proposed development and there is no direct ingress or
egress connection with Southbound Highway US 101.
The only direct connection with Southbound Highway US 101 is the Broadway Burlingame
freeway exit. If that access is blocked or significantly occluded, there will be only one single
entry and exit point for the proposed project and all of the commercial and hotel occupants
down a two-lane road. No analysis of the effect of a total or partial blockage of that access is
provided in the traffic study.
The traffic study, on which the proposed Negative Declaration relies, appears to address, in
Section 5, on page 31, other approved and reasonably forseeable projects, but the analysis fails
Burlingame Planning Commission
October 8, 2021
Pa�e 3
to provide sufficient information for a review. The report specifically states "[t]he
Background conditions were developed using available turning movement counts from each
project's Traffic Impact Analysis. The trips were distributed throughout the network based on
that available information from the Traffic Impact Analysis reports." None of these reports
were provided to determine whether they suffer from similar issues as discussed herein.
Thus, reliance on these other reports likely compounds the understatement of traf�ic at the
respective intersections. That Table 8 shows not one single intersection with an F Level of
Service and only four with a D Level of Service, substantiates that the study is flawed, given
the limited access and the overall increase of use on Airport Boulevard and the likelihood, as
discussed below, of the underutilization of Transportation Demand Management Plans.
According to the report, "The proposed project is expected to generate 2,338 total daily trips,
including 278 new a.m. peak hour trips (239 in, 39 out) and 276 net new p.m. peak hour trips
(44 in, 232 out)." In other words, the report concludes that only about 10% of the trips will
be during morning peak hours and approximately 10� during evening peak hours. There is no
information provided to support this conclusion that approximately 80� of the traffic
generated will be during non-peak hours.
Without the necessary material to evaluate the conclusions reached in the traffic study, the
Planning Commission simply cannot meet the standard of coming to an independent
conclusion on the impact of this project on traffic. Reliance on a report that is missing critical
information and details would be misplaced and an abdication of the duty to make an
independent judgment. For example, while there are hotels adjacent to this project where
traffic could be disbursed throughout the day, most of the adjacent buildings are office
buildings where the traffic is generally concentrated around commute hours. Given that fact,
and that the traffic study does not support it assumptions with any provided data, those
assumptions cannot simply be accepted.
In addition, there appears to be no consideration of the fact that the existing buildings, that
will be part of the overall complex being analyzed, have been fundamentally vacant for a
significant period of time, therefore understating existing traffic counts and understating the
additional number of trips that will occur when the project as a whole is completed and leased.
Parking at the rates required by the Burlingame Municipal Code would require just under
1,700 spaces. With each space indicating two trips per day at a minimum, the additional trips
from this project are understated in the report by around 1,000 trips per day. Exercising
independent judgment as to whether this is impactful is simply impossible given the lack of
any underlying data. Thus, the Planning Commission could not come to an independent
conclusion supporting a negative declaration as required by law.
The specifics of the Traffic Demand Management Program for this project are also not set
out, but the adjustments made to traffic impacts are overstated because historically, these
Programs and underutilized and the requirements generally unenforced. An analysis of the
Burlingame Planning Commission
October 8, 2021
Page 4
projected traffic, adjusting for the currently empty buildings and without any mitigation
efforts should be provided in a full EIR to see, in essence, a more realistic scenario. Again,
the failure to address this issue in the Initial Study makes reaching an independent conclusion
all but impossible.
EMERGENCY ACCESS ISSUES:
Emergency access and evacuation impact is dealt with in a summary and insufficient manner.
The Draft Report states: "The City does not have an established evacuation plan; however,
the Project would adhere to the guidelines established by the Community Safety Element of
the Burlingame General Plan. Although the Project would add additional vehicles to
Airport Boulevard, their presence would not physically interfere with one's ability to evacuate
in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan. Impacts wouldbe less than significant." Despite the
shocking fact that there is no evacuation plans for the thousands of people that work and those
who stay in the hotels along Airport Boulevard a narrow two to four lane road, there seems to
be no analysis support the impact conclusion. Exactly how the "less than significant impact"
conclusion was reached is unstated. An actual plan and an actual analysis should be
undertaken and in order for an independent conclusion to be reached, should be based on facts
and realistic projections. Without any of that information, an independent conclusion cannot
be reached.
AESTHETICS:
This beautiful Bayfront area of Burlingame is quickly becoming a commercial eyesore. Low
rise, small office buildings are being replaced bigger, more dense projects while the
infrastructure to support that additional use has not increased but, in fact, been reduced.
That this project, along with recently completed but unoccupied projects will have significant
environmental impact is all but undeniable. Approving a Negative Declaration in this case,
would not be supported by the underlying facts and conditions and should not be granted.
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:
"According to our Supreme Court, `the Legislature intended [CEQA] to be interpreted in
such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the
reasonable scope of the statutory language.' [Citations.]" Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County
ofElDorado (1990) 225 Ca1.App.3d 872, 880.
A mitigated negative declaration, such as is being proposed here, may be appropriate "when
the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans ... would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
Burlingame Planning Commission
October 8, 2021
Page 5
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial
evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised,
may have a significant effect on the environment ." Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15369.5,
(emphasis added).
The actual standard of review over a public agency's decision has been characterized as
setting a"low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference
for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such
review is warranted. " Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Ca1.App.4th 1307, 1316-1317.
In other words, a Negative Declaration should be the exception, not the rule, and any
ambiguity supported by the record should result in requiring a full EIR.
Public comments, such as this letter, are to be given full weight in determining whether to
adopt a negative declaration. "[I]f a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR
even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project �vill not
have a significantef�j`ect. " Friends of "B"Street v. City ofHay�vard (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988,
1000-1001(emphasis added). "If such substantial evidence exists ... preparation of an EIR is
mandatory. Consideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of
a negative declaration." Citizen's Com. to Save Our I�illage v. City of Claremont (1995) 37
Ca1.App.4th 1157,1168 (emphasis added).
In the case of ProjectNiles v. City ofFreemont (2018) 25 Ca1.App.5th 1129 "the City [of
Fremont] relied on an expert traffic study and found the Project would not have significantly
adverse traffic impacts with the addition of a single mitigation measure requiring Valley Oak to
ensure adequate sight distance at the intersection of the proposed New Street and Niles
Boulevard intersection (New Street/Niles intersection)." Id. at 1136. The Court of Appeal
rejected that conclusion based on public comments about the uniqueness of the particular
location and the impact of traffic due to that uniqueness. Based on those public comments, the
Court of Appeal held that the negative declaration was unsupported and a full EIR was
required.. Id. at 1152-1153.
The same is true here. There are significant deficiencies in the traffic study that was
submitted. There are issues, such as new construction and unoccupied existing buildings that
were not addressed. The street itself was just recently redesigned and rebuilt and the access
is limited. Thus, conclusions based on intersection "levels of service" which in turn are
based on incomplete data, is inadequate. Under the law, a negative declaration is
inappropriate in such circumstances.
In Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 299 Cal.Appl4th 690, the Court of Appeal addressed a
negative declaration based, for traffic purposes, on a potentially flawed traffic study. The
Court held that it was error to approve a negative declaration in such a case, not because the
Burlingame Planning Commission
October 8, 2021
Pa�e 6
traffic study had been disproven, but simply because there was "credible evidence" that it
may have been flawed and thus a full EIR should have been required. "For our purposes, the
question is not whether Smith's opinion constitutes proof that the greater traffic generating
industrial development will occur in the subdivision. Rather, the question is whether Smith's
opinion constitutes substantial, credible evidence that supports a fair argument that such
development may occur and that, as a result, the greater traffic generated by such
development may have a significant impact on the environment surrounding the project, and
therefore an EIR was required. The answer to that question is "yes," and none of the county's
arguments support a contrary conclusion." Id. at 721. Rominger presents facts quite
analogous to those that exist here, strongly suggesting that adopting a negative declaration
would be inappropriate under CEQA.
In Taxpayers for Aaountable Sch. Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. (2013) 215
Ca1.App.4th 1013, the Initial Study failed to address unique traf�ic impacts due to the
uniqueness of the site and its use. As with the prior cases, the Court of Appeal held that
where there "is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project may have a
significant effect on traffic in the area" a negative declaration is not supported and a full EIR is
required. Id. at 1055. Such substantial evidence exists here and as a result a negative
declaration would be improper.
Under California law it is patently clear that any reasonable ambiguity as to whether there is
an environmental impact requires that a full EIR be developed and that a negative declaration
cannot be adopted. Any ambiguity should result in favor of a full EIR.
This project presents exactly that issue. As noted above, there are significant flaws in the
traffic analysis presented as part of the Initial Study. Those flaws make it clear that traffic in
the area of the proposed project is potentially a significant environmental impact. It may also
be a safety impact as well, given the number of hotel guests and businesspeople that are on the
narrow and limited access street on a daily basis. Under such circumstances, a negative
declaration would be wholly inappropriate and a likely violation of CEQA. We therefore
strongly urge the Planning Commission not to adopt the proposed negative declaration in this
instance.
�� � �
Charles S. Bronitsky
Attorney at Law
11.23.20 PC Meeting
Item 11 d
567 Airport Blvd.
Page 1 of 1
� � �.; ;� �'� E Q
��'��;OV 23 2020
C;i�i �`,' JF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING Di`�
From: Greg Kuhl [n�iailtc�:<�re���cr�b�i�areaot'tices.com_]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 10:57 AM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <I'lannins('om_missione��s�i burlin��e,c�>
Subject: 567 Airport Blvd.
Planning Commissioners:
Re: 567 Airport Blvd
Thank you for taking time to read my position on the proposed construction of 567 Airport Blvd. Please
bring this email to the hearing set for this evening.
It is with same skepticism that I write this emaiL I have a business at 533 Airport Blvd. My business
supplies office space to small users. We have endured three years of pile driving noise, constant traffic
interruptions, and never-ending road construction and detours. Now we are fighting COVID 19. My
business is now flghting 25% vacancy, where our history has been 100 % occupied. Soon we will be
fighting the traffic of having the FaceBook campus fully occupied with an additional 5,000+ people. We
have not seen the TIA on the FaceBook impact on traffic, but we would like to. We have a bottle neck
on each end of Airport Blvd at the end of the business day as it is now.
To add an cight-story building to what would seem to be an impending traffic nightmare approaches
insanity. Also, our once decent views would be replaced by looking at the back of a parking
structure. The approval of 567 Airport Blvd., would be a death nail for my business.
Sincerely,
Gregory S. Kuhl
Bay Area Executive Offices
533 Airport Blvd. #400
Burlingame, CA 94010
(P) 650-373-2000
(F) 650-373-2052
leff Philliber
1625 Peck Ave
San Mateo, CA 94401
jeffphilliberl@gmail.com
November 27, 2020
Mr. Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager, City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: CEQA scoping for proposed 567 Airport Blvd. Project / Bayfront traffic issues
Dear Mr. Hurin,
As a concerned San Mateo neighbor and representative of the North Shoreview Neighborhood Traffic
Committee1, I spoke briefly at the City of Burlingame's November 23, 2020 Planning Commission
meeting on the proposed 567 Airport Blvd. project. I asked about a project CEQA schedule, scoping
opportunities, and a need to access the project traffic report as soon as possible. Following up, the
North Shoreview Neighborhood Traffic Committee requests the following from the City of Burlingame:
1. That the City receives and considers these 567 Airport Blvd. project CEQA scoping comments
2. That we are provided timely access to the 567 Airport Blvd. traffic study
3. That we be notified of future CEQA and project announcements for this and other proposals in
Burlingame's Bayfront Planning Area
4. That the City of Burlingame comprehensively examines current and future development in the
Bayfront Planning Area in a programmatic CEQA document
Details on these points are provided below.
1. CEQA scoping comments on the 567 Airport Blvd. project
The following scoping comments may be supplemented after the North Shoreview
Neighborhood Traffic Committee has a chance to review the project traffic study, which we
understand has been drafted and submitted to City staff.
We request that any 567 Airport Blvd. project CEQA analysis identify the North Shoreview
neighborhood as part of the project's area of potential effect and consider the project's
potential impacts on the neighborhood.
1 The North Shoreview Neighborhood Traffic Committee is a neighborhood group commissioned in 2016 as part of
the City of San Mateo's city-wide Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.
Mr. Ruben Hurin
567 Airport Blvd. project scoping letter
November 27, 2020
San Mateo's North Shoreview neighborhood is a densely populated residential area bound
tightly between Coyote Point to the north, US-101 to the west, Third Avenue to the south, and
the San Francisco Bay to the east. There are only two main roads that provide ingress/egress to
the neighborhood: N. Bayshore Blvd. at Peninsula Ave. to the north, and Norfolk St. at Third Ave.
to the south. During the PM commute hours, south- and east-bound drivers (to Foster City, the
East Bay, and other points south) often cut through the North Shoreview neighborhood as an
alternative to a congested US-101 and SR-92. This is particularly true of drivers leaving the
Burlingame Bayfront area. Such drivers enter the neighborhood via N. Bayshore Blvd. at
Peninsula Ave., fan out through neighborhood streets, and converge again at the outlet on
Norfolk St. and Third Ave. This often causes tremendous traffic congestion and related impacts
in North Shoreview.
Up until the COVID pandemic temporarily disrupted normal traffic patterns, cut-through traffic
has caused increasingly greater impacts to the North Shoreview neighborhood. Gridlock
regularly traps neighborhood residents in their homes. In addition to tremendous degradation
of level-of-service on residential streets and intersections, impacts on North Shoreview
residents include excessive automobile exhaust emissions, safety issues from often impatient
and frustrated cut-through drivers, establishment of a regular vehicular barrier that physically
divides an established community, and inadequate emergency access and egress. These are all
typically recognized as environmental impacts as listed in the CEQA Guideline's Appendix G
checklist. These conditions would likely be worsened by the proposed 567 Airport Blvd. project
and thus we expect to see these examined as potential impacts in the project CEQA analysis.
We request that the 567 Airport Blvd. project CEQA analysis provide a full examination of
potential cumulative impacts in combination with other major projects in the area,
particularly with regard to how such cumulative impacts may affect the North Shoreview
neighborhood.
CEQq requires consideration of cumulative impacts even where an individual project's
contribution may be less than significant. Potential 567 Airport Blvd. project impacts in the
North Shoreview neighborhood would undoubtedly be worsened when added to impacts from
other area projects. Of greatest concern would be projects originating in the Bayfront area of
Burlingame along with those in west Burlingame with easy access to Peninsula Ave. Commuters
traveling south and/or east from those locations often cut through the North Shoreview
neighborhood.
A new, large office campus (Facebook Oculus) at 300 Airport Blvd. has been constructed and is
expected to open in 2021. This project will feature over three-quarters of a million square feet
of office space and thousands of new parking spaces and vehicle trips. The CEqA review for this
project did not consider traffic-related impacts to the North Shoreview neighborhood. A draft
300 Airport Blvd. project Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that was recently
shared with the North Shoreview Neighborhood Traffic Committee appears to provide little
relief for this anticipated problem. Other large-scale projects that could contribute to
potentially significant cumulative impacts to North Shoreview include: the proposed 1300
Bayshore Highway project, the proposed 1499 Bayshore Highway project, and several
Burlingame projects on the west side of US-101.
2
Mr. Ruben Hurin
567 Airport Blvd. project scoping letter
November 27, 2020
2. 567 Airport Blvd. project traffic study
We request access to the 567 Airport Bivd. project traffic study as soon as possible, because a
review of the study may trigger additional scoping comments (which we intend to provide as per
CEQA Guidelines §15063(e)). Such public scoping comments should be provided early in the
project's CEQA review. This is particularly important given the City's statement at the Planning
Commission meeting that the project would likely be covered by an Initial Study and Negative
Declaration. The City's anticipation of a Ne�ative Declaration su��ests that the Citv may alreadv
assume that there would be no si�nificant impacts. We believe that any such assumption would
be premature and pre-decisional. To reduce later conflict and delays, it is imperative that
proper and fully informed scoping be allowed to take place as early in the process as possible.
Notification of future CEQA and project announcements
If you haven't already, please add me (representing the North Shoreview Neighborhood Traffic
Committee) to your CEQA and project mailing list for announcements and documents pertaining
to this project and other major projects in Burlingame's Bayfront Planning Area.
4. The City of Burlingame lacks an up-to-date programmatic CEQA analysis for the entire
Bayfront Planning Area
There is an overarching issue here: Burlingame's Bayfront Planning Area has large areas of
undeveloped and/or surface parking space and thus great potential for continued large-scale
commercial development. In fact, such heavy development of the Bayfront area is encouraged
in the City's planning documents. This is occurring now, including with the enormous new office
campus at 300 Airport Blvd., with large-scale project proposals at 1300 and 1499 Bayshore
Highway, and with this current 567 Airport Blvd. campus proposal, and there is no end in sight.
We find no evidence that the City's planning and CEQA documentation have fully examined the
cumulative impacts of such development as required (e.g., CEQA Guidelines §15130), especially
as they may be experienced in nearby areas such as San Mateo's North Shoreview
neighborhood. Instead, as with the 567 Airport Blvd. proposal, the City seems to rely on
piecemealing these specific project impacts through Categorical Exemptions, Initial
Study/Negative Declarations, and narrowly focused project Environmental Impact Reports.
Furthermore, the City's CEQA analyses seem to stop examining impacts at the City's geographic
limits (e.g., Peninsula Avenue), at least concerning the North Shoreview neighborhood.
The North Shoreview Neighborhood Traffic Committee understands that regional traffic
problems cannot realistically be solved under our current circumstances. Instead, we are
looking for better planning and investment in comprehensive long-term strategies from our
local cities and agencies. This cannot happen as long as such agencies are unaware of the
problems that their projects may create, or when they dismiss those problems with piecemeal
CEQA documentation, narrowly scoped traffic studies, trifling Transportation Demand
Management programs, or simple admonitions that nothing can be done. Large-scale and
effective measures may become possible at such time that we recognize the large-scale
magnitude of the new problems we are creating. For this reason -- and because CEQA requires
Mr. Ruben Hurin
567 Airport Blvd. project scoping letter
November 27, 2020
it -- we ask the City of Burlingame to undertake a comprehensive look at its current and future
Bayfront development in the form of updated plans and programmatic CEQA documents with
full cumulative impacts analyses. New policies and mitigative strategies may then be pursued
with a wide set of stakeholders, including commercial interests and property owners, affected
City and County agencies, regional authorities, and nearby neighborhoods. Moving forward on a
Peninsula Avenue interchange with US-101 is one obvious idea that should be pursued in that
context.
We appreciate the project planning information that has been provided thus far by the City of
Burlingame and the opportunity by the Planning Commission for us to air our concerns. We look
forward to timely review of the project traffic report and we anticipate that we may provide additional
scoping comments; at a later time, we would be pleased to review the proposed 567 Airport Blvd.
project CEQA documentation. We hope to work with the City in an on-going and cooperative fashion on
this project and concerning the other cross-border issues mentioned here.
Sincerely,
C �a���b�.
1eff Philliber
C: Planning Commissioner Comaroto
Planning Commissioner Gaul
Planning Commissioner Loftis
Planning Commissioner Schmid
Planning CommissionerTerrones
Planning CommissionerTse
Planner Kevin Gardiner
Interim City Attorney Spansail
City of San Mateo Senior Traffic Engineer Lopez
North Shoreview Neighborhood Association (Newton, Shepler, Addy, Sellers)
krupka
DRAFT FINAL TDM PLAN
BURLINGAME BAY
Prepared for
EW-PG Airport Owner, LLC
Prepared by
KRUPKA CONSULTING
November 6, 2020
krupka
[this page intentionally left blank]
krupka.
EW-PG Airport Owner, LLC (hereinafter "Client") engaged Krupka Consulting to prepare a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the Burlingame Bay Road project in
Burlingame, California (hereinafter referred to as "Burlingame Bay" or "Project"). The TDM Plan
was required by the City of Burlingame (City) to support the Project entitlement application. This
document represents the Draft Final TDM Plan and incorporates comments from the City on the
Draft TDM Plan dated May 8, 2020. Presented herein are the TDM Plan purpose, the Project,
supportive TDM infrastructure and measures, programmatic TDM measures, a calculation of trip
credits using guidelines established by the City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG) and monitoring and reporting.
Purpose of TDM Plan
The purpose of the TDM Plan is to define specific TDM measures to be implemented by the
Project to meet the City's TDM Program goal, which is: at least 20% of all employees regularly
commute to work using modes other than single occupant vehicles (SOVs) or use an alternative
work hour schedule. Equally important with regard to purpose is C/CAG's stipulation that local
jurisdictions must require the developer and all subsequent tenants to reduce demand for all
new peak hour trips projected to be generated by developments. C/CAG established several
choices for local jurisdictions, including implementing TDM Programs that have the capacitv to
fully reduce the demand for new peak hour trips.� Therefore, the purpose of the TDM Plan was
expanded to address the C/CAG requirement.
Project Description
Location - As shown in Exhibit A, the Project is located at a 12.8 acre developed parcel at the
South end of Airport Boulevard, east of US Highway 101 adjacent to Burlingame Lagoon and
Sanchez Channel. Two site driveways are located on Airport Boulevard, which provides local
connections to Old Bayshore Highway, Broadway, Anza Boulevard and Peninsula Avenue,
which in turn serve US Highway 101 and points north and south.
The Project is in the Bayfront commercial land use area within the Bayfront neighborhood. The
new Burlingame Point life sciences office campus is under construction directly across Sanchez
Channel from the Project.
Description - The Project would construct a new eight-story office/research and development
building adjacent to two existing office buildings, one with five stories and one with eight stories.
A total of 1,520 parking spaces would be provided — 1,144 spaces in a new parking garage on
existing surface parking and 376 surface spaces.
Exhibit B illustrates the site plan and the new building situated between two existing buildings.
The project is a bold, contemporary site refresh and expansion with internal and external
attributes that line up well with needs and desires of high-tech companies and customers. In
addition to new driveways and surface parking, including a commute bus center, to enhance
'C/CAG, Guidelines for Implementing the Land Use Component of the Congestion Management
Program, 2015) (hereinafter "C/CAG Land Use Guidelines")
Draft Final TDM Plan for Burlingame Bay November 6, 2020
Page 1
>
�P
O
O
�
� �. AIRPORT BLVD ° �-� �. JIM�'��
�. �
s � � t .''.. . . . `' � , �' J� . `
.,�,,� s. . *� � � . �'r ,,�,. � � ..
• �. �, ,�'' ��� ` �� �� •�� •
' � �; �, ,�+ �� �
;�1 ' «I;�:�} '1 � .� �. ��P �—,.
�
F s�� � p �.' AIRPORT BLVD
101 }� � f
. �•t ♦ -�,..
� •�.'... _���. .i ,ea;.�'�- _
• ��� � +
� � . ^�,. � d '�`�dS1� fv i �e+�
+y �},�C• __ � ���� +,. ��' :'e',- _
�,��' f .
'~..� . ,
"�, r +� � •
�. �/y�� � � `�� ,iz �4,(„ �. ,"+ti',y� ,c� y � �. .
�i. � . .!« �� , . ,�,.' *�� �^ t x ! . M �
�`(�Y �'♦ � �'' T � `�{r :� "�f: ^'j. �`� �t.
, b J � 4 � Ir .{ �.
� t.�. *.� ���+ �i�� 4l� �. ♦.� •{ }3 h 7 �
�'' , � ` 'r _ } y+ a1.� t �.� �+' y.0 .� � i , { "f� �' � 7"w
�� '7Q�� � '�; �. �'1�!�'•`�•i/t1ti.-,,. , ,4�•'��ui: JZ� ��.
'�t•�.p,�',� '� ��'``.y ` ,.yt�*�"� T�� •:y ���.� �.'r{��,1"'1r�►''
•� � .,
v Rr- --..
+
j �i'
�
� 4 ii�.�" ., ,R.,y'
�:, t•
- �Ti �. .�
i+\`
• "'' ��.� �4�I "k�.`. '"'' . � �;�,�� � >x , , _ ' - <i,� -- ,� L�.�,�.y , � ,� • ` �.�,�
K. �i fi � ' ` . .� � *� ,�i . ;� .� 4 � j/�;.�;�y A�w�,� "� ♦ � } � Z 1�'� �
"�� 4 �. ��� �i�.. '� .� ���•. ..�., �/�I� �� �. 1� � � x f�� . �•` ,"�' �
, ,1, � ��r �, �;.::�p� ••` -'.,��"�. , �? P : %�'���y,� � � . �I� ��.r � r'. ; i
+�T �:�. � � f� l� � � � � "+( , t°D.. `n * � a. 4 :T"' �i �
.�J�,,SYp�•'�.",�/`��{'t)�`i` �,,�v• t�, °"s"fW� ti` .. � . � ✓ ,,, . ,�'� 'f . � �`; .. - t� ��
?�f'��'y' ♦ `'h 1�� ?r �� � ,i � .\ �►. ��' �'��"! � � ��� '�� ���� !�'
���'� F ���1 ' � � 'iy i�ta'�"�i ► �i! y`��,' � y'�., '1; 'l •'� �
x r r„� ' � �i�.#i � r +� . ti :7' . .i� i�i` '.. . '�, s jr • �r.•.y1 , "d � �':
��71,�1�+��': �� � �Y.'.��+�
����' � •: �r�►`' �
� . • �• ,.•, . , ��
� � . , ..';�
�•���.3 . �.y: t
\' �'•� ' ������ �
�. ,,a.s, � '.a�. �
N , y.�s -
-� ��-.4� . • '� ���^•ti7
. "� i�R �'�. � .
� k" �,`
♦ y
:;�' . � l .,� i '`�, �,�y.
.,
s t'�.
!1'�'.b= ,.. w � - #; : -
�.. ._Ir �...f + • •.
�� ��,���� ����
�„
I PROJECT SITE
_-- . - - -
�i.,
►r ���
� �, � �•_j+.
���P�.l1 �,
� ��:?�
r`�2. Y+
j�'. ih. .
J�
P
�P
yJ
��
��
e
A�pP�
SOURCE: DE.SArchitec(s r Engineers, 2020
"- , � �'" ' .
5►: �,�'�lde � -I'
.�''� �h6.." (`
�
`_' . .
.._._ i
Exhibit A
� Project Site Burlingame Bay TDM Plan
Project Vicinity
N
v��
g►�A�2��:��'
"� tl-.�
�i`� .
'��� ,
��
a �. �
�$
/,.
I J
�' r ' %�- �
, � �,�, r.
, �t �- _ _ ` - � � .
,�"a_ � ,\ ji ' �� �. ;% '—^� ,, _ —
�y G
'� � i : ' 'r � � � L �� �
; . . << �, ,�.
�`'JO
�ti
. �
.;
��' � . ,
.'�j/
. ���
,` ��
�-,a�lir . . ..0 ` Ctl
g� .
�t �� ,.•,
•." � �i
.,y+�. 'F �
'!R` 577 Airport
� ,d'+�(Ej Office Building
a. 8-story/ 139K
��`� �� �
Burlingame Lagoon
' . , l
�� �, ,�
a!Il�, �. ' �`
� �
� . _=_a�� ;�}
�'� �::
p �, •g'�'
A � 4��= _,_ •� ��. ' � .!
,•. •; ' �
Vew;p r[cing Gar�e � � �.� �i I� �'
S + q.5 Level �; r ,� ,�i. � t, ,
• � %i
. •''� �, � '��� �'
�a� � � .� . ° , � ,�, y�'
- �.f .������¢ J�� �,
� �nr
1 �, o � � �4
���' �
a ,� ! ,�.�� • i�'� t�' �
��—�� ., _� r
b � ,� ..► ' s,. I
�_ � : � !'z = � � +
�' - �J-
V
��
- x:,:-:�_:-= ¢ �,
c- -�— — ..J;� '�k_ �
- 1Tlj, ,r"b� -- -
_.,._.�..�„r''-'=r --i- -•�._ _ �- _� -�.
.. K� � �
�` '3 � � . .. rti�'"
,� r.
�._ -,� ' ,---� �:
���_����
�;
a�
c
C
CO
L
U
N
N
i
U
C
N
CA
SOURCE: D6SArchitects + Enginee�s. 2020
Exhibit B
Burlingame Bay TDM Plan
Site Plan
krupka:
access and circulation, substantial landscaping with promenades, view areas and patios with
seating and casual dining features are proposed to complement the waterside setting.
Supportive TDM Infrastructure and Project TDM Measures
The Project as envisioned would be a pedestrian and bicycle friendly campus within the
Bayfront commercial area, served by active transportation such as the Burlingame Trolley,
Burlingame Bayside Shuttle and mature sidewalks, trails and bikeways. Exhibit C highlights
active transportation serving the Project.
Project TDM measures were defined to complement the existing TDM setting. The following
paragraphs highlight these features, which are summarized on Exhibit D.
Community Connectivity - The Project and respective site improvements would connect to and
complement Bayfront area facilities, including sidewalks and bike lanes on Airport Boulevard
and the Bay Trail adjacent to the Project site, which serves the Coyote Point Recreation Area in
San Mateo. This indicates positive community connectivity.
Public Transportation Access - The Project would include a commute bus center with two bus
bays. The facility would be located adjacent to the parking structure in the center of the site, with
suitable turning movement dimensions to allow easy bus entries and exits and connections to
Airport Boulevard. The Burlingame Trolley traverses the Bayfront area and includes a stop near
577 Airport Boulevard, and connects the Project site with the Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain
Stations as well as Broadway and Buriingame Avenue business districts. Commute.org
operates the Burlingame Bayside Shuttie, which provides direct commute period service
between the Project site and the Millbrae BART/Caitrain Station. Two buses serve the area and
carry approximately 2,800 total AM and PM peak period riders per month (Source:
Commute.org data summaries for October 2019 and January 2020).
Pedestrian Amenities - The Project walkway system would minimize vehicular conflicts, allow
direct access to the Bay Trail, buildings and the parking structure. Landscaping features, patios
and seating areas wouid complement the waikway system and soften the Project environment.
Bicycie Parking - The Project would include 41 bicycle parking spaces, with 37 Class I(secure)
spaces in the bicycle enclosure on the first floor of the parking structure and 4 Class II spaces in
2 bike racks near building entries.
Shower Facilities - The new building would include shower rooms for men and women on the
first floor, with a total of eight shower stalls, to support employees who bicycle and walk to work
or exercise during the day, or both.
Parkin�Management - The Project would include preferential parking of the following kinds.
• Accessible ("ADA Stalls") - 32 total stalls (6 van, 26 standard), located in the parking
structure and adjacent to existing buildings.
• Clean Air Vehicle - 14 stalls, located in the parking structure.
Draft Final TDM P/an for Burlingame Bay November 6, 2020
Page 2
i
s+
` • �,
� � � � � � � .i I I I�•J � I I � I J.
\\\ � ,
\ .... ,
`, � �� , �•i i�� ,
> � �� ' � i /y .
P ,� t � �� i .
.� ' •:;�,� �-.
� � !lUl
o ,
'
a
�
v �
`.,. V - ,-y�
� .,r
� -
PROJECT SITE
�.._i!_.�-�_� �.._�4.� ��+e'.�r+�'P'�'� -.. ___ _ . ,_ __ �_
. �� �'�� " ' I
'
�
� .r-"�.-- . � - � � ar J � f ��..r J
, �`r � � � '. i ' i
! � �
� I r' i_ i +.4' �. . : .j �
� ... y � � ,� �
,.+ r�i ��
, '' ; :'� ^6� `' _ ;
i i .-�: �•�!4t A'�� � .ii - .
- - � ��'��.ii'!�. i r ,.. • •
��.t
_ � �.t�`�1'`+
� �o
_ ---�' - - � � - -
iW�..,�.�.: .. . r
`�`� .y,�.. . � `�r � �.��• rk' �� •.,r. :�,,,�. ��..i � � rMi/ny
'-� ,r.� , v .- �"s�i` �,7 . a;s � 7��� � +,�r��
` v •r h� ��~a-.t ���'bi^,`�, •� F� �jI X•• ` � •� t�.+�!'
' - v �,S r � ,,,• ,� �� ' '..*D�C•,� i � , . �� y-� � k v
.:r�` �� v �. •�� ,, � v 'ti� i ,h:� �F' r;} �i ,�.1 �'i�: . � v
y c ,. r ,.'�My w � .
, � � . . s , ;� v , ��• * ,���� y iy4 !1K- � �.�. ��S ��rt , .,� �" , � � V
� s
� `�;;r` � z'. r : w . �
� � "ci.' � ' 4"�,!� � '� x� ',�'� ,�.� � , r � �. �e �' v
v v v r r I �'��'R, } a 'f �.�' 1r, ,1� �� �' w
� � , � I v. . ' + f , ti �' liy i •,�'•'.. �` � '�i� , �v
v v � � '< c.�� •
.� 'K,°• � . .
Y'� � �": i. - v � .. "' ., � .� ; � '�; ' �::r`�i.� +_!'� �*�iy x, .+F': , � • ��'�
� �. s' �
� I V . F.. �,}r y ;y � V r j r �.�•. ..f . � • �f � y .. . � �I �A.�..y�'.�A;`�:s
�' � ' v
� -� c� -- v v � �
y��. V .� '�r.11 + I v v J . v .
; •. • y 1!9 v v ?F ♦
� y+�. �'.� r �, . I .i w
,� �iC'
r� : t .v A. ♦ v v v v
- , . 11.� ` t } � , ♦ � r
,� ' •-j,� - .l . J � v
� � V �
N , � ♦*,,� " \ ,, � / „ . ..! „ ,/
�� -, ,.
� „ ��*r • � i v ,� �a. ..
. �� s � '} ' _� �` �
� '
� �. : � � V ,
_ . . n', ' : � I � ' � .
SOURCE: DES Archrtects + Engineers, 2020 and Budingame General Plan. City nl 6urlingame 2079
� Samtrans Routes
---� Burlingame Trolley
�� Burlingame Shuttle
----� Trail (existing)
� - - Trail (planned)
• w JF.
- ' v P
. P
i �
•
� ` � v� gJ
r ; -� r ���
.'
.
r �
� ��
�
- Bike Path (Class I)
- • - • - Bike Path (Class II)
- - � Bike Path (Class III/Sharrows)
Exhibit C
Burlingame Bay TDM Plan
Active Transportation
.
/ ;�
�
�
� �
\ %
j ' _ _� - ---
I ��
,i i , i �
I � I �
I �1 � I L� f
I !,,- I �
,`�__ -
� `�u �
----- ----- �
- - - - - - - 1
�
, �.. It �.I ���
--O . �� ,� �.
-- - - , � �I �
� - � li
,,.% 1�
// �' y a ��
L� <
� ��
� � � ��
�� i
I: �
� `' I '
�- ` � � �' V �� ��z� , °�� � y �� � � i
�/
' � � \ / G �_ / �/: � r
� � /- \ ��/ . . -- � � � ��
`,
� ' '� � � �, � � „-� ����; � � ��; -
.I' —: ��' � '�/� t,��� --- � � �r-,�� i
/� �
, I,
<
C.� ; J y,,� --�� �� � �� l� � � � i, A
.. ' . . ' � � � �� � � i
� � i
� ;.' I
� � ����' � EXISTING �. NEW � �� � �
� EXISTING �j, i �
\ / .-, i ; I
'`1; � , � ',`: , (FirsiFloor) `,..��/ i � i i
`�� .�—__ �¢� � � \ �� �
� V—__ ____ � . �� . . . ... . � . �� . ' . ��� ��� -} �� � �
��� � ' — _—_ _�__._______- ` ���y�' / �� �� I
�
,
__� �- � - — �I� � � � /i
� �T= __ J��� � �7r � ---- -_ �i i
� � , � _ � -- - '�'�'--�`-_---�-�:-- � � � .� �n i
` — ,�� � _, - � / i
--- ...
--- � — .
- -- - - - ----- --
�— _ _ _ - _ - , -� — - _ ,
— � _ , �— � -
-__
-- ; -- - , _
. - -_ �, _ . _
��
�-' _ --- __ � ,-r
�
LEGEND
OSecured (Ciass I)
Bike Parking
G�V Bike Racks (Class II)
.
�� Accessible Spaces
OClean Air Vehicles (CAV)
OEV Ready Spaces
�EV Equipped
Parking Spaces
(�� Bay Access Space
�� Showers '�
OCommute Bus Center
N
A
,.
ir.r��
SCALE: 1" _ : . -.
SOURCE:DESArchilects+Engineers,2020 Exhibit D
Burlingame Bay TDM Plan
TDM Elements
krupka.
Electric Vehicle Charging - 45 total (32 equipped, 13 ready), located in the parking structure
and adjacent to the new building.
Bay access stalls ("BCDC Stalls) - 15 stalls located adjacent to the Bay Trail - 45 EV parking
(32 installed)
Vehicular Access - The Project would be served by two existing driveways on Airport Boulevard.
Internal drive aisles would connect the driveways and provide direct access to the parking
structure and surface parking.
Freight and trash loading zones would serve all buildings directly with suitable turning and
parking dimensions.
Programmatic TDM Measures
Given the Project may be occupied by one or more tenants, and most candidate tenants are
familiar with and routinely incorporate TDM in practice, Client intends to require tenants by lease
agreement to actively incorporate and participate in TDM measures most suitable to them to
achieve the TDM Pian purpose.
TDM Reauirements - Client shall oversee the TDM program and require tenants to implement
and consistently carry out and monitor the following TDM measures.
TDM Coordinator - A Project TDM Coordinator shall be responsible for implementing,
maintaining and monitoring the TDM Plan. The TDM Coordinator shall participate in
TDM training sponsored by Commute.org in during the first year of occupancy.
Em I�oyee Survey - A confidentiai survey of transportation characteristics of employees
shall be conducted with findings submitted to the City upon full occupancy of the Project
and periodically thereafter. The survey shall include residence location, mode of travel to
work, duration of commute, usual work schedule and interest in commute alternatives.
Attachment A, appended hereto, lists the proposed survey questions and gives a good
understanding of the expected data to be generated.
Commute Alternative Information - A summary pamphlet shall be prepared that
describes commute alternatives (to driving alone) and summarizes the TDM Plan. This
pamphlet shall be made available to all employees and updated at least annually.
Commute Alternative Plan - The Project shall implement TDM measures to meet the
City's TDM policy and goal, which is: at least 20% of all employees regularly commute
to work using modes other than single occupant vehicles or use an alternative work
hour schedule. The TDM Plan shall comply with the C/CAG Land Use Guidelines that
stipulate the TDM Plan have the capacity to fully reduce the estimated demand for new
peak hour trips generated by the Project.
Draft Final TDM Plan for Burlingame Bay November 6, 2020
Page 3
krupkao
The Project shall be required to provide the following TDM measures.
Dedicated peak period shuttle service to BART/Caltrain that serves at least 60 round
trip riders during the peak hour. This would be provided through direct contract or
shared arrangement with a shuttle service sponsored by another development or
entity.
Subsidized transit passes for at least 25% of employees with value of at least $20 per
month per pass, or equivalent commuter benefit allowance or subsidy. This would be
an employee benefit for the duration of employment and subject to change and
customization to meet particular tenant conditions.
Other candidate TDM measures tenants may incorporate include, but not be limited to,
the following.
Alternative work schedules or telecommuting
Guaranteed emergency ride home, which gives eligible employees free rides home in
case of personal emergencies or unexpected late work days that cause them to miss a
customary transit ride or carpool seat
Coordination and incentives to enhance alternative mode usage, including the
following functions
• Introduce employees to the TDM Plan
• Help use 511 Rideshare and 511 Transit Trip Planning
• Help match "bike buddies" and "walk buddies"
• Coordinate and manage bicycle parking and preferential parking spaces
• Help assess and establish alternative work schedules and telecommuting
• Catalog and update available transportation services, bicycle routes, bike share
facilities, transit schedules and shuttle services; provide alerts regarding
changes and new opportunities
Calculation of Trip Credits Per C/CAG Guidelines
The implementation of a TDM program that has the capacity to fully reduce the estimated
demand for new peak hour trips generated by a new development project is one of five options
local jurisdictions may use to help offset or mitigate the traffic impacts of development projects
according to the C/CAG Land Use Guidelines.
Table 1 summarizes the estimated trip credits for Project TDM measures, including site design
elements and required TDM measures, based on application of the C/CAG trip credit unit
values. This evaluation addressed the trip generation for the new building only. The total trip
credits exceeds the estimated net new peak hour trip values and therefore meets the intent of
the C/CAG requirements.
Draft Final TDM P/an for Burlingame Bay November 6, 2020
Page 4
krupka
Table 1
ESTIMATED TRIP CREDITS PER C/CAG LAND USE GUIDELINES
TDM Measure Number of Units Notes C/CAG Unit Trip Resulting Trip
per TDM Ptan Credit (Rate per Credits for TDM
Unit) Plan
Bicycle lockers 41 3 123
and racks
Showers and 8 trip credits 10 85
changing rooms
(combination)
Dedicated peak
period shuttle to
BART/Caltrain
Subsidized transit
passesfor
employees (at
least $20 per
month per ticket/
pass)
Preferential
parking for
carpoolers and
vanpoolers
TOTAL TRIP
CREDITS
PROJECT NET
NEW PEAK
HOUR TRIPS
(TJKM, Traffic
Impact Analysis
Report, May 8,
2020)
PROJECT TRIPS
MITIGATED?
calculation
includes 5 bonus
credits for bicycle
storage
60 peak hour round
trip seat; estimate
reflects 5% of
employees during
the peak hour
300 25% of estimated
employee count
at 5 employees
per 1,000 sf
14 spaces are
designated for
Clean Air
Vehicles, not
separately for
carpoolers and
vanpoolers; lower
trip credit rate —
for carpoolers —
used
1
1
�
.�
300
28
596
276
YES
Draft Final TDM Plan for Burlingame Bay November 6, 2020
Page 5
krupka.
Monitoring and Reporting
The following monitoring and reporting plan shall be implemented to help Client and the City
assess the effectiveness of the TDM Plan against its stated goal.
E�7lployee Survev - Each year the Project is occupied and prior to February 15, tenants shall
survey existing employees to estimate the proportion of employees commuting in single-
occupant vehicles and assess employees' work and travel characteristics, overall perceptions of
travel alternatives, and concerns about the TDM Plan. The proposed questions to be included in
the survey are summarized in Attachment A.
Annual Project TDM Program Re� - Annual reporting shall commence the calendar year after
the Project reaches 90% occupancy. Each year prior to March 30, Client shall prepare and
submit a report summarizing the results of the tenants' Employee Surveys and TDM Plan
activities. The report shall also include descriptions of any new or modified programs to be
introduced in the next year, or any programs that would be changed as a result of user
comments. Client shall meet with City staff to review comments on the report and discuss
reasonable changes or other actions required to address the comments. Such changes or
actions, and their implementation status, would be reported in the subsequent report.
Ciient reserves the right to revise its TDM Plan as necessary to achieve TDM Plan goal in the
most cost-effective manner, and understands that such revisions are subject to review and
approval of the City Community Development Director. Client also understands the City
Community Development Director reserves the right to request modifications to the TDM Plan.
Enforcement - The City reserves the right to assess an annual penalty for non-compliance.
Conclusions
This TDM Plan describes strong TDM infrastructure and Project TDM Measures, which give the
Project a solid employee serving, pedestrian/bicycle friendly foundation and, combined, indicate
strong potential to achieve the TDM Plan goal. A reasonable monitoring and reporting
requirement provides a credible means for Client and City to manage the performance of the
TDM program.
Draft Final TDM Plan for Burlingame Bay November 6, 2020
Page 6
krupka
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED EMPLOYEE SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. What time do you typically arrive for work in the morning?
1. Shift Work or Varies •
2. Before 5:00 AM
3. 5:00 AM to 10:00 AM - By 30 Minute Increment (increments are listed in the survey)
4. After 10:00 AM
2. What time do you typically leave work?
1. Shift Work or Varies
2. Before 4:00 PM
3. 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM - By 30 Minute Increment (increments are listed in the survey)
4. After 8:00 PM
3. During a normal week, how variable are your work hours?
1. Start and finish at approximately the same time every day
2. Work hours vary occasionally
3. Work hours vary often
4. On a typical day, how long does it take to get to work (primary commute)?
1. Full time teleworker, so commute time is negligible
2. 1 to 120 minutes in increments of 15 and 30 minutes (increments are listed in the
survey)
3. Greater than 120 minutes
5. Approximately how far is it from your home to your work site (one-way)?
1. Full time teleworker, so commute distance is negligible
2. 1 to 100 miles in stepwise increments of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 40 miles (increments are
listed in the survey)
3. Greater than 100 miles
6. Which of the following best describes your regular work schedule?
1. Five day work week (full-time)
2. Four day work week, 10-hour days (full time)
3. Nine days, 80 hours worked in two week period (full time)
4. Part time
7. What is your primary mode of travel to work for each of these specific dates (seven listed)?
(sub modes are listed in survey)
1. Drive (alone, carpool, vanpool, motorcycle/moped)
2. Passenger (taxi/Uber/Lyft, carpool, vanpool)
3. Transit (SamTrans (Express Bus, Regular Bus), Caltrain, Dumbarton Express)
4. Commute shuttle provided by employer
5. Bicycle
6. Walking, jogging, in-line skating, similar
7. Work from home, off-site, similar
8. Variable or compressed work schedule - day off
9. Away from office(sick, vacation, non-work day, business travel)
8. Please offer your perspectives on alternative travel options at your work site.
9. Please offer and comments or concerns you have about the TDM Plan.
Draft Final TDM P/an for Burlingame Bay November 6, 2020
Page A-1
�� C 1 TY ��
�`i� ; r 1 ,1
�`
� ����.
.z —
Project Address
Description
From
Project Comments - Planning Application
555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and Conditional Use
Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research and development
building and 5.5-level parking garage.
Rick Caro III
Building Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your
resubmittal:
No comment at this time.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will
need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
6) At the time of the building permit submittal, provide 5— sets of drawings with 2- sets of structural
calculations and 2—sets of geotechnical engineer reports and calcs.
7) Indicate on the plans that an OSHA permit will be obtained per CAL / OSHA requirements. See
the Cal / OSHA handbook at: http://w��w.ca-osha.com/pdfpubs/osha user<7uidepdf
* Construction Safetv Orders : Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6, Section 1541.1.
8) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for
Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the
plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans
on which each Measure can be found. BMC ] 8.30.040, 18.30.045 & 18.30.050
9) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2019 California
Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 422.1 Minimum Plumbing Facilities and Table A- Occupant Load
Factor.
10) Separate toilet facilities are required for each sex, except:
a. Residential occupancies
b. Occupancies serving ten or fewer people may have a toilet facility for use by more than one person
at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 2019 CPC §422.2 #2.
c. Business and Mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less, including customers
and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at time, shall be
permitted for use by both sexes. 2019 CPC §422.2 #3.
1 1) The accessible parking shown in the structure must comply with the accessibility requirements of the
2019 CBC. Specifically:
d. All entrances to and vertical clearances within the parking structure must have a minimum vertical
clearance of 8' 2" where required for accessibility to accessible parking spaces.
12) All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of AB-2176 Sec. 4291 1(c) [2003
— 2004 Montanez] as follows:
e. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings.
f. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on the project plans incorporating
adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials.
13) Provide details on the plans which show that thc cntire site complies with all accessibility standards.
14) Specify on the plans the location of all required accessible signage. Include references to
separate sheets on the plans which provide details and graphically illustrates the accessible
signage requirements.
15) Provide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms 2019 CBC § 11 B-213 1 1 B-603, 1 1 B-604,
11 B-605, l 1 B-606, 11 B-607, l l B-608, 11 B-609, l] B-610
16) Provide complete, dimensioned details for accessible parking 2019 CBC § 1 1 B-208, 1 1 B-502 & 1 1 B-503
17) Provide details on the plans which show that the building elevator complies with all accessible standards.
2019 CBC § 11 B-407.
18) Where elevators are provided in structures that are four or more stories in height at least one elevator shall
be provided for Fire Department emergency access. One elevator must accommodate a stretcher that is
24" x 84". See 2019 CBC §3002.4 for elevator cab dimensions (80" x 54") and other details.
19) Please Note: Architects are advised to specify construction dimensions for accessible features that arc
below the maximum and above the minimum dimension required as construction tolerances generally do
not apply to accessible features. See the California Access Compliance Manual — Interpretive Regulation
I1 B-8.
20) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel
21) Include with your Building Division plan check submittal a complete underground fire sprinkler plan.
Contact the Burlingame Water Division at 650-558-7660 for details regarding the water system or Central
County Fire for sprinkler details.
22) Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit.
23) A pre-construction meeting must be conducted prior to issuing the permit. After you are notifed by the
Building Division that your plans have been approved ca11650-558-7270 to schedule the pre-construction
meeting.
Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: September 21, 2020
650 558-7270
� CITV O
�� � ' �
_-,�,�:,-�
�� _ w
Project Address
Description:
From
Project Comments - Planning Application
555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and Conditional Use
Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research aud development
building and 5.5-level parking garage.
Rick Caro III
Building Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your
resubmittal:
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2019 California Building Code, 2019
California Residential Code (where applicable), 2019 California Mechanical Code, 2019
California Electrical Code, and 2019 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as
adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior
to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2019 then this project must comply with the 2019 California
Building Codes.
2) On your plans provide a table that includes the following:
a. Occupancy group for each area of the building
b. Type of construction: Note: Type-lA was clear however Type II FR was not; is it IIA? Or IIB?
c. Allowable area
d. Proposed area
e. Allowable height
f. Proposed height
g. Proposed fire separation distances
h. Exterior wall and opening protection
i. Allowable
ii. Proposed
i. Indicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered
3) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will
comply with 2019 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings
allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed.
4) Yrior to applying for a Building Permit the applicant must either confirm that the address is `�567 Airaort
Boulevard" or obtain a change of address from the Engineering Department. Note: The correct address
must be referenced on all pages of the plans.
5) Place the following information on the first page of the plans.
"Construction Hours"
Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 18.07.110 for details.)
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)
Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City
Holidays between 8:00 a.rrt. and 5:00 p.m.
Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the
plans.
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. The written
resqonse must include clear direction re�ardin� where the requested information can be found on
the plans.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will
need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
6) At the time of the building permit submittal, provide 5— sets of drawings with 2- sets of structural
calculations and 2—sets of geotechnical engineer reports and calcs.
7) Indicate on the plans that an OSHA permit will be obtained per CAL / OSHA requirements. See
the Cal / OSHA handbook at: http://www.ca-osha.com/pdfpubs/osha userUuide pdf
* Construction Safetv Orders : Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6, Section 1541.1.
8) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for
Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the
plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans
on which each Measure can be found. BMC 18.30.040, 18.30.045 & 18.30.050
9) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2019 California
Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 422.1 Minimum Plumbing Facilities and Table A- Occupant Load
Factor.
10) Separate toilet facilities are required for each sex, except:
a. Residential occupancies
b. Occupancies serving ten or fewer people may have a toilet facility for use by more than one person
at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 2019 CPC §422.2 #2.
c. Business and Mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less, including customers
and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at time, shall be
permitted for use by both sexes. 2019 CPC §422.2 #3.
1 1) The accessible parking shown in the structure must comply with the accessibility requirements of the
2019 CBC. Specifically:
d. All entrances to and vertical clearances within the parking structure must have a minimum vertical
clearance of 8' 2" where required for accessibility to accessible parking spaces.
12) All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of AB-2176 Sec. 42911 (c) [2003
— 2004 Montanez] as follows:
e. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings.
f. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on the project plans incorporating
adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials.
13) Provide details on the plans which show that the entire site complies with all accessibility standards.
14) Specify on the plans the location of all required accessible signage. Include references to
separate sheets on the plans which provide details and graphically illustrates the accessible
signage requirements.
l5) Provide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms 2019 CBC § 1 1 B-213 11 B-603, 11 B-604,
11 B-605, 1 1 B-606, 11 B-607, 11 B-608, 1 l B-609, 11 B-6l 0
16) Provide complete, dimensioned details for accessible parking 2019 CBC § 1 l B-208, 11 B-502 & 11 B-503
17) Provide details on the plans which show that the building elevator complies with all accessible standards.
2019 CBC § 1 I B-407.
18) Where elevators are provided in structures that are four or more stories in height at least one elevator shall
be provided for Fire Department emergency access. One elevator must accommodate a stretcher that is
24" x 84". See 2019 CBC §3002.4 for elevator cab dimensions (80" x 54") and other details.
19) Please Note: Architects are advised to specify construction dimensions for accessible features that are
below the maximum and above the minimum dimension required as construction tolerances generally do
not apply to accessible features. See the Californiu Access Compliance Manual — Interpretive Regulation
11 B-8.
20) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel
21) Include with your Building Division plan check submittal a complete underground fire sprinkler plan.
Contact the Burlingame Water Division at 650-558-7660 for details regarding the water system or Central
County Fire for sprinkler details.
22) Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit.
23) A pre-construction meeting must be conducted prior to issuing the permit. After you are notified by the
Building Division that your plans have been approved call 650-558-7270 to schedule the pre-construction
meeting.
Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: May 19, 2020
650 558-7270
� CITY O
� �
�� � i
�� �� �.-�
� _'y
����aoae,
Project Address
Description
From
Project Comments — Planning Application
555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
Martin Quan
Public Works Engineering
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
�
�
�
4.
�
6-
�:
�
&
��
� _ � _ -
. _
. _
. _
.
. _
'- -
.
x- :- - - - --
11. No further comments at this time.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
0
3
4
Based on the scope of work, this is a"Type IV" project that requires a Stormwater Construction
Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial
field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public
right-of-way).
A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the County for all c3 treatment
measures. This agreement must be recorded prior to building permit signoff.
Please provide a letter from Recology indicating that the proposed trash areas are sufficient to
service the development and provide details for the outdoor enclosures.
Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area
of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain
inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control
measures.
5. A traffic, sewer, water, and storm drain study will be required for this project. Any impacts
generated as the result of the project will be required to upsize or contribute its pro rata share of the
impact to upgrade the existing infrastructure.
6. Any work required in the public right-of-way (including hauling) shall require an Encroachment
Permit.
7. All public sidewalk fronting the project site shall be repaired if cracked or damaged.
8. Existing driveway/sidewalk approaches shall have at least 12" freeboard above the flow line of the
frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of stormwater from the street into private property.
9. All public sidewalks (fronting the project site) and open space areas (for the public) shall meet a
minimum lighting requirement of 0.5fc.
10. An address assignment application will be required from Public Works for review and approval, prior
to Building Permit plan review.
11. As this project site is within the Flood Zone, applicant shall submit a FEMA CLOMR/LOMR
application to remove the parcel out of the SFHA.
12. A parcel map application and submittal will be required to split the parcels.
Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 10/19/2020
650-558-7245
� ITY �
�� �' �
���,,-�
_
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Martin Quan
Public Works Engineering
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
This area is in the special flood hazard area, please show or describe how this project will comply.
For the proposed parcel split into two parcels, please include a table totaling the number of parking
spaces or if they will be shared among the parcels. Show all driveway and utility easements.
Please confirm or show that drainage for Parcel 1 and 2 are independent of each other, meaning
they do not share or drain to each other, unless a drainage easement will be created.
Please number all parking spaces for the proposed garage.
Please provide ramp profiles for the proposed garage.
Please show proposed utility connections to the City's infrastructure.
Please provide a preliminary title report for review.
Please provide lighting details for the proposed open space and public pathways.
Please describe the proposed improvements to the storm drain system and pump station.
Please confirm that the existing driveway/sidewalk approaches have at least 12" freeboard above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of stormwater from the street into
private property.
Please explain how the project will be constructed and parking impacts will be addressed if the
existing buildings will be occupied.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
1. Based on the scope of work, this is a"Type IV" project that requires a Stormwater Construction
Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial
field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public
right-of-way).
2. A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the County for all c3 treatment
measures. This agreement must be recorded prior to building permit signoff.
3. Please provide a letter from Recology indicating that the proposed trash areas are sufficient to
service the development and provide details for the outdoor enclosures.
4. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area
of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain
inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control
measures.
5. A traffic, sewer, water, and storm drain study will be required for this project. Any impacts
generated as the result of the project will be required to upsize or contribute its prorated share of
the impact to upgrade the existing infrastructure.
Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 5/19/2020
650-558-7245
� CITY O
�� . � � �
=��.,
� ,,`�.
� --
��9pppni
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Christine Reed
Fire Dept.
Please address the ollowing comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
-- .
_ - - _ .
- - - -- -
- - - - - - - �
. _ --
- _ .
3. Apparatus access requirements of CFC 503 are required around parking garage.
10-7-20: If an Alternate Means of Protection application is submitted it must be aqproved prior
to Planninq Commission apqroval. Please provide note.
11-3-20: Please address this comment as a statement on the resubmitted plans not onlv
on the response sheet. Addinq to sheet A1 or another appropriate sheet is acceptable
4. Secondary water supply is required for 567 Airport, confirm how this will be met. If using
existing site's secondary water supply, detail the existing storage will accommodate the new building
demand.
10-7-20: The existinp water supplv for 577 Airport must be adequate for the new buildinq
otherwise enouqh supplemental water supplv at 567 Airport would still be required to provide required
water. Please provide note.
11-3-20: Please address this comment as a statement on the resubmitted plans not onlv
on the response sheet. Addinq to sheet A1 or another appropriate sheet is acceptable
' - - - - �-
_ _ ... - - - - - - - �- -
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will
need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
1. In addition to general construction requirements, 567 Airport shall meet all requirements in CBC 403 for
high rise buildings and applicable CFC sections. This includes a fire command center (CFC Chapter 5) which is
not currently compliant on the plan.
2. Emergency responder radio coverage system required. Riser wiring shall be located within a 2-hour
rated enclosure.
3. Standpipe outlets in stairwelis shall be located at the intermediate landing level of each stairwell.
4. Fire protection systems required per CBC and CFC.
5. Phase I& II elevator recall for firefighter emergency operation required.
6. Elevator shunt trip (causing loss of power) is not allowed. Sprinkler head at top of elevator shaft and in
machine room not allowed. Elevator machine room must be constructed of the same rating as the elevator shaft.
7. The fire sprinkler systems' fire department connections shall be located within 5 feet of the sidewalk or
access driveway.
Reviewed By: Christine Reed, 650-558-7617 Date: 11-3-20
� CITY O
� `
�� ; � I �
=��:��,-�
� _
Project Comments - P/anning Application
Project Address: 555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Christine Reed
Fire Dept.
ease a ress e o owing commen at is ime; provi e a wri en response an revise p ans
with your resubmittal:
'- - - �
- - - _ .
- - -
- - _ _ .
. _
' - - � -
3. Apparatus access requirements of CFC 503 are required around parking garage.
10-7-20: If an Alternate Means of Protection aqplication is submitted it must be
approved qrior to Planninp Commission aqproval Please provide note
4. Secondary water supply is required for 567 Airport, confirm how this will be met. If using
existing site's secondary water supply, detail the existing storage will accommodate the new building
demand.
10-7-20: The existina water supplv for 577 Airport must be adequate for the new buildinq
otherwise enouqh supplemental water supplv at 567 Airport would still be required to provide
required water. Please provide note.
. _ _ _ ■_
- = - ... _ - - - �- - '
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will
need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
1. In addition to general construction requirements, 567 Airport shall meet all requirements in CBC 403 for
high rise buildings and applicable CFC sections. This includes a fire command center (CFC Chapter 5) which is
not currently compliant on the plan.
2. Emergency responder radio coverage system required. Riser wiring shall be located within a 2-hour
rated enclosure.
3. Standpipe outlets in stairwells shall be located at the intermediate landing level of each stairwell.
4. Fire protection systems required per CBC and CFC.
5. Phase I& II elevator recall for firefighter emergency operation required.
6. Elevator shunt trip (causing loss of power) is not allowed. Sprinkler head at top of elevator shaft and in
machine room not allowed. Elevator machine room must be constructed of the same rating as the elevator shaft.
7. The fire sprinkler systems' fire department connections shall be located within 5 feet of the sidewalk or
access driveway.
Reviewed By: Christine Reed, 650-558-7617 Date: 10-7-20
�, CITY O
�� , � 1 �
_=.� �, � _�
t _ .
9Poani
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Christine Reed
Fire Dept.
Please address the o owing comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
1. Previous building construction requirements for 555 & 577 Airport (i.e. building area allowances
for large side yards) may now be compromised by 567 AirporYs and parking garage's close proximity to
the other buildings. Provide a building analysis for the existing buildings that confirms they will maintain
in compliance with applicable Building Code requirements at their time of construction as buildings on
the same lot or by assuming property lines between the four buildings. Additionally, confirm 567
Airport's building heighUarea requirements are met given the existing buildings/site conditions.
2. Provide a note on the plan that 567 Airport is considered a high-rise structure and all applicable
Building and Fire Code requirements apply.
3. Apparatus access requirements of CFC 503 are required around parking garage.
4. Secondary water supply is required for 567 Airport, confirm how this will be met. If using
existing site's secondary water supply, detail the existing storage will accommodate the new building
demand.
5. EVA alternate paving materials shall be approved by the Central County Fire Dept. and capable
of supporting 65,OOOIbs. Turf block or grasscrete materials are not approved. Currently, GrassPave 2
materials is approved.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as
they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
1. In addition to general construction requirements, 567 Airport shall meet all requirements in CBC
403 for high rise buildings and applicable CFC sections. This includes a fire command center (CFC
Chapter 5) which is not currently compliant on the plan.
2. Emergency responder radio coverage system required. Riser wiring shall be located within a 2-
hour rated enclosure.
3. Standpipe outlets in stairwells shall be located at the intermediate landing level of each stairwell.
4. Fire protection systems required per CBC and CFC.
5. Phase I 8 II elevator recall for firefighter emergency operation required.
6. Elevator shunt trip (causing loss of power) is not allowed. Sprinkler head at top of elevator shaft
and in machine room not allowed. Elevator machine room must be constructed of the same rating as
the elevator shaft.
7. The fire sprinkler systems' fire department connections shall be located within 5 feet of the
sidewalk or access driveway.
Reviewed By: Christine Reed, 650-558-7617 Date: 6-20-20
� CITY O
�� , � � �
v
���'�
Project Address:
Project Comments - Planning Application
555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Bob Disco
Park Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
No further comments at this time
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
Reviewed By: BD Date: 10.7.20
650.558.7334
� CITY O
�� , � � �
_'` �
Z �� �
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Bob Disco
Parks Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
New landscape plan is required to meet the Water Conservation in Landscape
Regulations (WELO) Submit checklist for review. Irrigation Plan required for Building
permit.
2. Include Tree Protection Measures, Sect 4.0 of arborist report on plans. All tree
protection must be in place before demo, grading and construction as noted in arborist
report.
3. Submit Private Protected Tree Removal Permit for all protected size trees designated
for removal. Contact Parks Division for permit — 650.558.7330
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
Reviewed By: BD Date: 5.28.2020
650.558.7334
� ciry o
�� � ; �
��a �
� �_ ,
Project Comments — Planning Application
Project Address: 555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Jennifer Lee
Stormwater
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
Aln n mmon}c �++ 4hi 4imo
� � � � � � � �
_ - - � � � � � � ■ � � �
� �
- ' _ ' ' - - � � � �
_ _ � i � ■ � i �
� - _ - - ■ � i �
� � _ �
Previous comment has been addressed. BKF Engineers have clarified that the project proposes to treat
the entire site using a centralized treatment measures by use of a new pump station to send required
flows to treatment areas throughout the site.
New comment: As required by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, a Stormwater Treatment
Measure Maintenance Agreement for all on-site stormwater treatment measures associated with the
project must be recorded between the City and property owner prior to issuance of a final construction
inspection. Please acknowledge this requirement. Even if the lot is split in the future, one Maintenance
Agreement must be recorded for all new owners.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
This project is required to comply with the Provision C.3 and C.6 of the San Francisco Bay
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) since it will create and/or replace 10,000
square feet or more of impervious surface. For these projects where 50 percent or more of site
impervious surface will be created/replaced, stormwater source control and treatment
requirements apply to the entire project site. Please complete, sign and return the "C.3/C.6
Development Review Checklist" and the following worksheets, which are available at
www.burlinqame.orq/stormwaterdevelopment For additional information, please see the C.3
Regulated Projects Guide (February 2020) at www.flowstobay.orq/newdevelopment
2. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing
architectural copper. If applicable, please read the "Requirements for Architectural
Copper" fact sheet available at www.burlinaame.orq/stormwaterdevelopment
3. Per the Municipal Stormwater Permit, projects on lands greater than 10,000 sf that are plumbed
directly to the City's storm drain system must be equipped with full trash capture systems or are
managed with trash discharge control actions equivalent to or better than full trash capture
systems. Please show how you are complying with this requirement on the plans.
4. The building permit application plans shall show the marking of the words "No Dumping! Flows
to Bay" or equivalent on all storm drain inlets surrounding and within the project site consistent
with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's C.3 Technical Guidance.
5. Trash storage areas (including recyclables and compostables or similar areas), wash areas,
loading docs, repair/maintenance bays, and equipment or material storage areas shall be
completely covered and bermed to ensure that no stormwater enters the covered area. Covered
areas shall be graded so that spills and washwater flow to area drains connected to the sanitary
sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency's authority and standards.
6. Interior level parking garage floor drains, and any other interior floor drains, shall be connected
to the sanitary sewer system.
7. Fire sprinkler test waster shall discharge to onsite vegetated areas, or alternatively shall be
discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
8. Air conditioning condensate shall drain to landscaping, or alternatively may be connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
9. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater
NPDES permit to prevent stormwater pollution from construction-related activities. Project
proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When
submitting plans for a building permit, please include the Construction BMP plan sheet.
An electronic file is available at: www.burlinqame.orq/stormwaterdevelopment.
10. Post-construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically-sized to
treat a specified amount of runoff. The project plan submittals shall identify the owner and
maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-
construction stormwater treatment measures in perpetuity. A completed, notarized
Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement must be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection.
11. Since the project will disturb one (1) or more acres of soil, the project must obtain coverage
under the Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. When
submitting plans for a building permit, please include the following:
a. A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for Construction General Permit coverage and
b. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a certified
Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD).
Reviewed By: Jennifer Lee Date: �9
650-558-7381 _ ; ; _-, j
10/27/20
� CITY O
� �
�� , � I
=-.`t
<<�, �", ., .
,,
—
Project Address
Project Comments - P/anning Application
555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Jennifer Lee
Stormwater
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
ni., ...,.�,.,,o.,+ .,++h�� +�..,,,
Sheet C4.0 Proposed Stormwater Management Plan shows that there is only one drainage
management area (DMA) for the entire project site. Additionally, DMA 1 drains to seven separate flow-
through planters across the project site. Please divide the site into multiple DMAs each of which will
drain to a treatment measure. Multiple DMAs may drain to a single treatment area, but a single DMA
should not be draining to separate treatment areas.
Please clarify on sheet C4.0 how stormwater runoff from roofs, driveways, and parking stalls will enter
the flow-through planter.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
This project is required to comply with the Provision C.3 and C.6 of the San Francisco Bay
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) since it will create and/or replace 10,000
square feet or more of impervious surtace. For these projects where 50 percent or more of site
impervious surFace will be created/replaced, stormwater source control and treatment
requirements apply to the entire project site. Please complete, sign and return the "C.3/C.6
Development Review Checklist" and the following worksheets, which are available
at www.burlinqame.orq/stormwaterdevelopment For additional information, please see the
C.3 Regulated Projects Guide (February 2020) at www.flowstobay.orq/newdevelopment
2. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing
architectural copper. If applicable, please read the "Requirements for Architectural
Copper" fact sheet available at www.burlinqame.orq/stormwaterdeveloqment
3. Per the Municipal Stormwater Permit, projects on lands greater than 10,000 sf that are plumbed
directly to the City's storm drain system must be equipped with full trash capture systems or are
managed with trash discharge control actions equivalent to or better than full trash capture
systems. Please show how you are complying with this requirement on the plans.
4. The building permit application plans shall show the marking of the words "No Dumping! Flows
to Bay" or equivalent on all storm drain inlets surrounding and within the project site consistent
with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's C.3 Technical Guidance.
5. Trash storage areas (including recyclables and compostables or similar areas), wash areas,
loading docs, repair/maintenance bays, and equipment or material storage areas shall be
completely covered and bermed to ensure that no stormwater enters the covered area. Covered
areas shall be graded so that spills and washwater flow to area drains connected to the sanitary
sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency's authority and standards.
6. Interior level parking garage floor drains, and any other interior floor drains, shall be connected
to the sanitary sewer system.
7. Fire sprinkler test waster shall discharge to onsite vegetated areas, or alternatively shall be
discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
8. Air conditioning condensate shall drain to landscaping, or alternatively may be connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
9. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater
NPDES permit to prevent stormwater pollution from construction-related activities. Project
proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When
submitting plans for a building permit, please include the Construction BMP plan sheet.
An electronic file is available at: www.burlinqame.orq/stormwaterdevelopment.
10. Post-construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically-sized to
treat a specified amount of runoff. The project plan submittals shall identify the owner and
maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-
construction stormwater treatment measures in perpetuity. A completed, notarized
Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement must be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection.
11. Since the project will disturb one (1) or more acres of soil, the project must obtain coverage
under the Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. When
submitting plans for a building permit, please include the following:
a. A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for Construction General Permit coverage and
b. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a certified
Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD).
Reviewed By: Jennifer Lee Date: �1�A
650-558-7381
� CITV O
�� ; � J �
�t�
�'��
�
Project Comments - P/anning Application
Project Address: 555-577 Airport Blvd, zoned AA, APN: 026-363-590
Description: Request for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio for a new 8-story office/research
and development building and 5.5-level parking garage.
From: Jennifer Lee
Stormwater
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans
with your resubmittal:
No comments at this time.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
This project is required to comply with the Provision C.3 and C.6 of the San Francisco Bay
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) since it will create and/or replace 10,000
square feet or more of impervious surFace. For these projects where 50 percent or more of site
impervious surface will be created/replaced, stormwater source control and treatment
requirements apply to the entire project site. Please complete, sign and return the "C.3/C.6
Development Review Checklist" and the following worksheets, which are available at
www.burlinqame.orq/stormwaterdevelopment For additional information, please see the C.3
Regulated Projects Guide (February 2020) at www.flowstobay.orq/newdevelopment
2. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing
architectural copper. If applicable, please read the "Requirements for Architectural
Copper" fact sheet available at www.burlinqame.orq/stormwaterdevelopment
3. Per the Municipal Stormwater Permit, projects on lands greater than 10,000 sf that are plumbed
directly to the City's storm drain system must be equipped with full trash capture systems or are
managed with trash discharge control actions equivalent to or better than full trash capture
systems. Please show how you are complying with this requirement on the plans.
4. The building permit application plans shall show the marking of the words "No Dumping! Flows
to Bay" or equivalent on all storm drain inlets surrounding and within the project site consistent
with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's C.3 Technical Guidance.
5. Trash storage areas (including recyclables and compostables or similar areas), wash areas,
loading docs, repair/maintenance bays, and equipment or material storage areas shall be
completely covered and bermed to ensure that no stormwater enters the covered area. Covered
areas shall be graded so that spills and washwater flow to area drains connected to the sanitary
sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency's authority and standards.
6. Interior level parking garage floor drains, and any other interior floor drains, shall be connected
to the sanitary sewer system.
7. Fire sprinkler test waster shall discharge to onsite vegetated areas, or alternatively shall be
discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
8. Air conditioning condensate shall drain to landscaping, or alternatively may be connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
9. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater
NPDES permit to prevent stormwater pollution from construction-related activities. Project
proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When
submitting plans for a building permit, please include the Construction BMP plan sheet.
An electronic file is available at: www.burlinpame.orq/stormwaterdevelopment.
10. Post-construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically-sized to
treat a specified amount of runoff. The project plan submittals shall identify the owner and
maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-
construction stormwater treatment measures in perpetuity. A completed, notarized
Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement must be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection.
11. Since the project will disturb one (1) or more acres of soil, the project must obtain coverage
under the Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. When
submitting plans for a building permit, please include the following:
a. A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for Construction General Permit coverage and
b. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a certified
Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD).
Reviewed By: Jennifer Lee Date: 5/15/20
650-558-7381
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RECOMMENDING A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE
APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW EIGHT-
STORY, OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUILIDNG AND PARKING GARAGE
AT 567 AIRPORT BOULEVARD WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
follows:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as
Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and
reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that
there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration
ND-609-P, is hereby approved.
Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in
the official records of the County of San Mateo.
Chair
�� , 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 dav of October, 2021
by the following vote:
Secretary
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND BUILDING HEIGHT
FOR A NEW EIGHT-STORY, OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUILIDNG AND
PARKING GARAGE AT 567 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS: 026-363-590 and 026-363-470)
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2020, EW — PG Airport Owner, LLC (property later sold to
Peninsula Owner LLC) filed an application with the City of Burlingame Community Development
Department — Planning Division requesting approval of the following requests:
■ Environmental Review in accordance with CEQA; Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration;
■ Commercial Design Review for construction of a new 8-story, office/research and
development building and parking garage (Code Sections 25.47.060 and 25.57.010(c));
■ Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Ratio greater than 0.6 FAR (0.9 FAR proposed)
(C.S. 25.47.040 (a)); and
■ Conditional Use Permit for Building Height (133'-0", 8 stories proposed to the top of the
office building and 65'-0", 6 levels proposed to the top of the parking structure, where
65'-0" or 5 stories, whichever is less, is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.47.025 (I)).
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing (environmental scoping session and design review study meeting) to review a new
eight-story, office/research and development building and parking garage and to identify subjects
to be analyzed in the project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). At that time
direction was provided to the applicant regarding issues to be addressed in the project IS/MND;
and
WHEREAS, an IS/MND was prepared to analyze project impacts; said IS/MND was
circulated for public review and comment commencing on June 28, 2021 and concluding on July
29, 2021; a Final IS/MND, which comprises of the Responses to Comments, together with the
Draft IS/MND, Draft IS/MND appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
was also prepared; and
Following consideration of all information contained in the October 25, 2021 staff report to
the Planning Commission regarding the project, all written correspondence, and all public
comments received at the public hearing, the Commission grants approval of the proposed eight-
story, office/research and development building and parking garage based on the following
findings regarding the project entitlements:
Commercial Desiqn Review Findinqs:
That the proposed building and parking garage, setback 142 feet and 342 feet from
the property line adjacent to the Burlingame Lagoon, respectively, maintains
accessibility to the existing Bay Trail along the shoreline, retains the network of
interconnected open spaces in the Anza Area, and continues to provide for maximum
user access and supports recreational use by those who work in the area as well as
those who visit;
■ That the proposed building and parking garage, located more than 200 feet from
Airport Boulevard, are placed on the property so as not to dominate the street frontage;
and that the proposed building and parking garage, setback 142 feet and 342 feet from
the property line adjacent to the Burlingame Lagoon, respectively, provide ample open
space to the Burlingame Lagoon and Bay Trail;
That the proposed project includes a variety of materials, finishes, and architectural
treatments, designed in such a way that is compatible with the surroundings, including
pre-finish metal panels, fins, columns, rooftop screening, metal sunshades and
canopies, and high-performance glazing for the proposed Office/R&D building and
painted concrete columns and spandrels, pre-finish metal panels, metal fins, metal
wire mesh or perforated metal panels, cable railing, and Low-E green/blue tinted vision
glazing for the parking garage;
■ that the site is surrounded by 5 to 8 story buildings and therefore would be compatible
with the mass and bulk of buildings in the area; that the projecYs parking garage is
located behind an existing 5-story building and therefore would be screened from
Airport Boulevard; and
■ that proposed landscaping on the site, including retaining 148 existing trees on-site
and adding 251 new trees, is designed in such a way that it enhances and creates a
buffer with Burlingame Lagoon.
Conditional Use Permit Findinqs for Floor Area Ratio:
That the floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.9 proposed on the site (including the two existing
commercial buildings on the site), although greater than 0.6 FAR allowed currently
in the Zoning Code, is significantly less than and in compliance with the maximum
allowed FAR of 3.0 under the adopted new General Plan, and therefore 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, since it is
well articulated with substantial recesses and will be compatible with buildings in the
area that are five to eight stories in height;
That the proposed commercial use, at the proposed FAR of 0.9, will be located and
conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes
of this title; and
That reasonable conditions are proposed to assure operation of the use in a manner
compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential
uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity.
2
Conditional Use Permit Findinqs for Buildinq Heiqht:
That the proposed eight-story building, measuring 133'-0" in height and the proposed
six-level parking garage, measuring 65'-0" in height, at the proposed locations, 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, since it
is well articulated with substantial recesses and will be compatible with buildings in
the area that are five to eight stories in height;
That the proposed commercial use will be located and conducted in a manner in
accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; and
That reasonable conditions are proposed to assure operation of the use in a manner
compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential
uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity.
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame on October 25, 2021, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all
other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THIS PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT:
Section 1. Said Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits are
approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such
Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits are set forth in the staff report, minutes,
and recording of said meeting.
Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in
the official records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairperson
�, , Secretary of the Burlingame Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission held on the 25th dav of October, 2021 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Secretary
3
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped September 30, 2021, sheets A1 through A11.1, C1.0 through C5.0, L1
through L5, and LT-1 through LT-2B; and that the maximum elevation at the top of the
building parapet shall not exceed elevation 145.00 feet as shown on the plans;
2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not
be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council
on appeal;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or
adding exterior walls or parapet walls, or changes to building materials, exterior finishes,
windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape
materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or
amendment to be determined by Planning staf�;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division's September 21 and May 19, 2020 memos, the
Fire Division's November 3, October 7, and June 20, 2020 memos, the Engineering
Division's October 19 and May 19, 2020 memos, the Parks Division's October 7 and May
28, 2020 memos, and the Stormwater Division's October 27, October 1 and May 27, 2020
memos shall be met;
5. that the applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division
any required applications for a tentative and final parcel map for processing in
conformance with the Subdivision Map Act;
6. that construction of the foundation systems for the building and parking garage shall not
include pile driving;
7. that if the City determines that the structure interferes with City communications in the City,
the property owner shall permit public safety communications equipment and a wireless
access point for City communications to be located on the structure in a location to be agreed
upon by the City and the property owner. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply
source for use by the equipment. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the
City to gain access to the equipment location for purposes of installation, maintenance,
adjustment, and repair upon reasonable notice to the property owner or owner's successor in
interest. This access and location agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent
and meaning of this condition;
�
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 2
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first
half of the Bayfront Development fee in the amount of $336,054.65, made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
9. that prior to approval of final framing of the building, the applicant shall pay the second
half of the Bayfront Development fee in the amount of $336,054.65, made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the
affordable housing commercial linkage fee in the amount of $4,833,580 (with prevailing
wages) or $6,041,975 (without prevailing wages), made payable to the City of Burlingame
and submitted to the Planning Division;
11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the Public
Impact Fees in the amount of $562,145.35, made payable to the City of Burlingame and
submitted to the Planning Division;
12. that the project shall include the Project Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Measures as proposed in the TDM Plan, prepared by Krupka Consulting, dated November
6, 2020;
13. that a TDM annual report shall be prepared by a qualified, independent consultant and
paid for by the owner and submitted to the City of Burlingame annually; with the initial, or
baseline, commute survey report to be conducted and submitted one (1) year after the
granting of a certificate of occupancy for 75 percent or more of the project and annually
after that;
14. that the TDM annual report shall provide information about the level of alternative mode-
uses and in the event a 20 percent mode shift (i.e., proportion of occupants that use
something other than a car to/from the subject property) towards alternative transportation
is not met, the report shall explain how and why the goal has not been reached; in such a
circumstance the annual report shall identify a work plan, to be approved by the City of
Burlingame, which describes additional or alternative measures for implementation that
would be necessary to enhance the TDM program to attain the TDM goal of 20 percent
mode shift;
15. that the City may consider whether the employer/tenant has made a good faith effort to
meet the TDM goals and may allow the owner a six-month "grace period" to implement
additional TDM measures to achieve the 20 percent mobility mode shift;
16. that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a covenant agreement shall be
recorded with the San Mateo County Assessor and Recorder's Office to provide
constructive notice to all future owners of the property of any ongoing programmatic
requirements that discloses the required Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
provisions and any conditions of approval related herein to compliance and reporting for
the TDM;
5
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 3
17. prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction, the project sponsor shall
verify that the January 8, 2021, FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation for the
project is still current and has not expired (July 8, 2022) and if expired a new FAA
determination of no hazard to air navigation shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame
prior to building permit issuance for vertical construction;
18. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the City of Burlingame Parks
Division to remove any existing protected size trees on the subject property and that the
project shall comply with the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the
City of Burlingame and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and
irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for vertical
construction and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the
City Arborist;
19. 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;
20. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a sitework 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;
21. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh)
around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is
kept on site;
22. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-
way shall be prohibited;
23. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt
onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping
methods;
24. that the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffic control plan for the
duration of construction for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a building permit for vertical construction; the construction staging plan shall
include construction equipment parking, construction employee parking, timing and
duration of various phases of construction and construction operations hours; the staging
plan shall address public safety and shall ensure that worker's vehicles and construction
equipment shall not be parked in public parking areas with exceptions for construction
parking along the street frontages of the project site;
�
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 4
25. that the project applicant and its construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction
management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan must
include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent
feasible, traffic and parking congestion during construction:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major
truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane
closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access
routes;
b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would
minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and
safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on
streets in the project area;
c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel
regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur;
d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage
and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the
project applicant; and
e. Designation of a readily available contact person for construction activities who
would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding traffic or
parking. This coordinator would determine the cause of the complaint and, where
necessary, would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.
26. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior
to construction during the wet season the developer shall implement a winterization
program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting,
maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and
immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or
permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit
dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials,
fuels and other chemicals;
27. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and
surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained
drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor;
28. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete
landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application
for vertical construction;
29. 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;
30. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
7
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 5
31. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
32. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior
to the inspections noted in each condition:
33. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, and set the building envelope;
34. that prior to the underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation
of the new structure;
35. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Division;
36. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height
of the roof parapet and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
37. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
Mitigation Measures from Initial Study
Air Quality
38. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment greater than
50 horsepower used during construction is equipped with engines that meet EPA Tier 4
Final emission standards.
Biological Resources
39. The Project Sponsor shall protect nesting birds and their nests during construction through
implementation of the following measures:
a. Construction shall avoid the avian nesting period (February 1 through August 31)
to the extent feasible.
0
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 6
b. If construction occurs during the bird nesting season, a qualified wildlife biologist*
shall conduct a nesting bird preconstruction survey within 7 days prior to the start
of construction at areas that have not been previously disturbed by Project
activities or after any construction breaks of 10 days or more. The survey shall
be performed within a radius of 100 feet and 500 feet of the construction area to
locate any active nests of passerine and raptor (including peregrine falcon)
species, respectively, and shall be in those areas that constitute suitable habitat
for the species.
c. If active nests are located during the preconstruction nesting bird survey, a
qualified biologist shall determine if the schedule of construction activities could
affect active nests; if so, the following measures shall apply:
If the qualified biologist determines that construction is not likely to affect an
active nest, construction may proceed without restriction; however, a
qualified biologist shall regularly monitor the nest at a frequency determined
appropriate for the surrounding construction activity to confirm there is no
adverse effect. Spot-check monitoring frequency shall be determined on a
nest-by-nest basis, considering the particular construction activity, duration,
proximity to the nest, and physical barriers that may screen activity from the
nest.
If it is determined that construction may cause a direct impact or
abandonment of an active nest, the qualified biologist shall establish a no-
disturbance buffer around the nest(s), and all Project work shall halt within
the buffer to avoid disturbance or destruction until a qualified biologist
determines that the nest is no longer active. Typically, buffer distances are a
minimum of 50 feet for passerines, 250 feet for raptors, and 500 feet for
peregrine falcons; however, the buffers may be decreased if an obstruction,
such as a building, is within the line of sight between the nest and
construction.
iii. Modifying nest buffer distances, allowing certain construction activities within
the buffer, and/or modifying construction methods in proximity to active nests
shall be approved by the qualified biologist and in compliance with the
California Fish and Game Code and other applicable laws.
iv. Any work that must occur within established no-disturbance buffers around
active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If adverse effects in
response to Project work within the buffer are observed and could
compromise the nest, work within the no-disturbance buffer(s) shall halt until
the nest occupants have fledged.
�
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 7
v. Any birds that begin nesting within the Project site and survey buffers amid
construction activities are assumed to be habituated to construction-related
or similar noise and disturbance levels. Work may proceed around these
active nests, subject to the measure above that begins with "Modifying nest
buffer distances..."
40. The Project Sponsor shall protect bats during construction by implementation of the
following measures:
a. A qualified wildlife biologist (i.e., experienced with roosting habitats in trees and
the life histories of local bats) shall examine trees for suitable bat roosting habitat
(e.g., large tree cavities, basal hollows, loose or peeling bark, large snags, palm
trees with intact thatch) prior to removal or trimming. Trees that provide suitable or
potentially suitable bat habitat shall be flagged and identified as habitat. Because
of the limited timeframe for tree removal (September 15 to October 31), the tree
habitat assessment should be conducted early to provide information for tree
removal planning. Riparian woodlands, orchards, and stands of mature broadleaf
trees are considered potential habitat for solitary foliage-roosting bat species.
Because signs of bat use are not easily found, and because trees cannot be
completely surveyed for bat roosts, the protective measures listed below shall be
implemented for trees that contain potential roosting habitat.
b. Removal or disturbance of trees that provide bat roosting habitat shall be avoided
between April 1 and September 15 (the maternity period) to avoid effects on
pregnant females and active maternity roosts (whether colonial or solitary).
c. Removal of trees providing bat roosting habitat shall be conducted between
September 15 and October 31, which corresponds to the time period when bats
have not yet entered torpor or begun caring for nonvolant young.
d. If a maternity roost is found, whether solitary or colonial, that roost shall remain
undisturbed until September 15 or until a qualified biologist has determined that
the roost is no longer active. The qualified biologist shall determine the extent of
suitable no-work buffers around roost and/or hibernaculum sites. Buffer distances
may vary, depending on the species and activities being conducted.
Removal of trees (September 15 to October 31) that provide suitable roosting
habitat shall be monitored by qualified biologists. Trees that provide suitable
habitat for bats shall be trimmed and/or removed in a two-phase removal process
conducted over two consecutive days. In the afternoon on the first day, limbs and
branches shall be removed by a tree cutter, using chainsaws only. Limbs with
cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided, and only branches or
10
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 8
limbs without those features shall be removed. On the second day, the entire tree
shall be removed. Biologists shall search downed vegetation for dead and injured
bats. The presence of dead or injured bats that are species of special concern
shall be reported to CDFW. The biologist shall prepare a biological monitoring
report, which shall be provided to the Project lead, sponsor, and CDFW.
The loss of occupied roosting habitat shall be mitigated by constructing and/or
installing suitable replacement habitat on the Project site. Suitable replacement
habitat could include a bat house mounted on a pole or on the side of a building
or structure at least 10 feet off the ground to protect it from predators. Bat
houses are usually made of wood or a combination of wood and other materials
(e.g., metal and plastic) and vary in size. Bat Conservation International
recommends that bat houses be at least 24 inches high and 16 inches wide.
Existing and new buildings as well as landscaped areas on the Project site
afford ample opportunities for placement of a bat house.
Placement and installation methods for replacement habitat shall be designed
so as not to affect riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities or
state or federally protected wetlands. In addition, the installation of
replacement habitat shall avoid the avian nesting period (February 1 through
August 31) to the extent feasible. If not, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 shall be
implemented prior to installation. A roosting habitat design and monitoring plan
shall be developed in coordination with CDFW. The roosting habitat shall be
monitored to ensure it functions as intended.
41. The applicant, or contractor, shall implement the following measures to minimize hazards
for birds:
a. Reduce large areas of transparent or reflective glass;
b. Locate water features, trees, and bird habitat away from building exteriors to reduce
reflection;
c. Reduce or eliminate the visibility of landscaped areas behind glass;
d. Turn non-emergency lighting off at night, especially during bird migration season
(February—May and August—November);
e. Include window coverings that adequately block light transmission from rooms
where interior lighting is used at night and install motion sensors or controls to
extinguish lights in unoccupied spaces; and
11
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 9
Design and/or install light fixtures that minimize light pollution, including light
trespass, over-illumination, glare, light clutter, and skyglow, and use bird-friendly
colors for lighting when possible. The City of San Francisco's Standards for Bird-
safe Buildings provides an overview of building design and lighting guidelines to
minimize bird/building collisions that could be used to guide the applicant.
Cultural Resources
42. The applicant shall retain a professional archaeologist to provide a preconstruction briefing
to supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor and alert them to the possibility of
exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project site. During
the briefing, the archaeologist shall discuss archaeological objects that could be exposed,
the need to stop excavation at the site of the discovery, and the procedures to follow
regarding protection of the discovery and notification of the Project Sponsor and
archaeological team. An "Alert Sheet" shall be posted in conspicuous locations at the
Project site to alert personnel to the procedures and protocols to follow regarding the
discovery of potentially significant prehistoric archaeological resources.
In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work shall
halt within at least 100 feet of the discovery and the area avoided until a qualified
professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate
recommendations. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist,
in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan,
which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
43. If human remains are unearthed during construction, pursuant to Section 50977.98 of the
Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, there
shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to
evaluate the nature of the remains. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
origin, the Lead Agency shall work with the NAHC and the Project Sponsor to develop an
agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains.
Geology/Soils
44. In areas containing Middle to Late Pleistocene—era sediments where it is unknown if
paleontological resources exist, prior to grading, an assessment shall be made by a
qualified paleontological professional to establish the need for paleontological monitoring.
Should paleontological monitoring be required after recommendation by the professional
paleontologist and approval by the Community Development Director, paleontological
monitoring shall be implemented.
12
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
567 Airport Boulevard
Effective November 4, 2021
Page 10
Noise
45. Best practices to minimize construction noise include the following:
a. Limiting heavy equipment use to daytime hours not regulated by the City (i.e.,
between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
on Saturday);
b. Locating stationary equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, cement mixers, idling
trucks) as far as practical from noise-sensitive land uses;
c. Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines
have sound-control devices such as exhaust mufflers that are at least as
effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment
be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation;
d. Using equipment powered by electric motors instead of gasoline or diesel-
powered engines;
e. Preventing excessive noise by shutting down idle vehicles or equipment;
Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment;
g. Constructing barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land uses or
taking advantage of existing barrier features (e.g., buildings) to block sound
transmission to noise-sensitive land uses (the barriers should be designed to
obstruct the line-of-sight between the noise-sensitive land use and onsite
construction equipment); and
h. Notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work.
46. As required, the applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for building mechanical
equipment, such as the HVAC system and emergency generator, to ensure that noise
levels do not exceed the City daytime noise level limit of 60 dBA Leq or the nighttime noise
limit of 50 dBA Leq at the property line. Required performance standards for acoustical
treatments can be specified by a qualified acoustical consultant. Treatments include, but
are not limited to:
a. Constructing enclosures around noise-generating mechanical equipment,
b. Using mufflers or silencers on equipment exhaust fans, and
c. Limiting the testing of emergency generators to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m.).
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME
C��� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
J7
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
r � BURLINGAME, CA 94010
\�, � PH: (650) 558-7250
www.burlingame.org
Project Site: 567 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following virtual public hearing via Zoom on Mondny,
October 25, 2041 at 7:00 P.M. You may access the meeting
online at www.zoam.us�join or by phone at (346) 248-1199:
Webinar ID: 852 6209 7866 Passcode: 872338
Description: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for
floor area ratio and huilding heighi for a new, eight-story
office�research and development building and parking garage.
Members of the public may provide written comments by email
to: publiccomment(c�burlin�ame.org.
Mailed: October 15, 2021
(Please refer to other sideJ
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CitY of Burlinq_ame - Public Hearinq Notice
If you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an
appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to
plannin�dept burlinsame.or� or call (650) 558-7250.
Individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to
request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other
writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at
planninsdeptC�burlin�ame.or� or (650) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting.
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.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director (Please refer to other side)
567 Airport Boulevard
500' noticing
APN #: 026-363-590
... C
� o
, �
'dr,� � �
,
�
Cy ` ��r
�'�r `, � .
4'a ��'rv~ � ,
_ , . . �
''�"""�Hd� thvrc`F
� , 't .__ . �
�`
.*
� , •`
� .,. .`
._
.r�,, � - ._ .-�_�._,..� �