HomeMy WebLinkAbout128 Lorton Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications
Item No. 9d
Regular Action Item
Address: 128 Lorton Avenue Meeting Date: June 12, 2023
Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications for
changes to a previously approved 19-unit residential condominium.
Applicant and Property Owner: Louisa Zee Kao, Murphy Wood, Inc.
Architect: Rick Aiken, WHA Architects
General Plan Designation: Downtown Specific Plan
APN: 029-231-210
Lot Area: 7,500 SF
Zoning: R-4, R-4 Incentive Overlay
Environmental Review: The proposed amendment to increase the height of the building falls within the scope
of the CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption previously approved for the project. The CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption
may be downloaded at www.burlingame.orq/1281orton.
Note: The original application was approved prior to January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning
Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code.
History: An application for Design Review, Condominium Permit and Density Bonus Concession and
Waivers/Modifications for construction of a new five-story, 19-unit residential condominium with at-grade parking
at 128 Lorton Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on July 13, 2020 (see attached July 13, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes).
Several months later, the applicant returned to the Commission requesting an increase to the building height.
On September 14, 2020, the Planning Commission voted to deny without prejudice an application for
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications for changes to the previously approved
project (see attached September 14, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes), expressing concerns with the
increase in the plate height on all floors. Please refer to the attached minutes for additional details.
In addition to several automatic extensions approved by the City and State due to the pandemic, a One Year
Extension of the application was approved by the Community Development Direct on July 5, 2022.
Proposed Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications:
Through the density bonus ordinance, waivers/modifications are allowed where affordable units are offered. An
applicant may apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that will have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of a development at the densities allowed with the bonus. The developer must
demonstrate that development standards that are requested to be waived or modified will have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of a density bonus project permitted under the law. Please refer to the
applicanYs amended density bonus application, dated May 15, 2023.
The approved application included a request to utilize the density bonus ordinance, consistent with the provisions
set forth in Government Code Sections 65915 through 65919, which is the state density bonus law. The approved
project includes 10% of the total units (2 units) as moderate-income units. The fo�lowing waivers/modifications
of development standards were granted by the Planning Commission on July 13, 2020:
Front, Left and Right Side, and Rear Setback Requirements:
Front Setback: 5'-0" front setback to all floors of the building, where 18'-6" is required based on the
average of the block. The five-level public parking garage immediately to the north of the site was
approved with a 5'-6" setback along Lorton Avenue.
Left Side Setback: 0'-0" left side setback on all floors of the building, where 5'-0" and an additional 1'-0"
for each floor above the first floor is the minimum required for condominium developments. The parking
garage adjacent to the site will be set back 10'-0" from the shared property line.
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
Right Side Setback: 5'-0" right side setback on all floors of the building, where 5'-0" and an additional
1'-0" for each floor above the first floor is the minimum required for condominium developments. The
adjacent three-story multifamily residential building to the south (124 Lorton Avenue) is located 11'-0"
from the side property line.
Rear Setback: 10'-0" rear setback on all floors of the building, where 20'-0" is the minimum required.
The lots directly behind the project site will contain a portion of the public parking garage (14'-0" from the
rear property line) and an existing privately-owned vehicle storage lot (there are no existing buildings on
this lot).
■ Lot Coverage: 79.6% (5,977 SF) where 50% (3,750 SF) is the maximum allowed.
■ Private Open Space: Private open spaces, consisting of balconies, in five of the 19 units where a
minimum of 75 SF is required in each unit. Balconies provided in the five units range in size from 99 SF
to 308 SF.
■ Common Open Space: 500 SF of common open space where 1,900 SF is the minimum required based
on the 19-unit building (100 SF/unit). The common open space is provided at the rear of the lot and
contains paving, landscaping, and table/chairs.
■ Building Height:
56'-6 to top of building parapet
59'-6" to top of stair and elevator enclosures. Staff would note that the originally approved overall
building height of 59'-6" was measured to the top of the stair and elevator enclosures because they
covered more than 5% of the roof area as required in the previous zoning code.
In order to provide an incentive to encourage high density residential uses, buildings or structures up to
55'-0" in height are allowed by right within the R-4 Incentive Overlay; the maximum building height allowed
with a Special Permit is 75'-0".
With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of an Amendment to the Density Bonus
Waivers/Modifications to increase the overall height of the building and the elevator and stairway enclosures.
The applicanYs letter, dated May 15, 2023, and proposed plans, date stamped May 23, 2023, provide details of
the proposed increase in height to the building. In summary, the following changes are proposed to the height
of the building:
■ Height to top of parapet increasing by 4'-7" from 56'-6" to 61'-1 ". This is resulting from an increase
in the depth of the floor structure assembly by 0'-3" on the ground floor and 0'-7" on the upper floors, as
well as a 1'-6" increase to parapet height. Staff would note that there is no change to the originally
approved 9'-0" ceiling heights (the Amendment that was denied without prejudice proposed 10'-0" ceiling
heights).
Height to the top of the stair enclosure increasing by 5'-1" from 59'-6" to 64'-7"; height to the top
of the elevator enclosure increasing by 13'-0" from 59'-6" to 72'-6". Given the existing power lines
in front of the site along Lorton Avenue, the applicant has safety concerns with working around the power
lines in order to lift mechanical equipment onto the roof, as well as for general maintenance and repairs
required on the roof. As noted in the explanation letter, the applicant notes that the stair and elevator
shafts would provide simple and direct access to the roof, and would provide a safer access for long term
maintenance and replacement of items such as A/C condenser units, solar panels, water tanks and roof
repairs. Please refer to the applicant's letter, dated May 15, 2023, for a more detailed explanation.
2
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
Lastly, an Amendment to Design Review is being requested for several changes and clarifications to the exterior
facades of the building as shown on the proposed plans, date stamped May 23, 2023. Sheets A2.0 through
A2.3 show the originally approved and proposed building elevations. Proposed changes include:
■ Front (Southwest Elevation): Changes to window patterns and sizes on the upper floors.
■ Left Side (Northwest Elevation): Removal of two painted metal awnings on the second floor.
■ Right Side (Southeast Elevation): Changes to window patterns and sizes on the upper floors, elimination
of several small windows, and removal of several garage ventilation openings on the ground floor.
■ Rear (Northeast Elevation): Reduction in the size of the glass panel entry door on the ground floor.
Summary of Previously Approved Project: The approved project is a new five-story, 19-unit residential
condominium building with an enclosed at-grade parking garage. The project site is located immediately adjacent
and to the south of an existing five-level public parking garage. The building will contain 19 residential units in
four floors above an enclosed at-grade parking garage. The project includes 11 one-bedroom units, 7 two-
bedroom units and 1 three-bedroom unit. Unit sizes range from 675 SF to 1,528 SF; the average unit size
proposed is 864 SF (1,250 SF average maximum unit size permitted).
A total of 17 parking spaces will be provided on-site in an enclosed at-grade parking garage (14 parking spaces
in a puzzle stacker system and 3 independent spaces). All vehicles will enter and exit the project through a
driveway entrance on Lorton Avenue. The following applications were approved for this project:
■ Design Review for the proposed construction of a new five-story, 19-unit residential condominium building
(C.S. 25.29.020 and 25.57.010, and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);
■ Condominium Permit for construction of new residential condominium building (C.S. 26.30.020); and
Density Bonus to allow development concessions and waiver/modifications to development standards to
facilitate the provision of affordable housing; concession for off-street parking and waivers/modifications of
development standards including building setbacks (front, left/right sides and rear), lot coverage, building
height, common open space, and private open space requirements (C.S. 25.63.050).
For reference, the Development Table below provides a comparison of the previously approved project to the
R-4 Incentive District and Condominium Subdivision development standards.
128 Lorton Avenue
i.,+ero�•��nnc�
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front Setback: 5'-0" (all floors) ' 18'-6" (all floors) (block average)
_., _ _
Left Side Setback: 0'-0" (all floors) ' 5'-0" on first floor + additional
i 1'-0" for each floor above the first
floor
__ ......... _... .... _ .....
Right Side Setback: 5'-0" (all floors) ' 5'-0" on first floor + additional
1'-0" for each floor above the first
floor
3
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Rear Setback: 10'-0" (all floors) ' 20'-0" (all floors)
_ _ _ , _.....
Lot Coverage: 5,977 SF 3,750 SF
79.6% 2 50%
Building Height: 59'-6" to top of stair/elevator enclosures 3' 75'-0" maximum
56'-6" to top of building parapet 55'-0" by right
CUP required to exceed 35'-0"
_ _ ._....... __..... _ __......
Front Setback 62% 50%
Landscaping: 155 SF 125 SF
_..__.... _...... __... _.
Private Open Space: 99 SF — 308 SF/unit in 5 of 19 units 4 75 SF per unit
_ . _ ._ _
Common Open Space: 500 SF 5 1,900 SF
Off-Street Parking: 17 spaces 28 bedrooms x 0.5 = 14
(14 spaces provided in automatic puzzle ! 14 spaces by California State
stacker + 3 standard spaces) Government Code
11, 1-bdrm units x 1= 11 spaces
7, 2-bdrm units x 1.5 = 10.5
���; spaces
1, 3-bdrm units x 2= 2 spaces
24 spaces by Zoning Code
' Density bonus waiver/modification for front, right and left side, and rear setback requirements.
2 Density bonus waiver/modification for lot coverage requirements.
3 Density bonus waiver/modification for building height requirements. Building height measured to elevator
and stairway enclosures because they take up more than 5% of roof area (8.2% proposed).
4 Density bonus waiver/modification for private open space requirements.
5 Density bonus waiver/modification for common open space requirements.
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review in mixed use districts is detailed in Code Section
25.57.030 (g) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following
considerations (based under previous zoning code approval):
(1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial, industrial
and mixed use areas; and
(2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of
the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street
frontages; and
(3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development; and
4
Amendment to Design Review and �ensity Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
(4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and
(5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among
primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural
features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and
(6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
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 revised project is consistent with the diverse architectural styles of existing residential and
commercial buildings in the area characterized by simple massing, an articulated fa�ade and entrance
awning on the ground floor, and articulated walls and repetitive fenestration on the upper floors; the
project mediates between existing buildings in the area ranging from one to three stories in height and
an adjacent five-level public parking garage, to create a continuous mixed-use residential neighborhood,
is well articulated, and embraces the street and the pedestrian realm;
■ that the architectural style of the revised project blends traditional and contemporary design elements to
be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and the City as a whole, and that human scale is provided
at the street level consisting of an entry element at the front of the building, and on the upper levels
individual balconies provide residential scale and character;
• that parking for the project does not dominate the street frontage because the garage has been located
behind the ground floor building fa�ade with one driveway access to the garage measuring 14 feet in
width, or 28% of the frontage along Lorton Avenue;
■ that the building is characterized by a single contemporary architectural style and its design fits the site
and is compatible with the surrounding development by exhibiting thoughtful massing, character and
pedestrian scale, and successfully creates a good transition between the existing residential and
commercial buildings in the neighborhood, as well as the adjacent public parking garage, with well-
articulated massing and a variety of exterior sidings, textures and colors;
■ that the revised building height is compatible with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development in that the exterior building materials include a mix of cement plaster walls with decorative
reveals, manufactured stone veneer, decorative cornice/trip along the top edge of the building, glass
guardrails at balconies, glass entry doors and fiberglass windows; and
■ that site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation will enrich the existing
opportunities of the neighborhood transitioning from commercial to residential uses.
This space intentionally left blank.
5
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on the application and
consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Affirmative action should be by
resolution and include findings for Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus concessions and
waiver/modifications. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May
23, 2023, sheets A0.0 through A5.1 and L0.08;
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 prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall apply for a tentative and final condominium
map with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map
Act;
4. that prior to issuance of the final inspection of the project, the applicant shall pay the public facilities
impact fee in the amount of $83,055.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the
Planning Division;
5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or
floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be
subject to Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
6. that the project shall include two (2) affordable units for a 55-year term; the applicant shall enter into an
agreement for the administration of the sale, renting, or leasing of the affordable units at least 120 days
before the final inspection;
7. that the required affordable dwelling units shall be built on-site and shall be constructed concurrently with
market-rate units;
8. that the two (2) moderate income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the
designated income group for a minimum period of fifty-five (55) years (or a longer period of time if required
by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental
subsidy program);
9. that the applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City; the terms of this agreement shall
be approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the
reviewing City official; this agreement will be a form provided by the City, and will include the following
terms:
(a) The affordability moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with
Government Code Section 65915(c)(1);
(b) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(c)(2);
(c) The location, dwelling unit sizes, sale or rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the affordable
units;
(d) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City; and
(e) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section, and the
applicable sections of the density bonus law;
C�
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
10. that the above noted regulatory agreement regarding the two (2) restricted affordable units shall be
binding on all future owners and successors in interest; the agreement required by this Zoning Code
Section 25.63.080 is hereby a condition of all development approvals and shall be fully executed and
recorded prior to the issuance of any building or construction permit for the proposed project;
11. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of
escrow on the sale of each unit;
12. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the
condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all
contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and
fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including
but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture;
13. that CityLift Model No. 2LP parking lift system, or an equivalent parking lift system, shall be installed,
with the following conditions:
a. the parking lifts shall be properly illuminated to provide safety for easy loading and unloading,
while not causing excessive glare.
b. signage shall be installed explaining the proper use of the lifts and emergency contact information
for lift maintenance or problems.
c. the final design of the parking lifts shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community
Development Director.
14. that the project shall be constructed in accordance with the June 4, 2020 "Request for Alternate Materials
or Methods of Construction" agreement between Chris Grant and Central County Fire Department;
15. 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;
16. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code;
17. 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 construction parking plan to provide worker parking off site and generally off neighborhood
streets, with shuttles or other transportation as needed to transport workers to the site;
b. 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;
7
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
c. 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;
d. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when
major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur;
e. 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
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.
18. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system;
the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope;
areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation
to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas
on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging
areas and washout areas;
19. that the applicant shall submit a Construction Noise Control Plan. This plan would include measures such
as:
■ Using smaller equipment with lower horsepower or reducing the hourly utilization rate of
equipment used on the site to reduce noise levels at 50 feet to the allowable level.
■ Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise-sensitive uses.
■ Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound
control devices 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.
■ Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems.
■ Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 5 minutes).
■ Constructing a solid plywood barrier around the construction site and adjacent to operational
businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses.
■ Using temporary noise control blanket barriers.
■ Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.
■ Using "quieY' gasoline-powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric
rather than gasoline- or diesel-powered forklifts for small lifting.
20. that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction is equipped with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4"final" engines;
21. 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;
22. 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;
23. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be
prohibited;
�
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
24. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to October 1 the
developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted
runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and
immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent
seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto
public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals;
25. that 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;
26. 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;
27. 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;
28. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation
Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete
landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street
trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist;
29. that the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Burlingame Parks Division regarding the planting of
two (2) street trees along Lorton Avenue;
30. 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;
31. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
32. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance;
33
34
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, as
amended by the City of Burlingame;
that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
The following conditions shall be met during the Building /nspection process prior to the inspections
noted in each condition:
35. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall focate the property corners,
set the building envelope;
36. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the Building Division;
�
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
37. 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;
38. 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;
39. that the maximum elevation to the top the stair and elevator enclosures shall not exceed elevation 106.74
and elevation 103.74 to the top of the building parapet, as measured from the average elevation at the
top of the curb along Lorton Avenue (37.06') for a maximum height not to exceed 69'-8" to the top of the
stair and elevator enclosures and 63'-2" to the top of the parapet; the garage finished floor elevation shall
be elevation 37.06'; the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed by a licensed surveyor
who shall provide certification of that height to the Building Division; Should any framing exceed the stated
elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof
shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans;
The following conditions of approva/ are from Downtown Specific Plan:
40. that if subgrade structures are proposed, the project sponsor shall prepare a Geotechnical Study
identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent groundwater
dewatering would be allowed. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal high
water table and all areas for non-residential uses shall be flood-proofed and anchored, in accordance
with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth as recommended by geotechnical
engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the
Burlingame Department;
41. the project sponsor shall implement all appropriate control measures from the most currently adopted air
quality plan at the time of project construction;
42. the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project
construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day or as necessary.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered or otherwise
loaded consistent with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
10
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications
44.
45
i,
47
128 Lorton Avenue
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure
Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
the project sponsor shall implement the following Greenhouse Gas reduction measures during
construction activities:
Alternative-Fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment shall make up at least
15 percent of the fleet.
Use at least 10 percent local building materials.
Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.
a.
b.
c.
the project sponsor shall provide adequate secure bicycle parking in the plan area at a minimum ratio of
1 bicycle spot for every 20 vehicle spots;
the condominium management shall post and update information on alternate modes of transportation
for the area (i.e. bus/shuttle schedules and stop locations, maps);
the project sponsor shall incorporate commercial energy efficiency measures such that energy efficiency
is increased to 15% beyond 2008 title 24 standards for electricity and natural gas;
48. the project sponsor shall incorporate recycling measures and incentives such that a solid waste diversion
rate of 75% is achieved upon occupation of each phase of plan development;
49. the project sponsor shall incorporate residential water efficiency measures such that water consumption
is decreased by a minimum of 10 percent over current standard water demand factors;
50. that construction shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible,
as determined by staff. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be
conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed
shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these
areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered,
clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 ft. of the nest, until the young have fledged (left the
nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts;
51. that for projects within the Plan Area that require excavation, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(and Phase II sampling, where appropriate) would be required. If the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment determines that remediation is required, the project sponsor would be required to implement
all remediation and abatement work in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Toxic
11
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or other jurisdictional
agency;
52. the following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the
project contractor.
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation
includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas
of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound
barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors;
Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and
Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically
powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment.
Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used
whenever feasible.
53. the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to be
implemented by construction contractors: The project sponsor shall require that loaded trucks and other
vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential
uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals;
54. that if the project increases sewer flows to the sanitary sewer system, the project sponsor shall coordinate
with the City Engineer to determine if improvements to public sanitary sewer infrastructure are needed.
If improvements are needed, the following shall apply:
■ that prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall develop a plan to facilitate
sanitary sewer improvements. The plan shall include a schedule for implementing sanitary sewer
upgrades that would occur within the development site and/or contribution of a fair share fee toward
those improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The plan shall be reviewed by the City
Engineer.
55. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the development plans shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal
to determine if fire flow requirements would be met given the requirements of the proposed project, and
the size of the existing water main(s). If the Fire Marshaf determines improvements are needed for fire
protection services, then the following shall apply:
that prior to issuance of a building permit the project sponsor shall be required to provide a plan to
supply adequate water supply for fire suppression to the project site, consistent with the Fire
Marshal's requirements. The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. The project sponsor shall
be responsible for implementation of the plan including installation of new water mains, and/or
incorporation of fire water storage tanks and booster pumps into the building design, or other
measures as determined by the Fire Marshal.
12
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
56. that if evidence of an archeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity ("midden"), that
could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone,
hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all
ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shail
be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The
City of Burlingame shall consult with the archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to
any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than significant level through data recovery or other
methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Archeological Documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be
recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC;
57. that should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the
project construction site during any phase of construction, the project manager shall cease all
construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The
project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts
of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The
project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by
the paleontologist and approved by the City; and
58. that if human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction,
all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame
and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public
Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are
determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional
archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site
and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the
archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the
excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval
of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set
forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The project
sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the
resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
c. Louisa Zee Kao, Murphy Wood, Inc., applicant and property owner
Rick Aiken, WHA Architects, architect
13
Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications 128 Lorton Avenue
Attachments:
July 13, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 14, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Project Appiication
Applicant's Explanation Letter/Density Bonus Application, dated May 15, 2023
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 2, 2023
Area Map
14
� �.
�� ; , �;��;
���,�,.; _-
,,,,, �
,~ �C
��PF-:i]fRK.T�4�R T
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, July 13, 2020 7:00 PM Online
b. 128 Lorton Avenue, zoned R-4 Incentive District Subarea - Application for Design
Review, Condominium Permit and Density Bonus Concessions and
Waivers/Modifications for a new 5-story, 19-unit residential condominium building with
at-grade parking. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines
(Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; WHA Architects, Inc.,
architect; Thomas Cady, property owner) (202 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had an opportunity to meet with
the architect and the developer a while back to get a preview of what they were preparing for this meeting .
Commissioner Comaroto had a conversation with the property owner last week. Commissioner Tse had a
brief phone conversation with the property owners.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Chris Grant and Peter Gabrich, represented the applicant with the property owner Stephanie Giddrid.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> You're not proposing to install blue glass, this is just a conceptual rendering of glass, right? (Gabrich:
Correct.)
> There are several brown colors shown, suspect they're not all the same thing. The front entry has
reclaimed wood. The louvers to the parking garage are almost undoubtedly steel and painting it dark
brown is to simulate wood, is that right? (Gabrich: Not necessarily of wood, but trying to tie the color to
the other brown portions of the building. It would be steel for longevity and durability for sure.)
> In the other areas of the building, plaster is never called out. We're left to assume because the white
is called out as cement plaster. Could not find a note that pointed to the brown spandrel or the top floor of
the front, is that cement plaster? (Gabrich: It is. IYs going to be the 2030 sand.) So all of those things are
the same colors? (Grant: They are. We've got a couple of different color spans, but for some of the trim
bands iYs a little bit darker. But the accent stucco colors, the intent is for them to be the same so they tie
together.)
> Are the window systems operable? (Gabrich: They are going to be operable but not all of them. I
haven't quite designated which ones were operable and which ones are not.)
> On your prior rendition of the northwest side elevation, it showed you had greenery. Are you planning
on doing anything with that lower horizontal wall there? (Gabrich: Currently what we're showing is what we're
proposing. Looking at the previous iterations, they were kind of like a green wall. We're challenged on that
side because of our adjacency to the neighboring property and the property line. So, if we do add
something, it would have to be pretty narrow. Currently we don't have anything shown.)
> On this same elevation, if you were on the balcony at the second floor, are you looking at the inside
face of this gray screening wall? (Gabrich: lYs a low wall. Essentially it acts as a guardrail. When you walk
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 9H/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 13, 2020
out onto that balcony area it would be about 42 inches above that deck floor. IYs to prevent people from
falling off, but iYs not full height.) Does it carry all the way across the second floor in the other two sets of
windows in its elevation? (Gabrich: Yes.)
> How would you envision one would utilize the open space at the rear of the property? (Gabrich: That
would be accessed through the back stairs. We have a door leading directly from that stairway to the open
space there. So thaf open space we're utilizing is for open space for the residents. It provides exterior
open space, and we're also using it for drainage and filtering onsite runoff And we have permeable pavers
called out by the landscape architect and we have an informal seating area. We also have some bike
racks, which were a concern of the commission in previous meetings, so that is one of our proposed
locations for bicycle racks.)
> On your right elevation, the garage ventilation protrudes out from the face of the building. The side
setback is five feet, correct? (Gabrich: Correct.) It looked like these ventilation segments protrude out
about 12 inches or so, how much are they protruding out? (Gabrich: The way we're envisioning this is trim.
It would probably stick out about four to six inches. The renderings make it look a bit more dramatic than
they really are. We wanted to do something rather than just holes and louvers. We wanted to tie those to
some of the elements we have on the upper floors. We don't want to get too far down because as you
mentioned, we have five feet, so l'm looking at realistically four to six inches to give it a little bit of a
shadow and a little bit of interest.) In plan, it looks like it protrudes 12 inches or so as well. Wondering if
there's necessity for it to protrude since that side alley is fairly narrow as it is.
> The tree thaYs right in front of the paseo on the fronf elevation, is that an existing tree to remain?
(Gabrich: Yes, and the landscape architect Tom Phelps has identified that it's an exrsting free to remain .)
Wondering about pedestrian travel in and around that area. Appreciate the tree preservation, but
wondering what iYs doing to pedestrian travel as well as the visibility of the paseo. (Gabrich: We're just
trying to preserve as many things as possible.)
> Gardiner. l received a message from the project planner letting me know that the City Arborist is
requiring that the street tree is replaced with two new street trees, so this particular issue may go a
different direcfion just because of the replacement of that tree with two new ones.
> You previously had signage locafed on the front of the building on the face and don't see signage
location under your current proposed elevation. Would it be in a similar location or somewhere else?
(Grant: We were asked to remove it from the drawings. We can either put it at the front base of the stair
column on the building, or over the front entry on one member there, or the mid-level by the building
facade between the first and second levels of the porches. Certainly something to be studied.)
> Looking at fhat elevation or this rendering, have you thought about where rideshare pickup may take
place at this building? There's a row of hedges in your landscape plan thaYs right along the street, right on
the sidewalk which would prevent someone from being able to come out and hop into a car. Have you
thought about how that might occur? (Grant: One of the things we looked at when we did the revisions on
the front entry to the building is the open space through there. The idea is you would be in your building, it
literately is showing the location of the vehicle and as it approaches, you'll walk out and there's a vehicle at
the curb. More than likely not, you're inside the building or at that front entry area. Rather than entering a
vehicle at the landscape portion, you would be entering at the drive.)
> If we can go back to the northwest elevation looking at that gray swath along the boftom, is that
cement plaster? (Gabrich: ThaYs correct.) Would there be some control joints or something in that facade
or is it some other technique? (Gabrich: We would definitely do control joints because we want to control
the plaster and cracking. If we do a large swath of plaster like that without control joint, it would most
likely crack, so we could break that up with control joints.
> What is meant by the keynote number six on that same elevation calls for plastered trim with 2030
sand finish. WhaYs that trim along that guardrail? (Gabrich: We would most likely frame it, but it was a
sfucco trim to allow us to do a little bit of change of color and get a little shadow line. We have a couple of
different pieces of trim and cornice. The trim there would be the same as the field. We do have a couple
of areas where we identified smooth plaster. So it would be smooth grout. ThaYs the intent there.)
> Just to understand the design intent, you've got the two bookends at each end of this facade, the
stairwells. One on the far right where you can get a window in, and that comes all the way to the ground
and the far left, that comes all the way to the ground. But then the area thaYs the trash enclosure and the
elevator which is the large white rectangle, that doesn't come all the way down. You're interrupting that with
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 9/1/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 13, 2020
this gray wall or the guardrail wall. Is that intentional? (Gabrich: Yes.)
There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> Agree with the developer that the project has come a long way. The architecture has greatly improved
from what we saw previously. IYs a more sophisticated design. As he said, it has a certain calm to it.
> Being that this is the R-4 incentive district, we're being asked to consider the density bonuses as well
as fhe development standard waivers. And all the while, there's a lot being asked. Looking at the site and
the potential for development, in terms of the location for something of this intensity and density, there's
not much better of a place. On one side it's up against a large new parking structure thaYs under
construction. On the backside, iYs up against surface parking. On the other side, iYs surrounded by
apartment buildings, granted they are a little bit smaller in sca/e, but can see this area evolving over time .
This is a good location for a project like this.
> Without getting into fully applying some architecture and design to all of whaYs possible, personally
accepting of the arguments made by the developer in terms of the application and the request for the
waiver of the development standards. Can make those findings and allow for a project of this intensity to
move forward. IYs a good project.
> Like where the project has gone from the early stages. One concern is that horizontal wall, iYs a big
concrete wall. The architects could look at doing something at that side.
> Like the architecture of the project and this is a good location for it. It has a parking garage on one
side and a parking lot on a second side. When we looked at this the last time, there was some concern
about the number of waivers and concessions that we're asking for and the applicants made a good case
there. Basically if they weren't to get the waivers, they would lose one unit per floor which is about four
units. So in effect, we're getting two below market rate units for two additional market rate units, and when
you look at it in that context, that's something that's supportable.
> Have some concerns about the architecture and if might be in part because of the cartoon nature in
the presentation, the drawings themselves. Having a little bit of trouble getting past the blue windows and
the brown stucco. It could be a nice project, but depending on how this is rendered into architecture, it
could end up being a cheap looking project and that is worrisome. For example the stone veneer, if it
looks like glued on stone veneer, thaYs going to look really cheap. Not being able to tell what exactly is
going on there and worry about the tendency of colorized projects. A lot depends on how this thing goes
from a cartoon to a building.
> We need the housing. IYs a great spot for a development like this. Hoping that it will turn into a really
good building. It's really hard to not be in the same room and not see a mock-up of the stone and the
stucco and understand exactly how this gets translated into building from drawing.
> One question brought up was the windows. Don't know if we can ask the developer to come back as
an FYI just to understand which windows will be operable and which will not be operable and how they play
out.
> The windows in the rendering look somewhat commercial rather than residential and it might be a
rendering technique. Being able to see a little bit more of what that submittal is going to look like and how
they're going to operate so they have a good residential feel for the people is a good thing.
> A couple of areas that need clarifications are some of the larger wall spans. The one on the left side
facing a ga�age, there's a walkway between this garage and building, and people will be there. Would like
a better understanding how those control joints are going to work because there's also the large white wall
that's coming down to it that doesn't have any detail in it at this point. lYs probably going to need control
joints as well thaYs going to show up and are a pattern. There's a bit more texture on this side that hasn't
been put in o� incorporated to where some of the other sides may have been a little bit more developed .
The materials are going to be a brg deal on the success of how these surfaces turn out.
> lYs the right density and the heights work. The only drawback on some of it is the open space that we
are not going to have in proportion to the number of units that are there, but this may be the spot to do
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 9/1/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 13, 2020
that anyway.
> The architecture and the design improvements are appreciated and like how iYs developed since the
last meeting. The location is good, and can agree with the concessions and the waivers being requested
for this project.
> Have a few concerns as well about the animated nature of the renderings and being able to see how
the finishes will come to play. One of the down sides of ineeting online is we aren't able to pass the
materials across the dais to take a look at what those finishes may be. If there is some way we could,
whether iYs an FYl or some other means that we can get an opportunity to view those finishes, that would
be appreciated.
> Saddened by the lack of outdoor space for the tenants but do realize that this setting in the downtown
area and some of the future developments that are coming soon would help to offset those shortfalls.
> Would like to put a little bit more attention at the paseo, that massive gray wall which once was green,
it seems like a nice opportunity for a mural or some type of creative tile installation or material installation .
Something to give a little bit betterpassage for those pedestrians going through that area.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application with the following condition:
> Prior to the submittal of a Building permit, the applicant shall apply for an FYI that includes a
materials board, window specifications, clarifies which windows will be operable, and further
defines the detailing and articulation of the northwest elevation.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid
Absent: 1 - Gaul
City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 9/1/2020
cr_ � :.
��' `�.' � j
�;�, ,
��� �. _ --�w.�.
0
'ryC0 �� e
qooware
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, September 14, 2020 7:00 PM Online
c. 128 Lorton Avenue, zoned R-4 Incentive District Subarea - Application for Amendment to
Design Review and Waivers/Modifications for changes to a previously approved 19-unit
residential condominium building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the
CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant;
SDG Architects, Inc., architect; Thomas Cady, property owner) (202 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
Attachments: 128 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
128 Lorton Ave - Attachments
128 Lorton Ave - Plans
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Chris Grant and Lance Crannell, represented the applicant along with Stephanie Gildred, property owner.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> In looking at Option 2, why is it that 9-foot high ceilings work at the two lower floors of residential, but
don't work at the upper two floors? (Grant It's a compromise. In looking at the interior volumes, you have
9 feet to the top of the floor. By the time you lay the drywall on the ceiling and add duct work and
mechanical drops, you're talking about 9 feet in some spaces and less than that in other area, somewhere
in the 8-foot range. So Option 2 is not a great option to be honest. We were concerned about the
difference between what was approved and what we're proposing for Option 1, and we thought it would
warrant consideration and evaluation of whaf that might look like as a 9-foot option versus a 10-foot
option. The spaces and the volumes on these units on 10 feet would be /ess than 10 feet given that you
have mechanical, HVAC and other drops.)
> In typical residential multi-unit buildings, you plan the utilities to occur in certain areas like bathrooms
and closet spaces to where even a 7-foot 6-inch or 8-foot ceiling is acceptable. (Gildred: I really feel that
with the tall garage being built next door, 10-foot ceilings make any kind of apartment or house look much
more spacious. I just don't understand why there would be a problem with Option 1.) The issue is the
overall height. How much taller the burlding has to get. (Gildred: It's nof that much considering 1 have a
five-story parking garage next to me. IYs not much over what the top floor of that parking floor is .)
(Cranne//: I'm the architect on the project. One of the things we wanted to make sure we were clear on was
the proportionality of raising the height so it will not appear out of balance with the streetscape nor with the
adjacent five-story garage that was there.)
> Part of raising the first floor on the garage also includes raising the awning, which previously was
Cify of Burlingame Page 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2020
providing some good human scale. The awnrng is now up at the top of the transoms above the taller
windows on that front elevation, correct? Is there any reason why that awning couldn't be down at a height
above those doors and have transoms above the awning? (Grant: From my perspective, that's an
appropriate request. It's not complefely unreasonable to bring it down, especially on the ground floor to
bring the scale back down of that architectural feature.)
> Undersfand the stackers raising the height of the first floor, but can you consider just recessing the
building into the ground 4 feet to accommodate those stackers? (Grant: One of the challenges with this
structure is that if we get too deep into the ground is the impact it would have on the surrounding lots.
We're seeing that even in this design that we're considering, it's not completely resolved how to treat those
stackers, and the deeper it goes, the more costs prohibitive and logistically difficult it becomes fo design
it. The shoring agreements with neighboring properties have become a challenge. I like your idea of going
below grade or at least below curb height, but it would be tough to go 4 feet. Something like 18 inches
and maybe 24 inches would be really the extent.) The foundation is going to have to go down a
considerable amount too with a five-story building, but it would be worth looking at. It would save some of
this height we're seeing in this new building, so 1 would encourage you to look af that.
There were no public comments.
Chair Tse c/osed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> Will be going in the same direction as the other commissioners who have spoken on this. Our initial
concern with this project was that because it was asking for so many concessions, was it really an
appropriate project for this lot and this location. But what they ended up with, as it was approved, was a
really nice human-scale building that was going to look good in this neighborhood which allowed me to
move past those concessions and vote for approval. It is discomforting when you waive the setback
requirements on the upper floor on the right side. When you raise this building up more it makes those
impacts, particularly on the right side building, much more significant. It hurts fhe design by losing that
human scale that was so good in the approved design. You can see it in the renderings with the use of the
human characters on each of the elevations. Can't see either option right now as they stand as something
that is supportable. Option 2 is closer, but the upper floor ceiling heights will need to be revisited. Would
encourage the applicant to look at lowering the elevation of the garage slab and looking at changing the
awning in the front as my fellow commissioners had suggested. The human sca/e, particularly at the
ground floor, was really an appealing aspect of this burlding. Concerned that there's a garage on the left
side, but the rest of the block contains older stock buildings and they may be redeveloped eventually. It
this is going to become the standard for that entire block, then whaYs the point of having the zoning
code?
> What we are being asked to consider before are special considerations, waivers and concessions
relative to what it would take to get the affordable units included in the project. However, the increase to
the ceiling height is a marketing issue and that's not one of the criteria that we have to consider relative to
the special permits for height and the concessions and waivers. If thaYs whaYs necessary to make this
project work, then iYs further indication that this may be too much for this lot relative to all the
concessions we're being asked to consider. There can be a third option. Can understand and accept from
a technical standpoint making the garage floor taller in order to get the stackers and the utilities in. As
my fellow commissioner said, some revisiting of the awning and human scale elements can be redesigned
and reconsidered in that option. The upper f(oors can remain with 9-foot ceilings and be sustainable. We
have units all over town that have 9-foot ceilings in them and fhey seem to be occupied. So don't see how
that becomes a necessity to make the project work from our standpoint.
> Would like to thank the architect for some of the additional detailing and reveals shown in Option 1,
they help with some of the elevations that were a liftle weak in the previous submittal. Looking at the
elevations for Options 1 and 2, I am finding that Option 2 looks a lot closer to scale and can appreciate
the need for the additional space. Understand that the stackers are complicated, but could not support
the height in Option 1 being so far off scale even with the parking garage. It would tower over its neighbor
City of Burlingame Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2020
for quite a while. I agree with the human scale comments made earlier relative to the awning at the front of
the building.
> I am concerned about the stone thaPs shown on the materials board, 1 am very uneasy about the
stone that's being proposed, the stone frankly looked very cheap. It looked like glue-on stone, it would
look cheap on a small surface, but it would look extremely cheap on a very large surface. These are really
big stone surfaces, so 1'm not in favor of the proposed stone. That's not the right sca/e or application of
stone for these surfaces.
> 1 can't support increasing the building height. With five bonuses already granted, including lot
coverage and open space modifications on all four sides, there's a way to make it work with the envelope
you've got. Whether iYs the ceiling heights or going underground, thaYs something you can work out to
make the project move fonvard, but can't see increasing the height.
> To add to the human scale, have been commenting all along about the paseo experience. IYs quite a
narrow passage at the paseo between the parking garage and this building, and with an even further
heightened structure that takes the project out of scale in relation to its neighboring projects. I would be
further concerned about that experience.
> I do want to see the project work, iYs a good project as we previously discussed. The context that it's
in relative to what's happening, and the incentives we put in place in their area is good, but we have to
consider the particulars of this lot relative to the adjacent structures. There's a solution here, but don't
think whaYs being presented before us is approvable.
Vice Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to deny the
application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid
City of Burlingame Page 3
���y �,{ h�a����y-,�;�i„�, o Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road �(650} 55$-7250 � pianningdeptCa�buriinpame e�r�
'�R���ra�,► ,
M"� Praject Application - Planning Division
,
���
�4
'�'�� �� �� ��. <;-�on: ❑ Accessory pwelling Unit ❑ Conditional Use/Minor Use Perrnit
❑ Design Review ❑ Hillside Area Construction Permit ❑ Minor Modification
� Special Permit ❑ Variance [� Other
__ _ _._ _ _ ---_ ____
p�.a+�„�� �����,�,,,. 128 Lorton Ave., Burlingame Assessor's Parcel #: 029-231-210 �aning. R_4
Praa��,i �c�s�rA�s:: on:
s� � rt�.�if;�:��:, r; to height to a pre-approved project on lune 3, 2020
���;�4:��.=
Na�,�� :
;_•;,�ai><, Zee Kao/Murphy Wood, Inc
Property Owner
Name: Louisa Zee Kao/Murphy Wood, Inc.
�d����� �� ��_���= ���urlingame Avenue, Suite 211
3�3��`���;ame, California 94010
f'h�,-;�.:. ![;'-:f,'; %33-2988
E_�y�.i;. _z�>��;.ao@murphywood.com
Aret�st ���,1��<;i;,;r�er
Nar��e: ����'�'=�d Aiken
� -'�" � 'Norsham Ave.
� l�d�+i�s�� . � , ��s -
s�.
, :,each, California �0808
Phc;�,:= � {�`r :; �22-8784
E—P�1�;1',: ric:;,;a,<-�whainc.com
Bu��iiE��;an�ic Es�.,s';�ess License#:
Address: 1110 Burlingame Avenue, Suite 211
Burlingame, California 94010
Phone: �650)733-2988
E-mail: Lzeekao@murphywood.cam
Authorizatian to Reprvciuce Proiect €�I�nse
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the aukhority to post
plans submitted with this application on the City's website
as part of the Planning approval process and waive any
claims against the City arising out of or related to sucf-�
actian.
RA
(Initials of Architect/Designer}
* Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame 6usiness �ieense.
Ap��s?i�;�;��: �'r�. .:.by certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my
knavv;c:;_=�c� as�r`''relief.
App�+ic.�a�-Et ss£�, ;<:ture: �.,::+�. '�L�,— Date: March 4, 202�
a
Pra��egt� ��w<<� ; I am aware of the.proposed application and hereby authorize the above ap�alicar�i io su��r��it tt�is
ap�sf;c,�ii��e� t�v ;;,�� Planning Division� � � �
' ' . . � i „ �
Pra,�� rt;; c��✓r : s signature: �� ��c �, � �+:� �•. `:,`� �'�1cz�f,l� �tJ, �<'�"at �l � March 4, 2023
✓
,'i,
���� � �,��.� � c� : �:�� Received (staff only): RECEIVED
MAR 13 2023
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIVISION
.
May15, 2023
Mr. Ruben Hurin,
Planning Manager
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Density Bonus Application
Lorton Heights —128 Lorton Ave.
Applicants: Louisa Zee Kao and Murphey Wood INC.
Architects: Rick Aiken, William Hezmalhalch Architects (WHA)
Dear Ruben:
We are pleased to provide information for review of the 128 Lorton project. This Condominium
project is already approved and does provide affordable units located at 128 Lorton Avenue
(APN 029-231-210). The ownership of the property is with Louisa Zee Kao, President of The
Murry Wood, Inc. company which is a long-standing local business. The applications amendment
is asking for a simpie height increase for the stair's shafts and elevator shaft.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and Burlingame Municipal Code 25.63 we hereby
submit this Density Bonus application. This document is prepared with the intent of providing a
written explanation of our request for added height using California code 65915, known as the
Density Bonus Law, and California Gov. code 65589.5. known as the Housing Accountability Act.
Proiect Description
The project is located in Zoning District R4 and was approved by the Planning Commission on
July 13, 2020. The project was approved for its Use, Increase in Density (total of 19 units),
Reduction in Required Parking, Waivers or Reduction of Development standards and an Increase
of height above the 55'-0" allowed in the R-4 Incentive District.
3676 Worsham Ave., Long Beach, CA 90808 � 56� 216 8888 � whainc.com
ORANGE COUNTY � LOS ANGELES � BAY AREA I SACRAMENTO
.
This project was stalled due to COVID and the change of ownership. With New ownership of this
project the owner has pushed the design team to prepare Construction Documents for submit
of the project to the Building Department.
In the effort to prepare Construction Documents the design team has encountered several
concerns with the pre-approved height increase. One of the big concerns is the existing power
lines at the front of the building along Lorton Avenue. These powerlines will become an obstacle
for construction as we have seen in other neighboring sites under construction. But that can be
mitigated during construction. The bigger issue is after the completion of the project and the
need for long-term maintenance for things on the roof. Using a crane from the street to lift
things to the roof will be dangerous and difficult for general maintenance and repair people.
Because the site is somewhat land locked, the only real access point is from the front of the
building in the street.
The design team sees an opportunity to provide simple and direct access to the roof by
providing an elevator and stair shafts directly to the roof top. This will all so provide much better
and safer access for long term maintenance replacing things like A/C condenser units, solar
panels, water tanks and roof repairs. A big advantage would be for the Fire Department to fight
a fire having direct access.
Hei�ht- Code Section 25.29.060
BMC 25.29.095 set height limitation for this property. R-4 Incentive District limits the height to
fifty-five (55) feet and requires a conditional use permit for the project exceeding 55 feet.
However, being within the Incentive Zoning we are allowed to ask for an increase. This building
will be constructed as a TYPE III One-hour building with a Sprinkler system. The allowed height
for a TYPE III One-hour building is 75'-0". The City's maximum height limit for a building like this
is also Seventy-five (75) feet.
3676 Worsham Ave., Long Beach, CA 90808 � 562 216 8888 � whalnc.com
OR�,NGE COUN7Y � LOS aNGELES � 8AY AREA � SACRAMENTO
�
The request of this resubmittal is to ask for additional height increase of height from the
pre-approved 59'-6" to 72'-6" for the elevator shaft, and 59'-6 to 64'-7" for the stair shafts. The
required elevator inside clear height from top of floor to underside of roof framing is 14'-7" and
is how we have determined the need increase request.
We appreciate the support this project has already received from the City of Burlingame. Now
that COVID has moved passed it's critical stage, costs of construction have begun to be more
reasonable and with new ownership we see this as the prefect time to have this project reach in
full potential of being built and providing some needed housing.
If limitation of 55 feet in height standard were applied to this project, it would result in the loss
of either 1) an entire floor of dwelling units or 2) elimination of all upper stacked parking spaces
in the parking system. This would deprive the project of the benefit of density requested for the
project or prevent the project from benefiting from the concession requested herein. We
request that the development standard for maximum height be waived so that all 19 units can
be constructed, and no parking count reduction below proposed is required.
Richard Aiken, AIA, NCARB
WHA Architects- Planning- Designers
Vice President, Urban Studio
3676 Worsham Ave., Long Beach, CA 90808 � 562 216 8888 � whalnc.com
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES I BAY AREA � SACRAMENTO
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS/MODIFICATIONS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made forAmendment
to Desiqn Review and Densitv Bonus Waivers/Modifications for chanqes to a previouslv approved 19-
unit residential condominium at 128 Lorton Avenue, zoned R-4 (R-4 Incentive Overlav) Louisa Zee Kao
Murphv Wood, Inc., property owner, APN: 029-231-210;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 12,
2023, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the 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 the amendment to increase the
height of the building falls within the scope of the previously approved categorical exemption, per
CEQA Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects.
2. Said Amendment to Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications are approved
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to
Design Review and Density Bonus Waivers/Modifications are set forth in the staff report, minutes,
and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the
County of San Mateo.
Chairperson
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 12th dav of June, 2023 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped May 23, 2023, sheets A0.0 through A5.1 and L0.08;
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 prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall apply for a tentative and final
condominium map with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance
with the Subdivision Map Act;
4. that prior to issuance of the final inspection of the project, the applicant shall pay the public
facilities impact fee in the amount of $83,055.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and
submitted to the Planning Division;
5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the
footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be
determined by Planning staff);
6. that the project shall include two (2) affordable units for a 55-year term; the applicant shall enter
into an agreement for the administration of the sale, renting, or leasing of the affordable units
at least 120 days before the final inspection;
7. that the required affordable dwelling units shall be built on-site and shall be constructed
concurrently with market-rate units;
8. that the two (2) moderate income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and
affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of fifty-five (55) years (or a
longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program,
mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program);
9. that the applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City; the terms of this
agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office, and reviewed and revised
as appropriate by the reviewing City official; this agreement will be a form provided by the City,
and will include the following terms:
(a) The affordability moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with
Government Code Section 65915(c)(1);
(b) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(c)(2);
(c) The location, dwelling unit sizes, sale or rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the
affordable units;
(d) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City; and
(e) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section,
and the applicable sections of the density bonus law;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 2
10. that the above noted regulatory agreement regarding the two (2) restricted affordable units
shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest; the agreement required by this
Zoning Code Section 25.63.080 is hereby a condition of all development approvals and shall
be fully executed and recorded prior to the issuance of any building or construction permit for
the proposed project;
11. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the
close of escrow on the sale of each unit;
12. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors
of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name
and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or
guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable
component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area
carpets, drapes and furniture;
13. that CityLift Model No. 2LP parking lift system, or an equivalent parking lift system, shail be
installed, with the following conditions:
a. the parking lifts shall be properly illuminated to provide safety for easy loading and
unloading, while not causing excessive glare.
b. signage shall be installed explaining the proper use of the lifts and emergency contact
information for lift maintenance or problems.
c. the final design of the parking lifts shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Community Development Director.
14. that the project shall be constructed in accordance with the June 4, 2020 "Request for Alternate
Materials or Methods of Construction" agreement between Chris Grant and Central County
Fire Department;
15. 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;
16. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 3
17. 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 construction parking plan to provide worker parking off site and generally off
neighborhood streets, with shuttles or other transportation as needed to transport
workers to the site;
b. 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;
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;
d. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel
regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur;
e. 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
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.
18. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs
(Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm
drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and
proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil
storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed
drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately
downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and
washout areas;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 4
19. that the applicant shall submit a Construction Noise Control Plan. This plan would include
measures such as:
■ Using smaller equipment with lower horsepower or reducing the hourly utilization rate
of equipment used on the site to reduce noise levels at 50 feet to the allowable level.
■ Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise-sensitive uses.
■ Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have
sound control devices 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.
■ Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems.
■ Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than
5 minutes).
■ Constructing a solid plywood barrier around the construction site and adjacent to
operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses.
■ Using temporary noise control blanket barriers.
■ Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise
measurements.
■ Using "quiet" gasoline-powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and
electric rather than gasoline- or diesel-powered forklifts for small lifting.
20. that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction is equipped with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4"final" engines;
21. 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;
22. 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;
23. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way
shall be prohibited;
24. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to
October 1 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for
erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and
sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed
soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking
unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping
stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals;
25. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface
drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage
system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 5
26. 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;
27. 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;
28. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and
Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks
Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building
permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the
City Arborist;
29. that the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Burlingame Parks Division regarding the
planting of two (2) street trees along Lorton Avenue;
30. 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;
31. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required
to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
32. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
33. that the project shall meet all the requirements
Codes, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
34. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No.
of the California Building and Uniform Fire
1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
The fol/owing conditions shall be met during the Building /nspection process prior to the
inspections noted in each condition:
35
36.
that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building envelope;
that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the
new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the Building Division;
37. 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;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 6
38. 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;
39. that the maximum elevation to the top the stair and elevator enclosures shall not exceed
elevation 106.74 and elevation 103.74 to the top of the building parapet, as measured from the
average elevation at the top of the curb along Lorton Avenue (37.06') for a maximum height
not to exceed 69'-8" to the top of the stair and elevator enclosures and 63'-2" to the top of the
parapet; the garage finished floor elevation shall be elevation 37.06'; the top of each floor and
final roof ridge shall be surveyed by a licensed surveyor who shall provide certification of that
height to the Building Division; Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it
shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed
the maximum height shown on the approved plans;
The fo/lowing conditions of approval are from Downtown Specific P/an:
40. that if subgrade structures are proposed, the project sponsor shall prepare a Geotechnical
Study identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent
groundwater dewatering would be allowed. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to
above the seasonal high water table and all areas for non-residential uses shal� be flood-
proofed and anchored, in accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design
depth as recommended by geotechnical engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified
professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department;
41. the project sponsor shall implement all appropriate control measures from the most currently
adopted air quality plan at the time of project construction;
42. the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during
project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or as necessary.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered or
otherwise loaded consistent with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is
prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 7
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air DistricYs phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
44. the project sponsor shall implement the following Greenhouse Gas reduction measures during
construction activities:
a. Alternative-Fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment shall make
up at least 15 percent of the fleet.
b. Use at least 10 percent local building materials.
c. Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.
45. the project sponsor shall provide adequate secure bicycle parking in the plan area at a
minimum ratio of 1 bicycle spot for every 20 vehicle spots;
46. the condominium management shall post and update information on alternate modes of
transportation for the area (i.e. bus/shuttle schedules and stop locations, maps);
47. the project sponsor shall incorporate commercial energy efficiency measures such that energy
efficiency is increased to 15% beyond 2008 title 24 standards for electricity and natural gas;
48. the project sponsor shall incorporate recycling measures and incentives such that a solid waste
diversion rate of 75% is achieved upon occupation of each phase of plan development;
49. the project sponsor shall incorporate residential water efficiency measures such that water
consumption is decreased by a minimum of 10 percent over current standard water demand
factors;
50. that construction shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent
feasible, as determined by staff. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for
nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to
construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas
within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In
the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250
ft. of the nest, until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no
evidence of second nesting attempts;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 8
51. that for projects within the Plan Area that require excavation, a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (and Phase II sampling, where appropriate) would be required. If the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment determines that remediation is required, the project sponsor
would be required to implement all remediation and abatement work in accordance with the
requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), or otherjurisdictional agency;
52. the following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be
implemented by the project contractor.
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly
noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences,
or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive
receptors;
Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and
Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be
used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using
impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible.
53. the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to
be implemented by construction contractors: The project sponsor shall require that loaded
trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located
near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction
goals;
54. that if the project increases sewer flows to the sanitary sewer system, the project sponsor shall
coordinate with the City Engineer to determine if improvements to public sanitary sewer
infrastructure are needed. If improvements are needed, the following shall apply:
that prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall develop a plan to
facilitate sanitary sewer improvements. The plan shall include a schedule for
implementing sanitary sewer upgrades that would occur within the development site
and/or contribution of a fair share fee toward those improvements, as determined by the
City Engineer. The plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 9
55. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the development plans shall be reviewed by the Fire
Marshal to determine if fire flow requirements would be met given the requirements of the
proposed project, and the size of the existing water main(s). If the Fire Marshal determines
improvements are needed for fire protection services, then the following shall apply:
that prior to issuance of a building permit the project sponsor shall be required to provide
a plan to supply adequate water supply for fire suppression to the project site, consistent
with the Fire Marshal's requirements. The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal.
The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementation of the plan including
installation of new water mains, and/or incorporation of fire water storage tanks and
booster pumps into the building design, or other measures as determined by the Fire
Marshal.
56. that if evidence of an archeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity
("midden"), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay
vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction-related
earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be
halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified
archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the
archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall
be mitigated to a less-than significant level through data recovery or other methods determined
adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards forArcheological Documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded
on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC;
57. that should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified
at the project construction site during any phase of construction, the project manager shall
cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of
Burlingame. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation
of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant
level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological
resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for
implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and
approved by the City; and
58. that if human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of
construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and
the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to
Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health
and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American,
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the
guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.
The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial
experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely
Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide
professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit
128 Lorton Avenue
Effective June 22, 2023
Page 10
of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of
recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law,
as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of
Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the
remains were discovered.
CITY OF BURLlNGA1VIE
�� CONt1�lUNITY [3EVflOAMENT �EPARiMENT
BUF2LINC,AME 501 PRIMRp�E ROAD
; � !�' BURtfNGAMif, CA 94Q10
- PH: {65t1) SS8-7250
www.burlingame.org
Project Site;1 i!8 L�rton Avenue, :aned R-+4
The tity of �u�tingame Pl��ning tommission annoua�es the foilowing
p�lit hearing on Mon�o��r, J�ne lY, 4G23 ot 7:00 P.M. You may
altand ttie m�eting in persfln at City Hal) {501 Primrose Rd� or anline at
www,�4nm.�sli�in or by phane at (34b} 248�71�9:
�leef�ng t�. 865 b126 98�i Passcude: 8747Q6
Dessriptian. Appiiration far Amendment fo Desipn Review and
WaiversJModifications ior changes ro a previausly a�pproved 19-unit
residential tandominium baild�ng.
Al�n6�rs af th� public �na�r speok at o{te meeti�g �r provide
comme�rts by e�oit to publiccommem v�.6urlingor�e.org.
far mare in#+ormotion, please visit www.6urii�gome.arglqsn�eetings
MQ��ed:lune 2, ?023
(P'lease refer to other side)
PURLIC HEA►RI{�G
NOTtCE
�ity of 8�rlinararne - Publrc Mearing N�fifce
If yttu have any questions abaut thi� apipli�tic�t at would like to scMed�ule an
appointment ta view a hard cc�py of the applicatior� arrd p4an�, ptease senci ar� emait to
piannin�de, t�burli�am�.ore ar call (650) 558-Z2�0,
Indiuiduals who require spe��al assistance ar a disab�lity-related m�di�icat�an or
a�ccammodation to pat�ticipate in this me�eting, or who have a disability and wish to
request an alterna�ive f�armat for the agenda, rn�e�ng nat�ce, agenda packe� or other
writings that may be distributed. shauld contact the Planning D�visic�� at
t�la�, nnin��lec►�burtingam�.ar� or �650j 558-725#� by 1[� am on the day af the meeting.
if you cfiallenge the subject applieation(s) in court, you may be limited to raising or�ly
those issues you ar sameone �Ise ralsed'at the publi� �rearing, describecE in the notice
or in writken correspondence deliver�d to #h� city a# o� privr tc� th� pu#�lic hea�ir�g.
Rroperty owners wha receive this ncrtice ar� responsible far'informing their tenants
abaut this notice.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Developrr�ent Director (�leos� refer ta ocber side)
128 Lorton Avenue
500' noticing
APN: 029-231-210
(rr �
r..
; _� �.:..�Ih.:�ir�
::f �urlur:.l�<`�n�-�
\.' r:
,i � '� r- :;� ,
� � ti' r
it ...- 'F. �" .
_�.'� �'1 �^.-' � �F� r:-
.11l�..� ��f':� , + t
. I .'i f. . • `� �
= � ,:y
I : r�= .. -'E F'f l � l�` " `'r� ;�:,� ,, ,
' �.
�, ,,,
�� f `. .
`��� V i
,:, r�_, ,
i��,i::����- x��s
i��a .�., '°�
„n . �.
�. ,i���-��,
-•r,, i - "�.
.4' �,+
V�• � ,+3"$P' t, wl�� '
� f:
4:'` t 1 �.`-• i ; t �'' �� '
.�LID.-. _ � �' j f'
� -.
.
.
.•..
' � �F I J � �, .,
� , ,.:
:
.l,' }._.
� ''��� Y :
• 4 l
�J o-ti
�•% �s. �: �P` � `��
�
- f��z:s-� .rnhi�.��._,1���i� _.
hJ-; Fi-: 7� r �.
•'t7„ 1 t::�til:�inF
v�.'hl�_ li
,�Ich
. _..�tYi�lY. , �
n�� �4u 5
w, '
". ..,.�'� � .
•- �?xh r f,
U {��i �i! •
"l,
f � �
f +•, ��
� �
�
#w
e
� 4�� +
'.�� �
• ``t�` i I�5
`*'•
�d „�\
� ._, i\.`.
�+
\��
.���
�'
� �i
s� �
�;� � '.
a