HomeMy WebLinkAbout1128-1132 Douglas Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Item No. 8e
Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance for a Regular Action Item
Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
Address: 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue Meeting Date: September 24, 2018
Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance for a previously
approved new five-story, 27-unit multi-family residential building with below-grade parking.
Applicant and Architect: Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc. APN: 029-132-180 and -190
Property Owner: Zers Development Inc. Lot Area: 15,492 SF (combined lots)
General Plan: High Density Residential Zoning: R-4
Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (R-4 Base District)
Environmental Review Status: The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Douglas
Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project was certified by the City Council on June 5, 2017.
For reference, the Final EIR (comprised of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments document) is
attached.
On May 18, 2018 the applicant submitted a request to revise several aspects of the project. An
Addendum to the EIR (attached, dated September 2018) was prepared to detail the requested project
revisions and identify whether the revisions would result in new significant impacts or substantially
increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).
The Addendum determined that no new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur as
a result of the project revisions. No new substantial changes would occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project would be undertaken. The mitigation measures and determination
of significance for impacts included in the adopted EIR would continue to be valid. None of the conditions
described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or CEQA
Guidelines Section 15163 requiring preparation of a supplemental EIR have occurred. This Addendum to
the adopted EIR is an appropriate level of environmental review for the project revisions, as identified in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Background/History: An application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height,
Front Setback Landscape Variance, Parking Variance for driveway width, and Tentative Parcel Map for
lot combination for a new, 27-unit residential apartment building at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue was
approved by the City Council on June 5, 2017 (the Planning Commission April 24, 2017 action
approving the project was appealed by a neighbor) (see attached June 5, 2017 City Council Minutes).
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project was also certified by the City Council at
that time. The project also includes moving the front half of the existing house at 1128 Douglas Avenue
to 524 Oak Grove Avenue and additions to the first and second floors.
In his letter dated May 18, 2018 (attached), the project architect notes that following the Planning
Commission approval, City Council appeal and subsequent meeting with neighbors, the property owner
and architect had further discussion about the project. As a result of their discussions, the owner is now
requesting approval of several revisions to the previously approved project, which are outlined in the next
section below. No changes are proposed to the project at 524 Oak Grove Avenue.
The Planning Division would note that this application was brought directly to the Planning Commission
as an Action Item since the application includes changes to a previously approved project, there is no
intensification proposed, and the changes fall within the scope of the certified EIR for the previously
approved project and EIR Addendum prepared for the project.
Amendmeni and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
Summary of Proposed Changes: The applicant is requesting approval of several revisions to the
previously approved multi-family residential project at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue. There are no
changes proposed to the associated single family dwelling project at 524 Oak Grove Avenue. Please
refer to the applicanYs response letter, dated May 18, 2018, for a detailed explanation of the proposed
changes, which are summarized below.
Re/ocate At-Grade Parking Spaces at Rear of Site to Underground Garage: The previously
approved project included 12 at-grade parking spaces at the rear of the lot and 22 below-grade
parking spaces in an underground garage, for a total of 34 off-street parking spaces (where 33
spaces was the minimum required; one extra space provided). Access to the at-grade parking
spaces at the rear of the lot was via a 9'-0" wide driveway located at the north end of the lot. A
Parking Variance was granted for this substandard driveway width (9'-0" provided where 12'-0" is
the minimum required).
The 9'-0" driveway width, additional cars using this shared driveway, and vehicles parking at the
rear of the site were concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, City Council and neighbors.
In addition, further investigation by two independent arborists determined that in order
accommodate the 9'-0" driveway width, the root mass of the existing Redwood tree adjacent to the
driveway would need to be altered to the point that it would compromise the tree, and therefore
both arborists recommended removing the tree. However, the City Arborist has indicated that he
would not approve removal of this tree for this purpose.
To address these concerns, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the at-grade parking spaces
previously approved at the rear of the site and relocate them to the underground garage.
Effectively, this eliminates the need for a Parking Variance for driveway width because parking for
this project would no longer be provided at the rear of the site. The existing driveway at the north
end of the lot would remain to provide access to the existing parking area for the adjacent property
at 1124 Douglas Avenue.
The revised plans show that 11 parking spaces would be relocated and combined with the
previously approved 22 underground parking spaces in the underground garage, providing a total
of 33 parking spaces (33 spaces minimum required). The 12th space, a guest/delivery parking
space which is not required for apartment buildings, will be eliminated from the project. However,
the circular driveway would provide an area for short term parking/small vehicle deliveries. With
this application, there are no changes proposed to the number of units or types of units.
With the exception of two disabled-accessible spaces and one standard space, the parking in the
garage would be accommodated by a vehicle lift system, specifically single car and puzzle stackers
by Klaus Multiparking (Singlevario and Trendvario Models). These systems are able to
accommodate passenger cars and medium size SUVs (see specifications provided on the revised
plans, sheets A8.1 and A8.2).
Lastly, the driveway leading to the underground garage was increased from 12'-0" to 18'-0" in
width, as required for parking areas with more than 30 vehicles.
2. /ncrease Ceiling Height in Underground Garage: In order to accommodate the proposed vehicle
lift systems, the underground garage height will increase from the previously approved 10'-0" clear
to 14'-0" clear. With this revision, there is no change to the building height as the increased ceiling
height would be achieved by excavating further below grade.
2
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
3. Re/ocate Community Room from Front to Rear of Building: Eliminating the parking spaces at
the rear of the site provided the applicant an opportunity to relocate the community room,
previously approved at the front of the building, to the rear of the building which provides privacy
and a connection to the new outdoor living area (see revised First Floor Plan and Landscape Plan).
4. Revise Rear Landscaping: The area at the rear of the site previously approved for parking has
been redesigned to be an outdoor living area, including two seating areas, raised vegetable
planting boxes and a water feature (see revised Landscape Plan).
5. Add Community Balcony at Rear of Building: New balconies, located at the end of the interior
corridors on the 2"d through 5th floors, are proposed at the rear of the building overlooking the rear
yard space (see revised Floor Plans and West Elevation). The applicant notes that this feature
also gives an otherwise flat elevation more depth and character.
6. Revise Window Locations and Configurations: The applicant is proposing several changes to
window systems throughout the building. The windows at the corridors on the 2"d through 4�h floors
along the front fa�ade have been pushed back an additional 7'-6" (see revised Floor Plans and
East Elevation). The applicant notes that this allows the elevation to be more articulated.
Reflecting the relocation of the community room to the rear of the building and associated changes
on the first floor of the building, the applicant is proposing to change the window system at the
ground floor along all four facades of the building (see revised Floor Plans and Building Elevations).
Lastly, there are other minor adjustments to windows locations and configurations throughout the
building, including bedroom windows. The applicant notes that "bedroom windows have been
reduce in size to give a more uniform perception from the exterior elevations."
7. Articulate Front Wall on Fifth F/oor: In the previous approval, the front wall at the 5th floor did not
have much articulation, but was stepped back 10'-0" from the lower floors. The applicant is
proposing to articulate this wall by pushing it back an additional 3'-0" to 7'-6" to reduce the overall
mass of the front elevation of the building (see revised 5th Floor Plan and Building Elevations).
8. Re/ocate Roof Deck to Fifth Floor: The previously approved 247 SF roof deck, located towards
the rear of the building, has been relocated to the 5th floor at the front of the building (see revised
Roof Plan and 5th Floor Plan). In addition, one of two previously approved rooftop stair enclosures
has been eliminated (see revised Roof Plan and Building Elevations).
9. Request for Side Setback Variance for Architectural Screen Wall: In the previous approval the
architectural screen wall, located above the driveway to the underground garage, did not require a
Variance because the portion of the wall that extended more than 30 inches above grade was set
back 7'-0" to comply with the minimum side setback requirement.
With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of a Side Setback Variance for the
architectural screen wall along the left side property line above the driveway to the underground
garage (3'-0" proposed where 7'-0" is the minimum required). The screen wall is 1'-0" thick and
13'-0" tall and is set back 46'-0" from the front property line at its closest point. The applicant is
proposing to move the screen wall closer to the property line (3'-0" away from the left side property
line), citing the required widening of the driveway, consistency with the style of the building, and
privacy for the manager's office and outdoor patio as mitigations for the Side Setback Variance
(see attached Variance Application).
3
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
Project Description (includes proposed revisions): The property at 1128 Douglas Avenue currently
contains a two-story single family dwelling at the front of the site and a two-story four-unit apartment
building at the rear of the site. The property at 1132 Douglas Avenue currently contains a two-story
single family dwelling at the front of the site and a detached one-car garage at the rear of the site. 1128
and 1132 Douglas Avenue are two independent lots owned by the same property owner. The site is
surrounded by single family and multifamily residential buildings.
The project includes construction of a new, five-story, 27-unit residential apartment building with below-
grade parking at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R-4. The project consists of demolishing the
existing house and detached garage at 1132 Douglas Avenue and demolishing the existing four-unit
apartment building at 1128 Douglas Avenue. The rear portion of the existing single family dwelling at
1128 Douglas Avenue will also be demolished, however the front half of the house will be relocated to
524 Oak Grove Avenue. This includes a first and second story addition to the house moved from 1128
Douglas Avenue and construction of a new detached garage.
The following applications are requested based on the proposed revisions to the project:
■ Amendment to Design Review for a previously approved five-story, 27-unit apartment building
with below-grade parking (C.S. 25.29.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan); and
■ Side Setback Variance for an architectural screen wall along the left side property line above the
driveway to the underground garage (3'-0" proposed where 7'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S.
25.29.075 (d)).
The following applications were previously approved by the City Council on June 5, 2018:
■ Design Review for construction of a new five-story, 27-unit apartment building with at-grade and
be/ow-grade parking (C. S. 25.29.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);
■ Condifional Use Permit for building height (56'-10" proposed where a Conditional Use Permit is
required if the building exceeds 35'-0" in height; 75'-0" is the maximum allowed) (C. S. 25.29.060);
■ Front Setback Landscape Variance (40% front setback landscaping proposed where 60% is the
minimum required) (C. S. 25. 29.100);
■ Parking Variance for driveway width (9'-0" width proposed for the driveway along the north
property line where 12'-0" is the minimum required) (C. S. 25. 70.025 (b) (2)); and
■ Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Combination to combine 52 feet of portion of Lot 3, Block 5(1128
Douglas Avenue) and 50 feet of Lot 3, Block 5(1132 Douglas Avenue), Burlingame Land
Company Map No 2.
The apartment building contains 27 apartment units in five floors with 33 parking spaces in an
underground garage. The project includes 3 studio units, 14 one-bedroom units, 9 two-bedroom units
and 1 three-bedroom unit. The average unit size is 948 SF (1,250 SF average maximum unit size
permitted). Staff would note that apartment projects are not required to provide common open space or
private open spaces, as is required for condominium developments. However, common spaces for
residents and visitors are provided in a community room, fitness room, in balconies on the second
through fifth floors and in an outdoor living area at the rear of the site. In addition, private balconies are
4
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previous/y Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
provided for some of the units located at the front corners of the building and along the front of the
building on the fifth floor.
Design Review: The proposed revisions to the project require an application for an Amendment to
Design Review and is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan, specifically Section 5.3
(pages 5-17 through 5-21) which provides design guidelines for residential areas within the Downtown
Specific Plan area. With this application, there are no changes to the materials on the� exterior of the
building, which included stucco, horizontal wood and concrete siding, balconies with wood railings,
aluminum windows and doors, and powder coated steel awnings above some of the windows.
There is no change proposed to the overall height of the building, which was approved at 56'-10" above
average top of curb level where 75'-0" is the maximum allowed (as measured to top of parapet). A
Conditional Use Permit was previously granted to exceed 35'-0" in building height.
Off-Street Parking: Based on the number of bedrooms per unit, the Zoning Code requires a total of 33
off-street parking spaces for the residents of the units (1 space for each studio and one-bedroom unit,
1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit and 2 spaces for each unit containing three or more bedrooms).
The project includes 33 parking spaces in an underground garage (33 spaces minimum required).
Access to the garage is provided by an 18'-0" wide driveway located at the south end of the lot.
With the exception of two disabled-accessible spaces and one standard space, the parking in the garage
will be accommodated by a vehicle lift system, specifically single car and puzzle stackers by Klaus
Multiparking (Singlevario and Trendvario Models). These systems are able to accommodate passenger
cars and medium size SUVs (see specifications provided on the revised plans, sheets A8.1 and A8.2).
The single stacker lifts will be assigned to the two-bedroom units, while the puule stackers will be
assigned to the studio, one-bedroom and three-bedroom units.
The Municipal Code does not include specifications for vehicle lift systems, so the City currently does not
have a standard mechanism for review and approval. However, because as a policy the Downtown
Specific Plan encourages "creative approaches" to providing on-site parking and vehicle lift systems
have been considered "creative approaches" to providing the required on-site parking, they are
consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. To date, the City has approved several commercial and
residential projects with parking lift systems.
An area for on-site deliveries is not required for apartment buildings and there is no guest parking
required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area. However, a 10'-6" wide
circular driveway at the front of the site provides an area for short term parking/small vehicle deliveries.
Landscaping: Landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape and Irrigation Plans (sheets
L1.1 and L1.2). The circular driveway at the front of the site reduced the landscaping within the front
setback to 40% where 60% is required. A Front Setback Landscape Variance was previously granted for
40% landscaping within the front setback. With this application, there is no change in the amount of
landscaping within the front setback.
An arborist report, dated August 8, 2014, was prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, which
evaluates existing trees on the site greater than 12 inches in diameter and provides tree protection
specifications (see attached). Several smaller trees are also proposed to be removed; however they
were not evaluated since they do not qualify as a protected size tree.
5
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Doug/as Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
The proposed project includes removing three protected size trees, including a 20-inch diameter Chinese
Tallow tree at the front of the site, an 18.1-inch diameter Liquid Amber tree along the right side property
line, and a 16.3-inch diameter Apple tree along the left side property line. A tree removal permit to
remove these trees was issued by the Parks Division in January 2015 contingent upon 1) the building
and landscape plans being approved by the City (building permit issued for construction) and 2) that the
trees would fall within the footprint of the proposed project. Several other trees on the project site are
also proposed to be removed; however they are not of a protected size.
For the previous approval, a slight adjustment was made to the configuration of the below-grade garage
and stairway to the garage so that the existing 21.2-inch diameter Cottonwood tree and two non-
protected size trees at the rear of the site can be retained.
The existing Redwood tree (39-inch diameter) and Coast Live Oak tree (27.6-inch diameter), located at
the front left corner of the lot, will remain and will need to be protected during construction as outlined in
Mayne Tree Company's arborist report. In addition, the City Arborist notes in his memo dated December
4, 2014 that the Tree Protection Zone must be in place and confirmed by the City Arborist prior to
construction and that the excavation around these trees may only be done by hand and instructed by an
independent arborist report.
There are four street trees in front of the subject property, including three small Purple Leaf Plums and
an 18-inch diameter Sycamore Maple tree. The three Purple Leaf Plum trees will need to be removed
during construction, but will be replaced with three new street trees after construction, with a species
recommended by the City Arborist. The existing Sycamore Maple tree will remain and will be protected
during construction.
In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is
required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 2000 SF of lot
coverage. Based on the proposed project, a total of eight landscape trees are required on site. The
proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the on-site reforestation requirements. There will
be a total of eight trees on site, including an existing Redwood tree and Coast Live Oak tree at the front
corner of the lot, an existing Cottonwood tree and two non-protected size trees at the rear of the site, and
three new 24-inch box size Japanese Maple trees (one at the front and two along the left side property
line).
This space intentionally left blank.
E^
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Resideniial Project
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Lot Area: 15,492 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 13, 2018
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front (15t flr): 20'-0" no change
�2nd f�r�: 20'-0" no change 19'-11"
(3�d fIr): 20'-0" no change
(block average)
(4t'' flr): 20'-0" no change
(5t'' flr): 20'-5" to balcony 20'-5" to balcony
29' to building 32'-6" to building
Left Side (15t flr): 7'-0" to screen wall 3'-0" to screen wall ' 7'-0"
(2nd flr): 11'-0" no change 8'-0"
(3rd flr): 11'-0" no change 9'-0"
(4t'' flr): 11'-0" no change 10'-0"
(5t'' flr): 11'-0" no change 11'-0"
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Right Side (15t flr): 11'-0" no change 7'-0"
(2nd flr): 11'-0" no change 8'-0"
(3'°' f/r): 11'-0" no change 9'-0"
(4tn flr): 11'-0" no change 10'-0"
(5rh flr): 11'-0" no change 11'-0"
Rear (1Si flr): 20'-5" 20'-0" 20'-0"
(2nd flr): 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0"
(3rd flr): 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0"
(4th flr): 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0"
(5th flr): 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0"
_ .............. _
Lot Coverage: 7722 SF 7678 SF 7746 SF
...................... .
49.8% 49.6% 50%
Building Height: 56'-10" 2 no change 75'-0"/CUP required
to exceed 35'-0"
Off-Street 34 spaces 33 spaces 33 spaces
Parking: 80% covered 100% covered 80% covered
.......... ........................................................................................... ........................... ... ............................................. .. ................. .....
Driveway Width: 9'-0" for driveway along driveway no longer 12'-0"
north side property line 3 required
Front Setback 40% 4 40% 60%
Landscaping: 774 SF 774 SF 1171 SF
' Side Setback Variance required for screen wall (3'-0" proposed where 7'-0" is required).
2 Conditional Use Permit previously granted for 56'-10" building height.
3 Parking Variance previously granted for 9'-0" driveway width for driveway along the north property line.
4 Front Setback Landscape Variance previously granted for 40% front setback landscaping.
7
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
Affordable (Below-Market Rate) Units: The application was approved by the City Council with a
condition of approval requiring that as a community benefit freely offered by the applicant, the project
shall include one one-bedroom unit and one two-bedroom unit set aside for a period of twenty-five (25)
years for households with incomes of 110% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the County of San
Mateo.
Staff Comments: None.
Findings for Multiple-Family Residential Design Review: The criteria for multiple family residential
design review is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030 (f) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed
by the Planning Commission for the following considerations:
(1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood;
(2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural
styles;
(3) Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the
architectural style used; and
(4) Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: Based on the following reasons, the project may be found to
be compatible with the requirements of the City's four design review criteria.
■ Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood, in that the project is consistent with
existing buildings on the block characterized by simple massing, flat walls and roofs, and
repetitive fenestration; the project mediates between existing two-, three- and four-story buildings
in the area to create a continuous residential neighborhood, is well articulated and landscaped,
and embraces the street and the pedestrian realm;
■ Respect the mass and fine sca/e of adjacent buildings even when using different architectural
sfyles, in that the design exhibits thoughtful massing, character and pedestrian scale,
successfully creates a good transition between the existing two-, three- and four-story buildings in
the neighborhood, and contains a four-story faCade at the front of the building (fifth floor is
setback 13 to 17.5 feet);
■ Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human sca/e regardless of the
architectural style used, in that the architectural style 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 a front entry element, a pedestrian walk, and on
the upper levels individual balconies providing residential scale and character; and
■ Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the fufure, in that the
exterior building materials include stucco, horizontal wood and concrete siding, balconies with
wood railings and a wood base trim, aluminum windows and doors to be inset five inches, powder
coated steel awnings above some of the windows throughout the building, and a decorative
architectural screen wall is proposed to the left of the front entry.
0
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
Findings for Side Setback Variance: In order to grant a Side Setback Variance, the Planning
Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Suggested Findings for Side Setback Variance: Based on the following reasons, the project may be
found to be compatible with the required Variance criteria.
There is an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance in that the previously approved use of the
driveway along the north side of the property, and its access to at-grade parking at the rear of the
site, is no longer feasible, and therefore the required parking must be provided in the underground
garage; the driveway to the underground garage must be widened from 12 to 18 feet as required
by code because it provides access to a parking area with more than 30 vehicles, and as a result
the screen wall above the driveway entrance moves closer to the property line and within the
required setback.
Granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right because it provides privacy for the manager's office and outdoor patio beyond the
screen wall.
Granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience
because the screen wall facing the neighboring property, 12 inches thick and located within the
required setback, is not a broad building fa�ade that would otherwise intrude on the neighbor.
That the screen wall will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity because its design as an architectural fin
wall element supports the contemporary style of the building and is important for the ground level
scale.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the
application and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report and within the
Addendum to EIR prepared for the project. Action should include specific findings supporting the
Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution, including the conditions
representing mitigation measures taken from the Environmental Impact Report (in italics) and any
conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action
should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped September 13, 2018, sheets A0.0 through A5.1 B, A8.1, A8.2, C1, AR1.0, L1.1 and L1.2;
0
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
2. that as a community benefit freely offered by the applicant, the project shall include one one-
bedroom unit and one two-bedroom unit set aside for a period of twenty-five (25) years for
households with incomes of 110% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the County of san Mateo.
The City Manager shall be authorized to execute an agreement memorializing this provision;
3. 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;
4. that the maximum elevation to the top of the parapet and roof shall not exceed elevation 81.00'
and 79.17', respectively, as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along
Douglas Avenue (24.20') for a maximum height of 56'-10" to the top of the parapet; the garage
floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 11.00'; and that the top of each floor and final roof
ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to
final framing and roofing inspections. 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;
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 staf�;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the
public facilities impact fee in the amount of $58,138.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame
and submitted to the Planning Division;
7. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the
public facilities impact fee in the amount of $58,138.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame
and submitted to the Planning Division;
8. that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be
installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include
an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with
guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units;
9. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment
outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California
Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued;
10. 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;
11. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code;
10
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
12. 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;
13. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way
shall be prohibited;
14. 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;
15. 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;
16. 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;
17. 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;
18. 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;
19. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power
the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical
aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed
so that they meet the City's noise requirement;
20. 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;
21. 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;
22. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
11
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
23. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
24
25
26
that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
that directional signage shall be placed on the property to promote use of the circular driveway at
the front of the property for pick-ups and deliveries;
that the landscape planter at the northeasterly portion of the building, adjacent to the driveway
shall be reduced in depth in order to permit widening of the driveway within that area;
The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the
inspections noted in each condition:
27. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building envelope;
28. 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;
29. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
30. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report:
Aesthetics
will inspect and note compliance of the
) to verify that the project has been built
31. MM AES-1: Design Review of the Proposed Project: The applicant shall submit revised plans for
the proposed building at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue to the City of Burlingame for design review.
The Planning Commission as the responsible body for design review shall review the proposed
project for compatibility with the Cify's guidelines for a residential apartment building in the
Downtown Specific Plan R-4 Base District.
32. MM AES-2: Exterior Lighting Plan: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed Exterior
Lighting Plan shall be provided. The lighting plan shall utilize the following standards:
a) Control stray light through use of low-brightness fixtures with optical controls.
b) Fully block all exterior light sources from off-site views.
c) Do not permit any uplighting from any outdoor light fixture.
12
Amendmeni and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
d) Employ on-demand exterior lighting systems where feasible. Area lighting and security
lighting shall be controlled by the use of timed switches and/or motion detectors.
e) Use tinted windows in all buildings to reduce glare from interior lights.
33. MM AES-3: Use of Non-reflective Exterior Paint: Flat, non-reflecfive paint or integrated coloring
shall be used in all exterior building materials throughout the project.
Air Quality
34. MM AIR-1: Construction Equipment Emissions Reduction: The construction contractor shall
implement the BAAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures for Project
Construction Equipment measure that requires project off-road equipment greafer than 25
horsepower (hp) that operates for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of
construction activities to meet the following requirements:
a) All backhoes engines shall meet CARB Tier 4 off-road emission standards.
b) All other equipment engines shall meet or exceed CARB Tier 3 off-road emission standards
or be retrofitted with a CARB Level 2 diesel particulate filter (DPF).
35. MM AIR-2: Air Filtration: A standard house heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
system with a permanent filter of a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 13 or greater
shall be installed at the relocated residence at 524 Oak Grove Avenue. The MERV13 filter shall
provide one air exchange per hour if the air source is outside/unfiltered air or four air exchanges
per hour if the air source is inside/recirculated air to provide an 80 percent or greater reduction of
outdoor fine particulate matter (including DPM).
Biological Resources
36. MM BIO-1: Pre-construction Baf Surveys The applicant shall implement the following measures
during demolition of structures and tree removal or tree pruning.
Structures. Before demolition of existing structures, a qualified bat specialist shall conduct a day
time search for potential roosting habitat and evening emergence surveys to determine if the
structure is being used as a roost. Biologists conducting surveys for roost sites shall use naked
eye, binoculars, and a high power spotlight to inspect buildings features that could house bats.
The surfaces of the structure and fhe ground around the structure shall be surveyed for bat signs,
such as guano, staining, and prey remains. Evening (i.e., dusk) emergence surveys shall consist
of at least one bat specialist positioned at different vantage points from the structure, watching for
emerging bats from a half hour before sunset to 1 to 2 hours after sunset for a minimum of 2
nights within the season that construction will be taking place. Night vision goggles or full
spectrum acoustic detectors should be used during emergence surveys fo assist in species
identification. All emergence surveys shall be conducted during favorable weatherconditions (i.e.,
calm nights with temperatures conducive to bat activity (55° F and above] and no precipitation
predicted). If roosting, special-status bats are present, measures developed by the bat specialist
shall be implemented, as needed. Measures to protect the bats may include postponing
demolition until after the May 1 st through October 1 st roosting period. Measures may include
monitoring roosting to defermine if the roost site is a maternal roost by either a visual inspection
of the roost bat pups, or monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night and lisfening for
13
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
bat pups. Eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur because bat pups are not mature enough to
leave the roost. If a roost is determined not fo be a maternal roost, eviction of bats shall be
conducted using bat exclusion techniques developed by Bat Conservation International and in
consultation with CDFW that allow the bats to exit the roosting site, but prevent re-entry to the
site. This work shall be completed by a BCI-recommended exclusion professional. The exclusion
of bats shall be timed and carried out concurrently with any scheduled bird exclusion activities.
Each roost lost (if any) shall be replaced in consultation with the CDFW and may include
construction and installation of BCI-approved bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony
size excluded from the original roosting site. Roost replacement shall be implemented before bats
are excluded from the original roost sites. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is
confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site, the structures may be removed or
sealed.
Tree Removal. A qualified bat specialist shall examine trees to be removed or trimmed for
suitable bat roosting habitat. High quality habitat features (large tree cavities, basa/ hollows, loose
or peeling bark, larger snags, etc.) shall be identified and the area around these features
searched for bats and bat sign (guano, culled insect parts, staining, etc.). The qualified bat
specialist shall conduct evening visual emergence surveys of the source habitat feature, from a
half hour before sunset to 1 to 2 hours after sunset for a minimum of two nights within the season
that construction will be taking place. If it is found that roosting, special-status bats are present,
measures developed by the bat specialist shall be implemented, as needed.
37. MM 810-2: Tree Protection Measures: Tree protection specifications were developed by Mayne
Tree Expert Company Inc. for the protected trees surveyed at the Douglas Avenue and Oak
Grove Avenue project sites. The applicant shall implement the following tree protection measures
developed by Mayne Tree Expert Company Inc. and approved by the Arborist for profected trees.
The Mayne Tree Expert Company Inc. reports shall be included on the demolition and
construction plans of the project.
Mulching. A 6-inch layer of coarse mulch woodchips shall be placed beneath the dripline of
protected trees. Mulch is to be kept 12 inches from the trunk.
Protective Barrier. A protective barrier or 6-foot chain link fence shall be installed around the
dripline of protected trees. The fencing can be moved within the dripline if authorized by the
Project Arborist or the City Arborist, but no closer than 2 feet from fhe trunk of any tree. Fence
posts shall be 1.5 inches in diameter and are to be driven 2 feet into the ground. The distance
between posts shall not be more than 10 feet. This enclosed area is the Tree Protection Zone
(TPZ). Moveable barriers or chain link fencing secured to cement blacks can be substituted for
"fixed" fencing if the Project Arborist and City Arborist agree that the fencing would have to be
moved to accommodate certain phases of construction. The applicant may not move the fence
without authorization from the Project Arborist or City Arborist.
Construction Restrictions. During construction, the following restrictions shall be implemented:
a) Runoff or spillage of damaging materials to the area below any tree canopy shall not be
allowed.
b) Storing materials, stockpiling soi/s, or parking/driving vehicles within the TPZ is not allowed.
14
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previous/y Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
c) Cutting, breaking, skinning, or bruising roots, branches, or trunks of protected trees is
prohibited withouf first obfaining authorization from the City Arborist.
d) Fires shall not be allowed under and adjacent to trees.
e) Discharging exhaust into foliage shall be prohibited.
f) Securing cables, chains, or ropes to trees or shrubs is prohibited.
g) Trenching, digging, or excavafing within the dripline of the TPZ of trees is prohibited without
first obtaining aufhorization from the City Arborist.
h) Applying soils sterilants under pavement near existing trees is prohibited.
i) Machine trenching is prohibited within the driplines of trees, only excavation by hand or
compressed air is allowed.
Avoiding injury to roots. When a ditching machine, which is being used outside of the dripline of
trees, encounters roots smaller than 2 inches, the wall of the trench adjacent to the sfreet shall be
hand trimmed, making clear, clean cuts through the roots. All damaged, torn, and cut roots shall
be given a clean cut to remove ragged edges, which promote decay. Trenches shall be filled
within 24 hours, but, where, this is not possible, the side of the trench adjacent to the trees shall
be shaded with four layers of dampened, untreated burlap, wetted as frequently as necessary to
keep the burlap wet. Roots 2 inches or larger, when encountered, shall be reported immediately
fo the Project Arborist, who will decide whefher the applicant may cut the roots as mentioned
above or shall excavate by hand or with compressed air under the root. The root is to be
protected with dampened burlap. ln addition, the top 2 feet of the foundation closest to trees shall
be air spaded or hand dug under supervision of a licensed arborist to locafe and evaluate any
significant roots prior to mechanical excavation. The licensed arborist shall be required to submit
a report to the City regarding the findings of the excavation and recommend any additional
actions needed to protect the roots to preserve the health and structure of both the redwood and
oak trees.
Routing pipes. To avoid conflict with routes, pipes shall be routed outside of an area, ten times
the diameter of a protected tree. In addition, where it is not possible to reroute pipes or trenches,
the applicant shall bore beneath the dripline of the tree. The boring shall take place not less than
3 feet below the surface of the soil in order to avoid encountering feeder roots.
Reporting. The City Arborist, or his designee, shall be present when any digging occurs in the
vicinity of the narrowest portion of the proposed shared driveway in the vicinity of the root ball of
the adjacent protected tree to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to protect the tree
roots. If a protected tree is damaged, the applicant shall follow any remedial actions deemed
necessary by the City Arborist, such as planting additional trees, consistent with Chapter
11. 06. 090.
15
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
Cultural Resources
38. MM CUL-1: Compatible Cladding for Historic House: New construction on the relocated historic
house shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, to protecf the integrity of fhe property and its environment
consistent with the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation. The choice of materials
shall be submitted to the City for approval as part of the design review process.
Geology and Soils
39. MM GEO-1: Implementation of Geotechnical Recommendations: The Applicant and their
contractors shall implement the measures outlined and recommended in the Geofechnical
Investigafion Report Chapters 5 through 10 for the proposed construction at 1128-1132 Douglas
Avenue.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
40. MM HAZ-1: Preparation of a Site-specific Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan:
The applicant shall prepare a site-specific Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Plan that will identify spill prevention and response measures and Best Management Practices
(BMPs). The plan will emphasize site specific physical conditions to improve hazard prevention
(e.g., identification of flow paths to nearest drains) and reduce effects of accidental spills if they
occur. The Applicant shall designate a representative to ensure that all hazardous materials and
safety plans are followed throughout the construction period. BMPs identified in SPCC Plan shall
be implemented during project construction to minimize the risk of an accidental release and to
provide the necessary information for emergency response. A copy of the project SPCC shall be
submitted to the City for approval at least 30 days prior to construction. All construction personnel
shall be required to attend SPCC training prior fo conducting any work on fhe project sife.
41. MM HAZ-2: Soi/s Test: Prior to construction, the applicant shall evaluate shallow soils at the
structure locations for the possible presence of lead and pesticides. If lead or pesticides are found
within the tested soi/s, the applicant shall dispose of the soils, consistent with federal, state and
local laws regarding disposal of hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
42. MM HAZ-3: Project-specific Emergency Access Plan: The Applicant shall develop and implement
a Project specific Emergency Access Plan. The applicant shall submit the plan to the City and all
emergency services within the city, including the fire department and police department, at least
30 days prior to construction. The Emergency Access Plan shall require provisions for the:
a) Implementation of standard safety practices, including installation of appropriate barriers
between work zones and transportation facilities, placement of appropriate signage, and use
of traffic control devices.
b) Use of flaggers and/or signage to guide vehicles through or around construction zones using
proper techniques for construction activities, including staging yard entrance and exit.
c) Traffic detours for any road or lane closures with appropriate signage marking the detours.
16
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
d) Timing of worker commutes and material deliveries to avoid peak commuting hours.
e) Timing of /ane and road closures.
f) Plans for construction worker parking and transportation to work sites.
g) Methods for keeping roadways clean.
h) Storage of all equipment and materials in designated work areas in a manner that minimizes
traffic obstructions and maximizes traffic sign visibility.
i) Limiting vehicles to safe speed levels according to posted speed limits, road conditions, and
weather conditions.
j) Coordination with public transit providers.
k) Repair of asphalt and other road damage (e.g., curb and gutter damage, rutting in unpaved
roads) caused by construction vehicles.
1) Detours for cyclists and pedestrians when bike lanes or sidewalks must be closed.
The Emergency Access Plan must at a minimum comply with the requirements of the City and
must be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencing construction activities.
Hydrology and Water Quality
43. MM HYDRO-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Best Management Practices: The applicant will
implement fhe following best management practices during construction of the proposed project:
a) Preserve existing vegetation where feasible.
b) Limit disturbance to the work site.
c) Install silt fences around the perimeter of the project site.
Noise
44. MM NOISE-1: Prepare a Relocation Plan and Obtain Approval from the City for Historic House
Relocation Outside of Permitted Construction Hours: The Applicant shall prepare a Relocation
Plan and obtain approval from the City under Municipal Code Section 18.07.110 for historic
house relocation. The Relocation Plan shall include:
1. Exact procedure for cutting and dismantling the historic house, and loading on trucks.
2. Specific routes for movement of the historic house from its existing location to 524 Oak Grove
Avenue.
3. Exact procedure for setting the house in its new location.
17
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
4. Estimated duration for the various activities involved in the cutting, dismantling, loading, and
seffing of the House.
5. Coordination procedures with utilities, Caltrain, and appropriate City Departments.
6. Advance Notice to residents at each project site and along the route regarding the start and
duration of power interruption.
7. Measures fo reduce impacts of power outage on residents such as:
a) Power interruption phasing to reduce amount of time houses are affected.
b) Offering affected parties dry ice for freezers and refrigerators.
c) Offering generators for life support equipment.
d) Security lighting.
Approval from the City for relocating the historic house outside of permitted construction hours
would be contingent on abiding by all the best management practices required under Condition of
Approval 19, and the measures included in the Noise Management Plan for the project.
45. MM NOISE-2: Compliance with Title 24: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified
acoustical consultant shall review the final building plans to calculate expected interior noise
levels. The building permit shall not be issued until the qualified acoustical consultant has
reviewed the acoustical test report of all sound rafed windows and doors and confirmed that the
proposed building treafinents will adequately reduce interior noise levels to 45 d8A or below.
46. MM NOISE-3: Noise Management Plan: The applicant shall prepare a noise management plan
that includes:
a. Identified routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment developed in
conjunction with the Burlingame Communify Development Department so that noise-sensitive
areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.
b. A designated "Community Liaison" for construction activities. The Community Liaison would
be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and
vibration. The Community Liaison would determine the cause of the noise or vibration
complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.
c. Sending advance nofice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding
the construction schedule and including the phone number for the disturbance coordinafor. A
notice with the name and phone number of the Community Liaison shall be posted at the
project site.
In the event that construction noise complaints are not resolved by scheduling, the applicant shall
install temporary sound absorption barriers, such as noise control blankets, in addition to the
standard noise barriers around fhe construction site required under Condition of Approval 19,
best managemenf practices. These additional barriers would be specifically designed for exterior
use and would reduce the noise level beyond fhe fence line by at least 3 dBA.
18
Amendment and Side Setback Variance
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
If noise complaints continue, the applicant shall install a temporary sound absorption barrier that
would reduce the noise level beyond the fence line an additional 2 dBA, for a total noise reduction
of 5 d8A beyond the fence line.
Transportation and Traffic
47. MM TRAFFIC-1: Construction Management Plan: The project applicant and its construction
confractor(s) shall develop a consfruction management plan for review and approval by the City
of Burlingame. The plan must include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to
the maximum extent feasible, traffic and parking congestion during construction:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and
deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs,
cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes;
b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize
impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safefy, and
specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area;
c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding
when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur,
d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris
attributable to the haul frucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant.;
e. A construction parking plan to provide worker parking off site and generally off neighborhood
streets, with shuttles or other transportation as needed fo transport workers to the site; 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.
48. MM TRAFFIC-2: Driveway Safety Enhancements: The project applicant and its construction
contractor(s) shall implement the following safety enhancements:
a. Flashing light sensors shall be placed within the project parking garage and rear surface
parking areas to alert motorists outbound from the project parking areas that vehicles are
inbound from Douglas Avenue (these could be video or loop detected);
b. Signs shall be placed at the proposed project's Douglas Avenue entrances that indicate:
"Caution—Watch For Outbound Vehicles';� and
c. The project design shall be modified to allow for 12-foot access on the eastern-most
driveway, excepf as necessary to avoid impact to the two significant trees. Toward the rear of
the lot, that would require either /oss of landscaping, further setback for the building (at least
on the first floor), and/or /oss of a parking space.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
19
Amendment and Side Setback Variance 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
for a Previously Approved 27-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project
c. Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc., applicant and architect
Zers Douglas LLC, property owner
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
ApplicanYs Explanation Letter, dated May 18, 2018
Variance Application for Side Setback
June 5, 2017 City Council Minutes
Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines, Section 5.3
Arborist Report, prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated August 8, 2014
Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 14, 2018
Area Map
Submitted Separately:
Addendum to Environmental Impact Report, dated September 2018
Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR and Response to Comments)
20
���
avauNgn.nc
t:`
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 � www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application: _
❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: 029132180 + 029132190
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1128 + 1132 Douglas Ave
APPLICANT
Name: Wayne Lin
Address: 1103 Juanita Ave
City/State/Zip: Burlingame CA
Phone:
650 696 1200
E-mail:
wl@dtaanf.com
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: Richard Terrones
Address: 1103 Juanita Ave
Burlingame CA
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
650 696 1200
rt@dtaanf.com
E-mail:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: Henry Zhang ! Zers Development
Address: 8 Vista Lane
Burlingame CA
CitylStatelZip:
Phone: 510 709 5826
E-mail:
henryzhang@zersusa.com
�� �,_-.�.'.�'r �.., . ':}�r�.• �_��
1� �,, � �9 r: i, � �
A
`��-rY r,�:. r'Un�iPi!:..1;=
Burlingame Business License #: _ _•' ` ' ' � "'" �{ � ""�
Authorization to Rearoduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with thls
application an the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and walve any clalms agalnst the Clty
arlsing out of or related to such actton. _ wl _(Initlals of ArchltectlDeslgner)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Removal of existing single family siructure and construction of new 27 unit apartrnent
AFFIDAVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certify under pen ty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief
ApplicanYs signature: U Date: 5� �� ����
1 am aware of the proposed application by authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: � - �—'i� Date: �' l8 •�A18
Date submitted: s � � 8 ' � �
S: �HANDOUTS�PC App!(catlon.doc
C�.��"� Ureifina Terrones �x.�cJ�����t��i��_n�r, Inc.
Ar�'!'�i=e ;�;r�i � :nffC?�tr��,::t<.iti3 j En�irr,•:�ment;
May 18, 2018 �� ��� � � �'�� � �
' �� �
�
To: Burlingame Planning Commission
RE: 1128 Douglas Avenue — Project Revisions
I'v4�iY i 8 2018
Dear Commissioners and Staff, CITY CF �URLINGAME
1:,�;iiJ-�;'; a�.(�i'L°f�i;� D!\!.
The following is a description of the project revisions we have made since the Planning Commission
approval, and the Neighbor's appeal to the City Council. We believe these revisions will improve the project,
and further help to support what is encouraged under the downtown specific plan.
Project Revisions: Following the Planning Commission Approval, Council appeal, and subsequent meeting
with Neighbors, we have discussed the project further with the Owner, engaged Engineering Consultants
and incorporated the following revisions:
Above ground parking: The plans have been revised to eliminate the need for the (12) above
ground surface parking stalls previously located at the rear of the building. (11) parking spots have
been relocated to combine with the previously approved (22) underground parking stalls in the
basement. The 12"' space (temporary guest parking) was eliminated due to the added circular
driveway. By relocating the above ground parking, the number of cars (trips) using the shared
driveway by this proposed project is completely eliminated. We would note that during the review
period, both the Commission and neighbors asked if all the parking could be accommodated
underground. Since the shared driveway was existing and needed to remain, we believed at the
time, that a portion of surface parking was warranted.
The (11) relocated surface stalls will be accommodated in the basement via car stackers. After
consulting with our Engineers, the height of the garage was increased to accommodate the
stackers. We would also note that the City has encouraged creative parking solutions including the
use of car stackers.
Shared driveway width: The approval of this Project included a Variance for the Driveway width
adjacent to the existing Redwood tree in the front yard, to be 9'-0" (versus the required 10'-0"). The
plans called for widening the driveway to 9'-0", adjacent to the tree trunk. During the Neighbor's
appeal to the City Council, he noted that the driveway could not be widened on this property side
due to the root mass of the Redwood. The Appeal was rejected and the Planning approval upheld,
but this Applicant was directed by Council to resolve the width issue to meet the 9'-0" as shown
under the Variance - to accommodate the proposed shared use including the (12) surface parking
stalls for this proposed project.
We therefore proceeded with exploring the following options:
• Alter the trees root mass to achieve the proposed 9'-0" width
• Remove the Redwood tree to achieve the required driveway width
• Widen the driveway further on the neighboring property (approximately 15" — 18" to
achieve the 9'-0" width)
We have contacted two Arborists that have indicated that altering the root mass will damage the
tree to the point of potential compromise. They have recommended removing the tree — if for no
other reason than the fact that the tree will keep growing.
The Ciry Arborist has indicated that he would not approve removal of the tree for this purpose.
We have since contacted the new adjacent Property Owner to discuss widening the shared
driveway further onto his property. He has indicated that he would require a$300,000 payment
plus legal costs for altering the existing cross easement for the shared driveway.
We therefore are proposing the attached revisions to remove the (11) surface parking stalls and
eliminate any need by THIS project for the shared driveway. Therefore the "shared" driveway will
only be used by the adjacent neighbor. This project no longer requires any alterations to the
driveway, and the Variance for the width can be eliminated. The existing driveway width adjacent to
the tree, is an existing condition, that is actually eased by the fact that the current surface parking
for this property that uses the driveway will be eliminated. The width of the driveway therefore is an
.,`� ;..;.7 < <. � - . � ,.1.^=� � :^i+�.i:, r l � . , .�.. � ..�. . .., ..., � tii.... �.t ^ i':;�I�:! , �.Ci�,rt , r .,F��;�:.
;t �, .., .r . �.. ,. .
I�it;' bY<t I 1, ) t, f.tr'� �^.r`r � i.. F. � .,.. ' 1. 1 ... �.
1128 Douglas Ave
Response to Planning Commission Comments —EIR & Project Action
Page 2
issue solely for the purposes of the adjacent neighbor, and not this Property or this proposed
Project.
The shared driveway width beyond the existing Redwood tree was previously proposed as
11'-0" wide. We are proposing to change this to 10'-0" to allow for more landscaping to soften and
enhance the shared driveway while still maintaining more than the required 4'-0" easement on the
proposed project side.
Underground garage height increase: The underground garage height will increase from the
previously approved 10'-0" clear to 14'-0" clear. This increase in height is to accommodate
individual stackers and puzzle stackers that will be necessary to accommodate the relocated (12)
above ground parking spots.
Neighbor rear back up aisle: After meeting with the adjacent neighbor, the rear driveway shall
maintain a 24'-0" back up clearance onto this property, for their vehicles. The clearance will start
from the face of the adjacent unit garages and stop approximately 2'-7" past the property line.
Community room: the community room has been relocated from the previously approved location
at the front of the building to the rear (in place of the surface parking) giving it a more private
atmosphere and continuiry to the new landscaped area
Rear landscape: the landscape design at the back of the property has been revised allowing for
more enhanced outdoor activities.
Rear community balcony: we are proposing a new community balcony at rear of floors 2 through
5. This also gives an otherwise flat elevation more depth and character.
East elevation: Window system at corridors on floors 2 through 5 has been pushed back to allow
the elevation to be more articulated as viewed along Douglas Ave.
5�h floor East elevation: the front wall of the 5"' floor has been pushed back further (an additional
7'-6") to reduce the overall mass of the front elevation of the building
Bedroom windows: Bedroom windows have been reduced in size to give a more uniform
perception from the exterior elevations.
Roof top deck: The roof top deck has been removed and relocated to the front of the fifth floor.
This is to be able to remove a roof top stair and to create more space for utilities. The roof top will
now only be accessed by maintenance personnel.
Thank you for your further consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Terrones, Project Architect / Wayne Lin, Project Manager
Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc.
cc Henry Zhang — Zers Real Estate Development
� ..� .. � . ,.,, � � _
� CITV
�� ; � l �
4�� v�f
`�� lE�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The shared driveway on the right side of the property is no longer viable as a solution for this
property, due to the existing historic tree mass and the inability to expand the driveway to the
neighbor's side of the shared easement. Therefor all the parking is accommodated via the
driveway/ramp to the basement on the left side of the property. Because of this, the
driveway/ramp needs to be widened from 12'-0" to 18'-0". Therefore, the associated screen
wall above the ramp is closer to the side property line.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
The Architectural screen wall above the driveway is similar to an architectural arched false
facade of a Spanish revival. This type of false farade, no more than 1'-0" thick, has been
approved via a variance by the commission in the past (such as 1508 Cypress Ave.) In
addition, the perforated screen wall provides a certain degree of privacy for the Mangers
office and exterior patio areas behind it.
Example 1-1508 Cypress
I
I
Architectural arcn d
false facade__ ,
i �
_ � �,,
F=1 ': �' � iL
_ 7< � `
� 1 � ji {i
�'r�.��� :��:� :- ! j
i��:n t� "
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
j7�
� s�s
•
�� G �
� -.�r.�� , ��� ��;�
� �'�4., � �=��
� �'�` r� .._
""a�.,i�.;s�, ���,��.
�'�` ,` " j � `� � �' . ,
� Y �
Vn.P. . a.Y�� .. /. .... �. . .. .. � ....iR . .... . �
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
Exam le 2-
:� ��
>.i',;
� _. �,. ; , . .. _ ;,: .
� .
Example 3-
:.�
��.� ���i T ��. �i y�� 4� d� �,�� �` A ���'..,�i
� ��
I _.
_ F � / � _J • � � � .
� ��}:�3
�
�� f �� �'�. ,� �<� ����� � ��—� ^'�'� � �
,��'
,�; Y, r
"� ;��; ?� '� , ,� '.d� ,�1 il�t t i il Ci
-,� �y� . ,�,�
.. y c ., � • } r'Y+,�h-_1
1 i� j. 4 y V� y.
J
' f. �._ R��'+ �s � . acsis �� �..
���
�
rc i ec ura arc e
*�:�,E �9se facade
x
� f��,'-, ��;�!
F°t., �it � .:f'x84i�o
.'�� '�l �d a��#�' �.
0y
CS'�5��{.� .. ' f _7 �'R : h
!�, '
' � � . ���:iw��
��'"A"'"[i..4.��( .. : _ ; � �
'_`-4a.11�►
M � �'
� -� �- �,,,;.. ` ,,, ,
r `�.. �,� � , � i
>
, r"s , . �
,A 111 � jxr °f�� .� .
+ 4 .. . � f
•. `"d ' i .w,�,�.,� . ,�s 4
�'.a r'� w� � - �ti�,� f' '' `
��� , . �,� ' , .�_..... . . � T_ � � . � 6
' $ li ' �. f� � � �.
�.4_ � , (
�� � ,. ;��. ° � J.1�,��, ,f 1 �
, . � t ��:, / ry � . �! � w . .. . �
• � � � �. JI �' 'i ,.. �' � — ..-.__..�_ �` � 4�..��� tYl . ; �nl �1 1� +,.a
r �w. :�r � � �'��Y ) ���'+� _ - 7������,� ' r a Ya K:' '�'
.'""rr �� .'� ,-i* - . ,�; `i.�.e'1� �� i � i���Mf t .-�.-.-.-,�-+rr �'J`. " - - '� Y�` , ��.,
� . . . . ; e � . � . . � ` " � _ .• . _.,. , � � ��1
, i .:�,� �: . �. � .� f�-_r'
,,,,,..y, '..�. .. Y .._� .,. . . . . __ • .. �'a7�G�. _�-� i° aY.Y,Ry.y ^, . .�
,,.i �. '=r.:._.,,,. � ;�.f,�,�*�,-+'6'
l
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at fhe proposed location will not be detrimenfal or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
• Decorative 12" fin fall
• Similar to typical Spanish revival arched false fa�ade (see supporting images above)
• The mere 12" thick wall facing the neighbor is not a broader building fa�ade that would other
wise intrude on the adjacent neighbor.
• Nonstructural wall
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The Architectural fin wall element supports the contemporary style of the proposed
structure, and is important for the ground level scale and delight.
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APRIL 24 2017 ACTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW, A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, FRONT SETBACK
LANDSCAPE VARIANCE, A PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH, AND A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION TO MERGE TWO EXISTING
PARCELS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FIVE-STORY. 27-UNIT APARTMENT
BUILDING AT 1128-32 DOUGLAS AVENUE AND APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN
REVIEW AND A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOUSE
AT 524 OAK GROVE AVENUE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO BE MOVED FROM 1128 DOUGLAS AVENUE INCLUDING FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE
CDD Meeker presented the staff report on the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on 1128-32
Douglas Avenue. He stated that the property at 1128 Douglas Avenue currently contains a two-story single
family dwelling at the front of the site and a two-story four-unit apartment building at the rear of the site.
The property at 1132 Douglas Avenue currently contains a two-story single family dwelling at the front of
the site and a detached one-car garage at the rear of the site.. He explained that the properties are two
independent lots owned by the same property owner. He added that 1128-32 Douglas Avenue is surrounded
by single family and multifamily residential buildings.
CDD Meeker explained that the applicant is proposing joining the two lots to construct a new, five-story, 27-
unit residential apartment building with at-grade and below-grade parking. He stated that the proposed
project includes demolishing the existing house and detached garage at 1132 Douglas Avenue and
demolishing the existing four-unit apartment building at 1128 Douglas Avenue. Additionally, the rear
portion of the existing single family dwelling at 1128 Douglas Avenue is proposed to be demolished, but the
front half of the house is proposed to be relocated to 524 Oak Grove Avenue.
CDD Meeker reviewed the applications that were submitted for the project and were now before the Council:
1) Design Review for construction of a new building on 1128-32 Douglas Avenue; 2) Conditional Use
Permit for building height; 3) Front Setback Landscape Variance; 4) Parking Variance for driveway width;
and 5) Tentative Parcel Map for lot combination.
CDD Meeker stated that at the Apri124, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners considered
and approved all requests related to the project including certifying the FEIR.
CDD Meeker stated that Larry Stevenson, owner of the adjacent property, at 1124 Douglas Avenue, filed a
timely appeal of the Commission's action.
Mayor Ortiz asked his colleagues to state any ex-parte meetings they had on the matter. Councilmember
Colson stated that she met with the architect and former Councilmember John Root. Vice Mayor Brownrigg
stated that he met with John Root. Councilmember Beach stated that she did a site visit, watched the
Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017
Approved Minutes
Planning Commission meetings, and met with John Root and Larry Stevenson. Councilmember Keighran
and Mayor Ortiz stated that they did a site visit and met with the architect and John Root.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the easement that runs between 1128 and 1124 Douglas Avenue and gives
both properties access to the back of their respective lots. He stated that this is where the driveway for the
proposed project is located. He asked where the City's responsibility lies when there is an asset that is
required by both properties. CDD Meeker stated that it is a matter that is entirely between the two property
owners.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the owner of 1128-32 Douglas Avenue would be able to withdraw the
easement. City Attorney Kane stated that easements generally run with the land. She noted that this is a
private legal matter and not one that the City weighs in on. She explained that the question for the City is
whether the project applicant has site control for purposes of the project that they are proposing.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the City determined if the applicant had site control. CDD Meeker replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if the applicant submitted a formal landscape plan. CDD Meeker stated that a
landscape plan was included with the project plans. He noted that this may not be the final landscape plan
for reasons including the addition of the circular drive.
Councilmember Keighran discussed the width of the driveway. She stated that initially the driveway is 9
feet wide but that at other points it is wider. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative stating that at one point
the driveway is 11 feet wide. He added that the easement is an 8 foot easement that accrues 4 feet to each
property and that the proposed project has expanded the driveway an additional 1 foot on their property.
Councilmember Colson stated that the original project met the 60% landscaping requirement but as a result
of the neighbors' request for a circular driveway in the front, the project was requesting a variance for 40%
front setback landscape. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if delivery trucks would be able to maneuver through the circular drive.
Planning Manager Gardner stated that the circular driveway was wide enough for delivery trucks but that the
length of the driveway might cause issues.
Councilmember Colson discussed the easement between the two properties stating that the two parties
needed to comply with the easement in order to ensure their own access to the back of their lots. City
Attorney Kane added that each party to the easement has a right of enforcement to the other.
Mayor Ortiz discussed the redwood tree near the driveway that created a pinch point. He asked how the
width of the driveway at that location was determined. CDD Meeker stated that from the information staff
has, the driveway width was confirmed to be a minimum of 9 feet at all points.
Mayor Ortiz gave the Appellant Larry Stevenson, and the project's representative Jacob Furlong, 10 minutes
each to speak.
Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017
Approved Minutes
Appellant Larry Stevenson discussed his objections to the proposed project. He stated that the width of the
driveway did not meet the 9 foot wide requested variance. He stated that from the root of the redwood tree,
the driveway only measures 7 feet 9 inches. Additionally, he voiced concern that the driveway would need
to support two-way traffic of up to 18 cars and would also be used for trash removal. Mr. Stevenson also
explained that he believed the required setback for the property was 25 feet but that this project had a setback
of 19 feet 11 inches. Lastly, Mr. Stevenson voiced his concerns about the project's public noticing. He
explained that the project didn't appear on the Planning Commission's agenda online.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Mr. Stevenson if he had any solutions to the issues he had raised. Mr.
Stevenson discussed the parking issues the building would create and suggested two levels of underground
parking.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Mr. Stevenson would be okay with the project if it had underground parking.
Mr. Stevenson stated that he still had other issues with the building.
Councilmember Keighran stated that according to the staff report, 19 feet 11 inches was the front setback
average for the block. CDD Meeker replied in the afiirmative. He explained that staff took the average of
the setbacks on the block, minus the property with the highest and lowest setbacks, to determine the required
setback for a project.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Cominission meeting was properly noticed and advertised.
CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that staff verified at that meeting that it
was on the agenda. Additionally, she stated that it is important to ensure that agendas are easily obtained on
the website and that staff would follow up on this matter.
Councilmember Beach discussed Mr. Stevenson's belief that staff had not included the current front setback
measurements at 1132 Douglas Avenue in the average and asked if this was typical. CDD Meeker stated that
typically staff throws out the property with the highest and lowest setback. He added that even if those two
numbers were included, the average came to approximately 20 feet.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that apartment buildings do not have the same open space requirements as
condominiums. He asked if an apartment building is converted to condos would it need to meet the
condominium open space requirements. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson stated that front setback measurement of 19 feet 11 inches is at the front right corner.
She explained that the remainder of the front setback is anywhere from 30 to 35 feet. CDD Meeker replied
in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz asked how many of Mr. Stevenson's units at 1124 Douglas Avenue are in the back and how
they access their units. Mr. Stevenson stated that there is a duplex in the back and that it is accessed via the
easement.
Mayor Ortiz asked if 1124 Douglas Avenue currently has issues with cars going in and out of that driveway.
Mr. Stevenson replied in the affirtnative.
8
Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017
Approved Minutes
Mayor Ortiz asked if the property owners had discussed the redwood tree's impact on the driveway and
possible solutions. Mr. Stevenson stated that he had been working with the prior owner of 1128 Douglas
Avenue to ensure their access to the back of the lot.
Mayor Ortiz asked about trash removal. Mr. Stevenson stated that the proposed project would increase the
number of trash receptacles that will be placed at the front of the driveway.
Next, the architect, Jacob Furlong spoke about the 1128-32 Douglas Avenue project. Mr. Furlong stated that
the project's neighborhood consists of multiple apartment buildings. He then discussed the historical house
that the developers are moving to 524 Oak Grove, at their own expense. He stated that it is estimated that the
relocation of the house alone will cost $500,000.
Mr. Furlong discussed the easement stating that it must be maintained for the mutual benefit of both
properties. He explained that the project would be widening the driveway and reviewed the steps that the
developers would be taking to protect the redwood tree including installing a curb in front of the tree.
Councilmember Beach asked if the easement line aligns with Mr. Stevenson's chimney. Mr. Furlong replied
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that she wanted to understand the distance between the redwood tree's root ball
and the easement. Mr. Furlong stated that a survey has not yet laid out the exact distance.
Councilmember Beach stated that her concern was that the redwood tree's root ball would make the
driveway at that pinch point fall below 9 feet. She asked if this would be acceptable. CDD Meeker stated
that the variance request is for 9 feet, so the driveway is required to be at least 9 feet wide at all points.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would be interested to know what the width would be at the pinch
point of the redwood tree. Mr. Furlong stated that he has talked to an arborist about working around the tree.
He added that the project has not done a survey to understand if modifications are needed.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she would like the measurements double checked on the driveway's
width. She stated that the side landscape could be reinoved in order to widen the driveway and the first
parking spot in the back could be made a compact spot. Mr. Furlong stated that they would be willing to
entertain these suggestions.
Councilmember Keighran stated that there is a pedestrian walkway that could be utilized rather than the
driveway. Mr. Furlong replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the requested landscape variance of 40% was due to the circular
driveway. Mr. Furlong replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if it could be required that the City Arborist be present while work is being
done around the redwood tree. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative.
9
Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Keighran asked if there was a way to require a bond to cover any future damage to the
redwood tree or its roots. CDD Meeker stated that this has previously been done but it proved problematic.
Councilmember Keighran asked how the wood treatments were going to be maintained on the building. Mr.
Furlong stated the wood that they are proposing is finish free and is a resilient material.
Councilmember Colson asked if there was currently any protection around the tree. Mr. Furlong replied in
the negative.
Councilmember Colson-asked if the width of the driveway is being decreased from what is currently there.
Mr. Furlong replied in the negative.
Councilmember Colson asked if the purpose of the curb was to protect the redwood tree. Mr. Furlong
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson asked if the developer considered setting aside some of the units as affordable to
households meeting 110-120% of the AMI. Mr. Furlong stated that the developer is willing to entertain that
as a condition of approval.
Mayor Ortiz asked if setting aside units as affordable housing was previously discussed. Mr. Furlong stated
it was brought up after the public comment period at the Planning Coinmission.
Councilmember Beach asked what the procedure was to include as a condition that units be set aside as
affordable. CDD Meeker stated that the City can't require affordable units, as the developer isn't requesting
a density bonus. City Attorney Kane stated it would be considered a community benefit of the project.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the project could do another layer of underground parking. Mr. Furlong
stated that it is his understanding that this has been executed on other properties in the nearby neighborhood.
Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing for public comment.
Burlingame residents Carolyn Root, Betsy Bogel, Rusty, June and Danelle discussed their concerns for the
project including the height of the building, parking and congestion issues, driveway access during
construction and that it would change the neighborhood.
Former Councilmember John Root discussed his concerns for the project stating that the project was too
large and would create more congestion and parking issues. Additionally, he asked that the Council ensure
that the project has a circular driveway and that landscaping be maintained.
Councilmember Keighran stated that by requiring the project to include a circular driveway in the front it
limited the amount of landscaping that could be done. She asked Mr. Root what was more important a
circular driveway or landscaping. Mr. Root stated that he believed both could be done.
Councilmember Keighran asked if Mr. Root's concern was maintaining an attractive front landscape and not
the request for a landscape variance. He replied in the affirmative.
10
Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017
Approved Minutes
Burlingame resident Matt spoke about different landscaping options to prevent storm drain runoff water.
Mayor Ortiz gave Larry Stevenson and Mr. Furlong each three minutes for their closing statements.
Mr. Stevenson expressed his belief that at the redwood tree the width of the driveway is 7 feet 9 inches and
therefore would not meet the required 9 feet.
Mr. Furlong addressed the concerns he had heard by stating: 1) the project's height was allowable under the
conditional use permit in the Downtown Specific Plan; 2) parking would be assigned in the back to avoid
issues; 3) an arborist would be onsite when any work is done around the redwood tree; and 4) a landscape
plan was submitted that is drought tolerant. Lastly he stated that after conferring with the owner, he is
willing to set aside 1 1-bedroom and 1 2-bedroom unit as affordable to households meeting 110% AMI.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the developer measured the width of the driveway from the redwood tree's root ball.
Mr. Furlong stated not by a licensed surveyor. He added that he believes that with modifications to the root
ball, under the supervision of an arborist, the driveway at all points will be 9 feet wide. CDD Meeker stated
that the City Arborist would have to approve of any work done to the tree's root ball.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned that the driveway's width wasn't surveyed. She
asked what happens if after the driveway is surveyed; it is not 9 feet wide at all points. CDD Meeker stated
it would be a modification to the approved plan and therefore require Planning Commission approval.
Councilmember Beach asked if the developer decided to modify the tree's root ball with the City Arborist's
approval, would the developer also need Planning Commission's approval. CDD Meeker replied in the
negative.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City Arborist weighed in on the redwood tree and its proximity to the
driveway. CDD Meeker stated that the City Arborist reviewed the project and stated that tree protection
measures, prepared by an independent arborist, must be included in the demolition plan and in place during
all phases of construction.
Councilmember Beach asked if there was a plan for the trash and recycling receptacles. Mr. Furlong stated
that trash and recycling receptacles would be kept in the back and that Recology employees would haul the
receptacles out during their rounds.
Councilmember Colson asked if the project decided to build a driveway on the other side of the property if
they would need to maintain the existing driveway because of the easement. Mr. Furlong replied in the
affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was uncomfortable with the proposed project. He explained that he
spent a long time looking at the plans, and reviewing the Commission meeting. He stated that the back of
the building provides for a sheer wall rising five stories. Additionally, he stated that he has a 9 foot wide
driveway, and that it is hard to navigate.
11
Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017
Approved Minutes
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the Downtown Specific Plan. He stated that a vast amount of the energy
was spent on the core and not the periphery. He explained that the Downtown Specific Plan was careful
about putting in height limits by right. He explained, where this building is, the building's allowable height
without a conditional use permit is thirty-five feet. He stated that he didn't think the Planning Commission
spent enough time reviewing whether the project met the requirements for a conditional use permit. He
stated that he believed that in order to obtain a conditional use permit, the project must not negatively impact
the neighbors or must provide benefit to the community. He stated that this project didn't do either.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed that the project should be four stories instead of five. He
added that if the building was four-stories, then the developer wouldn't be required to provide parking in the
back of the lot.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he couldn't support the building as designed.
CDD Meeker explained that conditional use permits do not require a public benefit. He explained that the
conditional use permit process is intended to ensure that the proposed project doesn't create an adverse
impact and is compatible with its surroundings.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he understood that conditional use permits don't require a public beneft
but that it helps in reviewing applications. He gave the example of the hospital, that while the neighborhood
didn't want it, it provided a public benefit.
Mayor Ortiz stated that his concern was the project's driveway and at-grade parking.
Councilmember Colson stated that she didn't know if there was a right solution to the driveway's width
because of the redwood tree. She stated that the proposed project offers more protection to the tree then it
currently has.
Councilmember Colson stated that she believed the last time an apartment building was built in Burlingame
was 1995. She discussed the need for more housing in the community. Accordingly, she stated that she
supported the project.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she is concerned about the width of the driveway. She stated that staff
must ensure that the driveway's width is 9 feet at all points, and if it isn't, the project must go back to the
Planning Commission. She also requested that an arborist be present during all work around the tree.
Councilmember Keighran explained that the City spent two years working on the Downtown Specific Plan
and that many discussions were had on whether or not the community wanted to increase density in the
downtown area. She stated that under the Downtown Specific Plan, the project's allowable height with a
conditional use permit is 75 feet. She stated that this project was requesting 56 feet.
Councilmember Keighran discussed the history of Douglas Avenue. She explained that at one point many of
the structures had been single-family homes and had slowly been replaced by condominiums. She stated that
12
Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017
Approved Minutes
the City was entering another transition era and moving towards denser housing. Additionally, she stated
that the community benefit of the project was the two affordable housing units.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned with the circular driveway as she didn't believe it
would alleviate delivery truck congestion. However, she stated she could respect the neighbors' request.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the City could require that the development have parking assignments.
CDD Meeker stated that he would look into this.
Councilmember Keighran asked that the building have signage to alert delivery trucks to use the circular
driveway. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg suggested painting the curb in front of the building so that it was a 24 minute parking
zone during the working day. Councilmember Keighran approved of this idea.
Councilmember Beach stated that she shared Councilmember Keighran's concern about the driveway. She
stated that the driveway needs to be 9 feet wide at all points without cutting away at the redwood tree. She
added that she applauded the developers' work to protect the redwood tree and preserve the historical home.
Councilmember Beach stated that it is difficult to balance all the variables including: residential character,
the beauty of the building, property rights, the Downtown Specific Plan, and housing advocates. She stated
that this area was zoned to allow for 75 foot tall buildings. She explained that if Council thinks this is too
tall, that this could be a discussion at a later time, but that it is currently allowed.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve the project with the following conditions: 1) dedicate 1
1-bedroom and 1 2-bedroom unit to 110% AMI for San Mateo County; 2) arborist shall be present when
digging is occurring around the redwood tree's root ball; 3) guarantee that the nine foot driveway width is
maintained, and if that doesn't occur, the project will require an amendment to be considered by the Planning
Commission; 4) look at possibility of assigning parking spaces to individual units; 5) signage placed on
property to promote use of circular driveway for deliveries; 6) widen driveway at side landscape barrier; and
7) parking space at north east corner of the property be made into a compact parking space.
Councilmember Colson seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the protections that were put in place for the tree at the Drake
development. He voiced his concern that the redwood tree could be injured by the increase of traffic. He
asked that staff look at the protections that were put in place on the Drake development and that they are
incorporated into this project.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg's suggestion and amended her
motion to include this.
The motion passed 3-2 by roll call vote. (Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Mayor Ortiz voted no.)
13
Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017
Approved Minutes
5.0 Design & Character
5.3 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Residenual buildings in Downtown Burlingame offer higher density�
development than elsewhere in the City, pxoviding a lifesryle for those who want
to live within walking distance of the Downtown commercial areas and transit
opportunities. New buildings will mediate this density with thoughtful design
and details that create attractive, livable residential environments. Buildings
should contribute to an appealing neighborhood character and should employ
recognizable residential design details such as visible residential entries, poxches,
bay windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas.
Below are xecommendations for the axchitectural treatment and organization
of buildings and open space, and the suggested criteria for xeviewing pxojects
during the design review pxocess.
5.3.1 ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY
Residential pxojects should respect the diversity of building rypes and
sryles in the residential areas Downtown and seek to support it by
applying the following principles:
• Design buildings to maintain general compatibility with the
neighborhood.
• Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when
using differing architectural sryles.
• Maintains the tradition of arclutectural diversity, but with human
scale regardless of the architectural sryle used.
• Create buildings with qualiry materials and thoughtful design to
last into the future.
5.3.2 PEDESTRIAN USE AND CHARACTER
5.3.2.1 Entrances
Primary pedestrian access to all ground-level uses should be from
the sidewalk along the public street. Entries should be clearly defined
features of front fa�ades. Common entrances for multiple units are
FIGURE 5-27: Buildings should contribute to an appealing
neighborhood character and should employ recognizable residential
design details such as visible residential entries, porches, bay
windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas.
FIGURE 5-28: Entries should be clearly defined features of front
fa�ades, and are encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable
gathering spaces that invite informal social interaction with neighbors.
�-17
encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable gathering spaces at
or adjacent to entrances that invite infoxmal social intexaction with
neighbors.
5.3.2.2 Ground Level Treatment
Residential development may have a finished floor elevation up to 5
feet above sidewalk level to provide more interiox privacy for residents.
Entry porches or stoops along the street are encouraged to bridge this
change in elevation and connect these units to the sidewalk to m;,,im;�e
any physical separation from the street level. The street-level frontage
should be visually interesting with frequent unit entsances and cleax
orientarion to the street.
5.3.2.3 Site Access
Curb cuts should be mir,;m;zed to promote traffic and pedestrian safety
and create cohesive landscaping and building fa�ades. A maximum of
two curb cuts should be provided for projects requiring 30 parking
spaces or mote; for pxojects with less than 30 spaces, only one cuxb cut
should be provided. One-way driveways should have curb cuts with a
fully depxessed width no greater than 12 feet; two-way curb cuts should
be no gxeater than 22 feet. On-site bicycle parking for residents is
encouraged.
5.3.3 ARCHITECTURAI. COMPATIBILITY
5.3.3.1 Development Massing
The xesidential areas within Downtown Burlingame have a range
of building heights, and so particular attention must be paid to
the massing of new buildings to ensure an appropriate transition
with surrounding development. Massing and street fa�ades shall
be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Burlingame
neighborhoods.
FIGURE 5-29: The street-level frontage should be visually interesting
with frequent unit entrances and strong orientation to the street.
FIGURE 5-30: Articulation, setbacks, and materials should
minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and
provide visual interest.
S.0 Design & Character
Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimi7e massing, break
down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest.
5.3.3.2 On-Site Structured Parking
Given the density� and premium land values Downtown, new projects
will likely provide on-site parking in enclosed garage structures,
underground, or in "semi-depressed" garages that are partially
undexgxound and partially above ground.
Parking should not be allowed to dominate the character of the project.
Where enclosed parking is at ground level, it should be fronted or
wxapped with habitable uses when possible. If it is not possible to
Eully wrap the parking, it should be incorporated into the design of
the facade. Semi-depxessed parking (patdy below ground and paxdy
exposed above ground) should be screened with architectural elements
that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, porches, or balcony
overhangs.
5.3.3.3 Roof Treatment
Interesting and varied roof forms are encouraged. RooHines should
emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such
as entries, bays, and balconies. Rooftop equipment shall be concealed
from view and/or integrated within the architecture of the building.
5.3.4 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSISTENCY
5.3.4.1 Facade Design
Facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, poxches, and
other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break
up building mass. All exposed sides of a building should be designed
with the same level of care and integriry. Facades should have a
variarion of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas,
inset doorways and windows).
Occupied space
screens pazking
Erom sidewall:.
FIGURE 5-31: Where enclosed parldng is at ground level,
it should be fronted or wrapped with uses that can be
occupied such as lobbies and living space when possible.
FIGURE 5-32: Semi-depressed
parldng should be screened
with architectural elements that
enhance the streetscape such
as stoops, porches, or balcony
overhangs.
5-19
Elements such as entxances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies should
be visible to people on the sueet. Corner parcels are encouraged to
incorpoxate features such as corner entrances, bay windows, and corner
roof features, but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as
towers.
break up building mass.
5.3.4.2 Windows
Building walls should be accented by well-proportioned openings that
provide relief, detail and variation on the fa�ade. Windows should be
inset genexously from the building wall to create shade and shadow
detail. The use of high-qualiry window products that contribute to the
richness, detail, and depth of the fa�ade is encouraged. Windows with
mullions should have individual window lights, rather than applied
"snap-in" mullions that lack depth and axe not integral to the window
structure. Reflective glass is undesirable because of its tendency to
create uncomfortable glare conditions and a visual barrier. Where
residential uses are adjacent to each other, windows should be placed
with regard to any open spaces ox windows on neighboring buildings
so as to protect the privary of residents.
5.3.4.3 Materials
Building matexials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest.
The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture
present in the neighborhood is encouraged. Metal siding and large
expanses of stucco or wood siding are also to be avoided. Roofing
materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, tile accents,
etc. should also offex colox variation. Residenaal building materials
should include quality details such as wrought iron, wood-framed
windows, wood brackets and tile roofs.
5.3.5 SITE AMENITIES
5.3.5.1 Setbacks
Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 specifies basic building standards such
as setbacks and height. Building setbacks are intended to cxeate
FIGURE 5-33: Residential facades should include
projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other
acchitectural elements that provide human scale and help
FIGURE 5-34: Windows should be inset generously from the
building wall to create shade and shadow detail.
5.0 Design & Character
a transition between the hardscape, urban environment of the
commercial areas and the subuxban setting in the surrounding
neighborhoods. Setbacks have multiple purposes, including providing
sunlight, places for landscaping, and axeas for activity and recreation.
Building setbacks should be appropriately landscaped to provide
screening and introduce trees and plantings in this area. Landscaped
setback areas should be integrated with buildings by pxoviding
openings in the building walls that connect the peruneter landscaping
with interior courryaxds and landscape pathways. Landscaping should
be planned in xelation to surxounding vegetative types with special
consideration being given to native species where possible. Pathways
and courryards should be made of pervious materials to allow
groundwater absorption.
5.3.5.2 Open Space
Private on-site open space within the Downtown area is not intended
to provide recreational space ox large landscaped areas, since this is
a more urban environment. Howevex, open space is an unportant
element for residential buildings and should be used to effectively
axticulate building forms, promote access to light and fresh air, and
maintain privacy for powntown residents. In residential development,
most open space should be used to pxovide attractive amenities for
residents, including interior courryards, outdoox seating options and
perimeter landscaping. Balconies and rooftop terraces are encouraged.
�X/hexe open space is situated over a structural slab, podium or rooftop
it should have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving
materials, including elements such as planters, medium-sized trees,
and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces. Planters may be
designed to not only accommodate colorful ornamental landscaping,
but could also accommodate garden plots foz "urban agriculture."
Trees should be selected from the Ciry's tree list.
5-�1
FIGURE 5-35: Where open space is situated over a structural slab,
podium or rooftop it should have a combination of landscaping and
high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters,
mature trees, and urban agriculture.
Mayne Tree Expert Comp�ny, Inc.
ESTABLISHED ]931 STATE CON'fRAC'fQR'S LICENSE NO. 276793
CERTiFIED FORESTF.R • CERTIPIED ARBORISTS • PES'f CONTROL • ADViSORS AND OPERATORS
R[CHr�RD L. HUNTING�I'ON
PRESIDHNT
JEROMEY INGALLS
CONSULTANT/ESTIMA'POR
Mr. Wayne Lin, LEED AP
Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc.
1105 Juanita Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Wayne Lin,
August 8, 2014
RE: 1128 & 1132 DouG�ASAVENUE, BURLINGAME
?35 BRAGATO RO.AD, STE. A
5AN CAKLOS. CA 94070-6311
TELCPHONE: (650) 593-440U
FACSIMILE: (GSO) 593-4443
EMAIL: infoC�maynetrec.com
At your request, I visited the above site on Friday, July 25, 2014. The purpose of my visit
was to identify, inspect, and comment on the trees located on the site. Included in this
report is a plan review and tree protection plan for the proposed construction project.
This report covers two properties that will be joined to form one.
Limitations of this report
This report is based on a visual-only inspection that took place at ground level. I accept
no responsibility for any unknown or any unseen defects associated with the trees on
this site.
Method
Each tree on this report was given an identification number that is scribed onto a metal
foil tag and placed at eye level on the trunk of the tree. This number has also been
placed on the provided site map to show the approximate locations of the trees on the
property. The diameter for each tree was found by measuring the trunk of the tree at
fifty-four inches off of the natural grade as described in the Burlingame Heritage Tree
Ordinance. The height and canopy spread has been estimated for each tree to show
their approximate dimensions. Each tree was given a condition rating; this rating is
based on form and vitality and can be further defined by the following table:
0 — 29 Very Poor
30 — 49 Poor
50 — 69 Fair
70 — 89 Good
90 — 100 Excellent
Lastly, a comments section has been provided to give more individual detail about the
trees.
II
1128 Douglas Ave., Burlingame 2 August 8, 2014
Tree Survey
Tree Species Diameter Conditian Height Spread Comments
# (inches) (percent) (feet) (feet)
1 Redwood 39.0 85 85 33 Partialfy covered root crown;
sprouts around the base; roots
lifting and cracking the neighbors
driveway; good form and vigor.
2 Coast Live 27.6 55 36 42 Root crown covered; codominant
Oak at 10 feet; ivy growing up the
trunk; heavy lateral limbs; trunk
measured below the lowest limb.
3 Chinese 20.0 40 30 21 Root crown covered; ivy and
Tallow Tree (est.) other vegetation covering the
trunk and growing into the
canopy; heafthy upper canopy.
4 Coast Live 26.0 60 35 45 Located on the neighbor's
Oak (est.) prope�ty. Healthy canopy;
codominant at 18 feet; heavy
lateral limbs; no tag; roots lifting
the driveway.
5 Liquid 18.1 35 30 21 Girdling roots at the base; three-
Amber stem at 7 feet; several
codominant attachments in the
upper canopy; roots lifting and
cracking the driveway.
6 Sycamore 18.0 45 25 33 Three-stem at 8 feet; routinely
Maple topped by PG&E; slight lean
east.
7 Hawthome 18.0 50 30 21 Two-stem at 3 feet; several small
(est.j stems in the same area; partially
covered root crown; healthy
canopy.
8 Coast Live 25.0 65 35 36 Located between the fence; root
Oak (est.) crown covered; sycamore borer
on the trunk; healthy canopy;
excess end weight on the lateral
limbs; slight lean northwest.
9 Apple 16.3 35 20 21 Root crown covered; codominant
at 3 feet; both stems hollow;
measured below the two stems;
previously topped at 9 feet; stag-
headed crown.
i
1128 Douglas Ave., Burlingame 3 August 8, 2014
Tree Species Diameter Condition Height Spread Comments
# (inches) (percent) (feet) {feet)
10 Stone Pine 12.3 40 20 18 Girdling roots at the base;
codominant top at 7 feet; ivy in
the upper canopy; abundance of
interior deadwood; slight lean
southwest.
11 Plum 13.3 40 15 21 Root crown covered; slight lean
north; multi-stem at 4 feet;
measured below the multi-stem
attachrnent; healthy canopy
excess end weight on the lateral
limbs.
12 Cottonwood 21.2 35 30 24 Codominant at 3 feet with
included bark; measured below
the codominant attachment; root
crown covered; multi-stem top
starting at 5 feet.
13 Coast Live 20.0
Oak (est.)
Observations
50 35 21 Observed top only; could not
access rear of property to inspect
base and lower trunk of this tree.
Tree #1 is a large Redwood tree located on the right side of 1128 Douglas Avenue. Soil,
ivy, and other organic material cover the root crown of this tree. It has good form and
the upper canopy of this tree appears to be heafthy and vigorous.
Tree #2 is a Coast Live Oak located near tree #1. Ivy, soil, and other organic material
cover the root crown of this tree. There is a codominant attachment at 10 feet and most
of the upper canopy leans southeast towards the street. There is excess end weight on
most of the lateral limbs.
Tree #3 is a Chinese Tallow Tree located at the front left corner of 1128 Douglas Avenue.
The lower trunk of this tree is growing through a hedge. Ivy, soil, and other organic
material are covering the tree's root crown. The upper canopy appears to be healthy
and vigorous.
Tree #4 is a Coast Live Oak located along the right side 1128 Douglas Avenue on the
neighboring property, within 10 feet of the property line. The roots from this tree appear
to be lifting and cracking the nearby driveway. The upper canopy appears to be healthy
and vigorous.
Tree #S is a Liquid Amber tree located at the back right corner of the home on 1128
Douglas Avenue. This tree has an abundance of girdling roots, some of which are lifting
and cracking the driveway. This tree has a three-stem attachment at 7 feet and the
upper canopy has several codominant attachments.
1128 Douglas Ave., Burlingame
August 8, 2014
Tree #6 is a Sycamore Maple located along the street in front of 1132 Douglas Avenue.
This tree is considered a street tree. The upper canopy is routinely pruned away from
the high voltage lines by PG&E and the tree leans slightly to the east.
Tree #7 is a Hawthorne tree located along the left side of 1132 Douglas Avenue. This
tree has two-stems at 3 feet with several smaller stems in same area. Soil and other
organic material cover the root crown of this tree. The upper canopy appears to be
healthy and vigorous.
Tree #8 is a Coast Live Oak located along the left property line of 1132 Douglas Avenue.
This tree is growing within the fence line, straddling the prope►ty border. I found
sycamore borer on the trunk, excess end weight on the lateral limbs, and the upper
canopy appears to be healthy and vigorous.
Tree #9 is an Apple tree located at the back left corner of the home on 1132 Douglas
Avenue. Soil and other organic material cover the root crown of this tree. There is a
codominant attachment at 3 feet and both stems are hollow. The upper canopy has a
stag-headed growth pattern and appears to be healthy and vigorous.
Tree #10 is an Italian Stone Pine located in the rear yard by the driveway of 1132
Dougtas Avenue. The upper canopy has a codominant attachment at 7 feet and ivy
covering most of the east side. This tree leans to the southwest slightly.
Tree #11 is a Plum tree located in the rear of the home along the left side of 1132
Douglas Avenue. There are multiple attachments at 4 feet (some with included bark),
excess end weight throughout the canopy, and a slight lean north.
Tree #12 is a Cottonwood located along the rear of the property at 1132 Douglas
Avenue. I found a codominant atCachment at 3 feet with included bark between the
stems. I believe this tree may have been previously cut at 5 feet as there is an
abundance of stems in this area. Soil and other organic material cover the root crown of
this tree.
Tree #13 is a Coast Live Oak located at the rear of the property at 1126 Douglas
Avenue. This tree is located behind an apa�tment building where I could find no access.
I identified the tree and looked at the top 15 to 20 feet over the roof of the building. Due
to lack of access, I was not able to examine the lower 20 feet of the trunk.
During my inspection of both properties, I found several smaller trees around the
property that are less than 12 inches in diameter and will be shown on the report with a
green dot.
Plan Review and Tree Protection Guidelines
On July 28, 2014, I reviewed the proposed construction plans for the above site. During
my review, I determined that the buildings on the existing property will be demolished
and a new apartment building will be constructed. During this process, trees #1, #2, #4,
#6, and #13 would remain; all other trees will need to be removed to allow the building to
be constructed.
1128 Douglas Ave., Burlingame 5 August 8, 2014
Routine maintenance is recommended for trees #2 and #13. This maintenance should
include deadwood removal, end weight reduction, and raising the canopies. All tree
work performed should be accomplished by a qualified licensed tree care professional.
During the removal of the existing trees and buildings, care should be taken not to
damage any roots of the trees that are to remain.
TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS
1. A 6-inch layer of coarse mulch or woodchips is to be placed beneath the dripline
of the protected trees. Mulch is to be kept 12 inches from the trunk.
2. A protective barrier of 6-foot chain link fencing shall be installed around the
dripline of protected tree(s). The fencing can be moved within the dripline if
authorized by the Project Arborist or the City Arborist, but not closer than 2 feet
from the trunk of any tree. Fence posts shall be 1.5 inches in diameter and are
to be driven 2 feet into the ground. The distance between posts shall not be
more than 10 feet. This enclosed area is the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). 1 have
drawn in on the provided site plan the approximate location of the tree protection
fencing.
3. Movable barriers of chain link fencing secured to cement blocks can be
substituted for "fixed" fencing if the Project Arborist and City Arborist agree that
the fencing will have to be moved to accommodate certain phases of
construction. The builder may not move the fence without authorization from the
Project Arborist or City Arborist.
4. Avoid the following conditions.
DO NOT:
a. Allow runoff or spillage of damaging materials into the area belaw any
tree canopy.
b. Store materials, stockpile soil, or park or drive vehicles within the TPZ.
c. Cut, break, skin, or bruise roots, branches, or trunks without first obtaining
authvrization from the City Arborist.
d. Allow fires under and adjacent to trees.
e. Discharge exhaust into foliage.
f. Secure cable, chain, or rope to trees or shrubs.
g. Trench, dig, or otherwise excavate within the dripline or TPZ of the tree(s)
without first obtaining authorization from the City Arborist.
h. Apply soil sterilants under pavement near existing trees.
5. Only excavation by hand or compressed air shall be allowed within the driplines
of trees. Machine trenching shall not be allowed.
1128 Douglas Ave., Burlingame
L
August 8, 2014
6. Avoid injury to tree roots. When a ditching machine, which is being used outside
of the dripline of trees, encounters roots smaller than 2 inches, the wall of the
trench adjacent to the trees shall be hand trimmed, making clear, clean cuts
through the roots. All damaged, torn, and cut roots shall be given a clean cut to
remove ragged edges, which promote decay. Trenches shall be filled within 24
hours, but, where this is not possible, the side of the trench adjacent to the trees
shall be kept shaded with four layers of dampened, untreated burlap, wetted as
frequently as necessary to keep the burlap wet. Roots 2 inches or larger, when
encountered, shall be reported immediately to the Project Arborist, who will
decide whether the Contractor may cut the root as mentioned above or shall
excavate by hand or with compressed air under the root. The root is to be
protected with dampened burlap.
7. Route pipes outside of the area that is 10 times the diameter of a protected tree
to avoid conflict with roots.
8. Where it is not possible to reroute pipes or trenches, the contractor shall bore
beneath the dripline of the tree. The boring shall take place not less than 3 feet
below the surface of the soil in order to avoid encountering "feeder" roots.
9. Any damage due to construction activities shall be reported to the Project
Arborist or City Arborist within six hours so that remedial action can be taken.
10. Violation of any of the above provisions may result in sanctions or other
disciplinary action.
I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and
practices. If� may be of further assistance, please contact me at my office.
Sincerely, j �
A.
Jeromey A. Ingalls
Certified Art�orist WE #7076A
JAl:pmd
o�
� G
No. WE-7076A m
��
* \�� f,
Q ,..
c�'�T;F�en A`�Q�%` .
1128 Douglas Ave., Burlingame
7
August 8. 2014
aWi o. :-: . � : .; �
<6�' - •::: -
_ „,,_ �
- �� � ~
�
- -� .
- o _ _— - �_-" � S ..• O[Q�S�� ..p� -.r/��•+�
' ' . ' ../.� • - ^ 1
� . , . . . . • s8� . . � `
. . ��"� �1 a � J
�--.�"' �€ � N 1� J �
-•+'�'� av E_ �
- - 9 E � A �^\� \ •
s iS � \
r' • r �� ��;�3 " ;� / ,50 � /� '�
.��� . � • - j e f �j�y `'\ )! L
,�� �� n �'S C9�Sd 9j ` 1
� �_ � � . _s y� �e �.. ��` `�\�.._.i ' Y
\` !�N • � aa �Y �n � .................... ! �''"
� � r � \\�' ' �
ti � � .!'
� a �� J i �
�. . _ . ( �I—
.. . � ::� ............... : � y i ; 8 f �—
: i g �
� � ����.._ ..................��.�...i � =- .w........... E I �
: � ,.
� � ���� �_ ,�� , ..:....... ;.. Ti
.
= eb ,
�� -_ � �� s � ��.,a�
• . :
. , .
. `_, ` , � �
1 - ---------
_1"___" ___"i.acC__ ^E
...__... i \.� �Q� �9 �� R ,\_ � �.
�. ���� � ........w..... e � ...........
EsR 6
s � r�.. . . 6 g �.. ,..�...
�� / \.. ..... !� c �_�- ` r �
- cx '� .� ........................ �� ..�0 �E� �...�g....,...�
iy \ 1 `
�� �. 4 E � _s u s j
.�I � � �.
� -
� �
n =`: �� � �
� �•� a�; �� �
�, Va� as
� s_ ge �„
� a P
� � �
B� 9
—s ��
"x j �I
Y ' J sY
�� i i�
I ,"
. 3
S �
i . ..
� �� �
� � ex �
t , f
/ �r % .. '
- � � -- — --•• ""' ww�. .._.-'—.
_
_._. i
i<
I
i.
i
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW
AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared and
application has been made for Amendment to Desiqn Review for chanaes to a previouslv approved
project and Side Setback Variance for construction of a new five-story 27-unit multi-familv residential
building with below-grade parkinq at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue Zoned R-4 Zers Development Inc..
propertv owner. APN: 029-132-180 and 029-132-190;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
September 24, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the Addendum to EIR, 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 Addendum to EIR and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no
substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the
environment, and the modified project falls within the scope of the previously adopted EIR
prepared for the original project.
2. Said Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance are approved subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Design
Review and Side Setback Variance 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.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 24th dav of September, 2018, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped September 13, 2018, sheets A0.0 through A5.16, A8.1, A8.2, C1, AR1.0,
L1.1 and L1.2;
2. that as a community benefit freely offered by the applicant, the project shall include one
one-bedroom unit and one two-bedroom unit set aside for a period of twenty-five (25)
years for households with incomes of 110% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the
County of san Mateo. The City Manager shall be authorized to execute an agreement
memorializing this provision;
3. 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;
4. that the maximum elevation to the top of the parapet and roof shall not exceed elevation
81.00' and 79.17', respectively, as measured from the average elevation at the top of the
curb along Douglas Avenue (24.20') for a maximum height of 56'-10" to the top of the
parapet; the garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 11.00'; and that the
top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City
Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections.
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;
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 staf�;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first
half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $58,138.50, made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
7. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second
half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $58,138.50, made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
8. that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall
be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system
shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to
communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a
button inside their units;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 2
9. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal
compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with
zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is
issued;
10. 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;
11. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the municipal
code;
12. 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;
13. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-
of-way shall be prohibited;
14. 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;
15. 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;
16. 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;
17. 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;
18. 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;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 3
19. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator
to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all
mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.).
Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement;
20. 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;
21. 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;
22. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
23. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
24. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
25. that directional signage shall be placed on the property to promote use of the circular
driveway at the front of the property for pick-ups and deliveries;
26. that the landscape planter at the northeasterly portion of the building, adjacent to the
driveway shall be reduced in depth in order to permit widening of the driveway within that
area;
The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process
prior to the inspections noted in each condition:
27. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building envelope;
28. 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;
29. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 4
30. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report:
Aesthetics
31. MM AES-1: Design Review of the Proposed Project: The applicant shall submit revised
plans for the proposed building at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue to the City of Burlingame
for design review. The Planning Commission as the responsible body for design review
shall review the proposed project for compatibility with the City's guidelines for a
residential apartment building in the Downtown Specific Plan R-4 Base District.
32. MM AES-2: Exterior Lighting Plan: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed
Exterior Lighting Plan shall be provided. The lighting plan shall utilize the following
standards:
a) Control stray light through use of low-brightness fixtures with optical controls.
b) Fully block all exterior light sources from off-site views.
c) Do not permit any uplighting from any outdoor light fixture.
d) Employ on-demand exterior lighting systems where feasible. Area lighting and
security lighting shall be controlled by the use of timed switches and/or motion
detectors.
e) Use tinted windows in all buildings to reduce glare from interior lights.
33. MM AES-3: Use of Non-reflective Exterior Paint: Flat, non-reflective paint or integrated
coloring shall be used in all exterior building materials throughout the project.
Air Quality
34. MM AIR-1: Construction Equipment Emissions Reduction: The construction contractor
shall implement the BAAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures for
Project Construction Equipment measure that requires project off-road equipment
greater than 25 horsepower (hp) that operates for more than 20 total hours over the
entire duration of construction activities to meet the following requirements:
a) All backhoes engines shall meet CARB Tier 4 off-road emission standards.
b) All other equipment engines shall meet or exceed CARB Tier 3 off-road emission
standards or be retrofitted with a CARB Level 2 diesel particulate filter (DPF).
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 5
35. MM AIR-2: Air Filtration: A standard house heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) system with a permanent filter of a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV)
of 13 or greater shall be installed at the relocated residence at 524 Oak Grove Avenue.
The MERV13 filter shall provide one air exchange per hour if the air source is
outside/unfiltered air or four air exchanges per hour if the air source is inside/recirculated
air to provide an 80 percent or greater reduction of outdoor fine particulate matter
(including DPM).
Biological Resources
36. MM BIO-1: Pre-construction Bat Surveys The applicant shall implement the following
measures during demolition of structures and tree removal or tree pruning.
Structures. Before demolition of existing structures, a qualified bat specialist shall
conduct a day time search for potential roosting habitat and evening emergence surveys
to determine if the structure is being used as a roost. Biologists conducting surveys for
roost sites shall use naked eye, binoculars, and a high power spotlight to inspect
buildings features that could house bats. The surfaces of the structure and the ground
around the structure shall be surveyed for bat signs, such as guano, staining, and prey
remains. Evening (i.e., dusk) emergence surveys shall consist of at least one bat
specialist positioned at different vantage points from the structure, watching for emerging
bats from a half hour before sunset to 1 to 2 hours after sunset for a minimum of 2 nights
within the season that construction will be taking place. Night vision goggles or full
spectrum acoustic detectors should be used during emergence surveys to assist in
species identification. All emergence surveys shall be conducted during favorable
weather conditions (i.e., calm nights with temperatures conducive to bat activity [55° F
and above] and no precipitation predicted). If roosting, special-status bats are present,
measures developed by the bat specialist shall be implemented, as needed. Measures
to protect the bats may include postponing demolition until after the May 1 st through
October 1 st roosting period. Measures may include monitoring roosting to determine if
the roost site is a maternal roost by either a visual inspection of the roost bat pups, or
monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night and listening for bat pups.
Eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur because bat pups are not mature enough to
leave the roost. If a roost is determined not to be a maternal roost, eviction of bats shall
be conducted using bat exclusion techniques developed by Bat Conservation
International and in consultation with CDFW that allow the bats to exit the roosting site,
but prevent re-entry to the site. This work shall be completed by a BCI-recommended
exclusion professional. The exclusion of bats shall be timed and carried out concurrently
with any scheduled bird exclusion activities. Each roost lost (if any) shall be replaced in
consultation with the CDFW and may include construction and installation of BCI-
approved bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony size excluded from the
original roosting site. Roost replacement shall be implemented before bats are excluded
from the original roost sites. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is
confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site, the structures may be
removed or sealed.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 6
Tree Removal. A qualified bat specialist shall examine trees to be removed or trimmed
for suitable bat roosting habitat. High quality habitat features (large tree cavities, basal
hollows, loose or peeling bark, larger snags, etc.) shall be identified and the area around
these features searched for bats and bat sign (guano, culled insect parts, staining, etc.).
The qualified bat specialist shall conduct evening visual emergence surveys of the
source habitat feature, from a half hour before sunset to 1 to 2 hours after sunset for a
minimum of two nights within the season that construction will be taking place. If it is
found that roosting, special-status bats are present, measures developed by the bat
specialist shall be implemented, as needed.
37. MM BIO-2: Tree Protection Measures: Tree protection specifications were developed by
Mayne Tree Expert Company Inc. for the protected trees surveyed at the Douglas
Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue project sites. The applicant shall implement the
following tree protection measures developed by Mayne Tree Expert Company Inc. and
approved by the Arborist for protected trees. The Mayne Tree Expert Company Inc.
reports shall be included on the demolition and construction plans of the project.
Mulching. A 6-inch layer of coarse mulch woodchips shall be placed beneath the dripline
of protected trees. Mulch is to be kept 12 inches from the trunk.
Protective Barrier. A protective barrier or 6-foot chain link fence shall be installed around
the dripline of protected trees. The fencing can be moved within the dripline if authorized
by the Project Arborist or the City Arborist, but no closer than 2 feet from the trunk of any
tree. Fence posts shall be 1.5 inches in diameter and are to be driven 2 feet into the
ground. The distance between posts shall not be more than 10 feet. This enclosed area
is the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). Moveable barriers or chain link fencing secured to
cement blacks can be substituted for "fixed" fencing if the Project Arborist and City
Arborist agree that the fencing would have to be moved to accommodate certain phases
of construction. The applicant may not move the fence without authorization from the
Project Arborist or City Arborist.
Construction Restrictions. During construction, the following restrictions shall be
implemented:
a) Runoff or spillage of damaging materials to the area below any tree canopy shall not
be allowed.
b) Storing materials, stockpiling soils, or parking/driving vehicles within the TPZ is not
allowed.
c) Cutting, breaking, skinning, or bruising roots, branches, or trunks of protected trees
is prohibited without first obtaining authorization from the City Arborist.
d) Fires shall not be allowed under and adjacent to trees.
e) Discharging exhaust into foliage shall be prohibited.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 7
fl Securing cables, chains, or ropes to trees or shrubs is prohibited.
g) Trenching, digging, or excavating within the dripline of the TPZ of trees is prohibited
without first obtaining authorization from the City Arborist.
h) Applying soils sterilants under pavement near existing trees is prohibited.
i) Machine trenching is prohibited within the driplines of trees, only excavation by hand
or compressed air is allowed.
Avoiding injury to roots. When a ditching machine, which is being used outside of the
dripline of trees, encounters roots smaller than 2 inches, the wall of the trench adjacent
to the street shall be hand trimmed, making clear, clean cuts through the roots. All
damaged, torn, and cut roots shall be given a clean cut to remove ragged edges, which
promote decay. Trenches shall be filled within 24 hours, but, where, this is not possible,
the side of the trench adjacent to the trees shall be shaded with four layers of
dampened, untreated burlap, wetted as frequently as necessary to keep the burlap wet.
Roots 2 inches or larger, when encountered, shall be reported immediately to the Project
Arborist, who will decide whether the applicant may cut the roots as mentioned above or
shall excavate by hand or with compressed air under the root. The root is to be protected
with dampened burlap. In addition, the top 2 feet of the foundation closest to trees shall
be air spaded or hand dug under supervision of a licensed arborist to locate and
evaluate any significant roots prior to mechanical excavation. The licensed arborist shall
be required to submit a report to the City regarding the findings of the excavation and
recommend any additional actions needed to protect the roots to preserve the health
and structure of both the redwood and oak trees.
Routing pipes. To avoid conflict with routes, pipes shall be routed outside of an area, ten
times the diameter of a protected tree. In addition, where it is not possible to reroute
pipes or trenches, the applicant shall bore beneath the dripline of the tree. The boring
shall take place not less than 3 feet below the surface of the soil in order to avoid
encountering feeder roots.
Reporting. The City Arborist, or his designee, shall be present when any digging occurs
in the vicinity of the narrowest portion of the proposed shared driveway in the vicinity of
the root ball of the adjacent protected tree to ensure that all appropriate measures are
taken to protect the tree roots. If a protected tree is damaged, the applicant shall follow
any remedial actions deemed necessary by the City Arborist, such as planting additional
trees, consistent with Chapter 11.06.090.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 8
Cultural Resources
38. MM CUL-1: Compatible Cladding for Historic House: New construction on the relocated
historic house shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment consistent with the Secretary of Interior's standards for
rehabilitation. The choice of materials shall be submitted to the City for approval as part
of the design review process.
Geology and Soils
39. MM GEO-1: Implementation of Geotechnical Recommendations:
contractors shall implement the measures outlined and
Geotechnical Investigation Report Chapters 5 through 10 for the
at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Applicant and their
recommended in the
proposed construction
40. MM HAZ-1: Preparation of a Site-specific Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
Plan: The applicant shall prepare a site-specific Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan that will identify spill prevention and response measures
and Best Management Practices (BMPs). The plan will emphasize site specific physical
conditions to improve hazard prevention (e.g., identification of flow paths to nearest
drains) and reduce effects of accidental spills if they occur. The Applicant shall designate
a representative to ensure that all hazardous materials and safety plans are followed
throughout the construction period. BMPs identified in SPCC Plan shall be implemented
during project construction to minimize the risk of an accidental release and to provide
the necessary information for emergency response. A copy of the project SPCC shall be
submitted to the City for approval at least 30 days prior to construction. All construction
personnel shall be required to attend SPCC training prior to conducting any work on the
project site.
41. MM HAZ-2: Soils Test: Prior to construction, the applicant shall evaluate shallow soils at
the structure locations for the possible presence of lead and pesticides. If lead or
pesticides are found within the tested soils, the applicant shall dispose of the soils,
consistent with federal, state and local laws regarding disposal of hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
42. MM HAZ-3: Project-specific Emergency Access Plan: The Applicant shall develop and
implement a Project specific Emergency Access Plan. The applicant shall submit the
plan to the City and all emergency services within the city, including the fire department
and police department, at least 30 days prior to construction. The Emergency Access
Plan shall require provisions for the:
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 9
a) Implementation of standard safety practices, including installation of appropriate
barriers between work zones and transportation facilities, placement of appropriate
signage, and use of traffic control devices.
b) Use of flaggers and/or signage to guide vehicles through or around construction
zones using proper techniques for construction activities, including staging yard
entrance and exit.
c) Traffic detours for any road or lane closures with appropriate signage marking the
detours.
d) Timing of worker commutes and material deliveries to avoid peak commuting hours.
e) Timing of lane and road closures.
fl Plans for construction worker parking and transportation to work sites.
g) Methods for keeping roadways clean.
h) Storage of all equipment and materials in designated work areas in a manner that
minimizes traffic obstructions and maximizes traffic sign visibility.
i) Limiting vehicles to safe speed levels according to posted speed limits, road
conditions, and weather conditions.
j) Coordination with public transit providers.
k) Repair of asphalt and other road damage (e.g., curb and gutter damage, rutting in
unpaved roads) caused by construction vehicles.
I) Detours for cyclists and pedestrians when bike lanes or sidewalks must be closed.
The Emergency Access Plan must at a minimum comply with the requirements of the
City and must be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencing construction
activities.
Hydrology and Water Quality
43. MM HYDRO-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Best Management Practices: The
applicant will implement the following best management practices during construction of
the proposed project:
a) Preserve existing vegetation where feasible.
b) Limit disturbance to the work site.
c) Install silt fences around the perimeter of the project site.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 10
Noise
44. MM NOISE-1: Prepare a Relocation Plan and Obtain Approval from the City for Historic
House Relocation Outside of Permitted Construction Hours: The Applicant shall prepare
a Relocation Plan and obtain approval from the City under Municipal Code Section
18.07.110 for historic house relocation. The Relocation Plan shall include:
1. Exact procedure for cutting and dismantling the historic house, and loading on
trucks.
2. Specific routes for movement of the historic house from its existing location to 524
Oak Grove Avenue.
3. Exact procedure for setting the house in its new location.
4. Estimated duration for the various activities involved in the cutting, dismantling,
loading, and setting of the House.
5. Coordination procedures with utilities, Caltrain, and appropriate City Departments.
6. Advance Notice to residents at each project site and along the route regarding the
start and duration of power interruption.
7. Measures to reduce impacts of power outage on residents such as:
a) Power interruption phasing to reduce amount of time houses are affected.
b) Offering affected parties dry ice for freezers and refrigerators.
c) Offering generators for life support equipment.
d) Security lighting.
Approval from the City for relocating the historic house outside of permitted construction
hours would be contingent on abiding by all the best management practices required
under Condition of Approval 19, and the measures included in the Noise Management
Plan for the project.
45. MM NOISE-2: Compliance with Title 24: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified
acoustical consultant shall review the final building plans to calculate expected interior
noise levels. The building permit shall not be issued until the qualified acoustical
consultant has reviewed the acoustical test report of all sound rated windows and doors
and confirmed that the proposed building treatments will adequately reduce interior
noise levels to 45 dBA or below.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 11
46. MM NOISE-3: Noise Management Plan: The applicant shall prepare a noise
management plan that includes:
a. Identified routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment
developed in conjunction with the Burlingame Community Development Department
so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as
much as possible.
b. A designated "Community Liaison" for construction activities. The Community Liaison
would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction
noise and vibration. The Community Liaison would determine the cause of the noise
or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the
problem.
c. Sending advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site
regarding the construction schedule and including the phone number for the
disturbance coordinator. A notice with the name and phone number of the
Community Liaison shall be posted at the project site.
In the event that construction noise complaints are not resolved by scheduling, the
applicant shall install temporary sound absorption barriers, such as noise control
blankets, in addition to the standard noise barriers around the construction site required
under Condition of Approval 19, best management practices. These additional barriers
would be specifically designed for exterior use and would reduce the noise level beyond
the fence line by at least 3 dBA.
If noise complaints continue, the applicant shall install a temporary sound absorption
barrier that would reduce the noise level beyond the fence line an additional 2 dBA, for a
total noise reduction of 5 dBA beyond the fence line.
Transportation and Traffic
47. MM TRAFFIC-1: Construction Management Plan: The project applicant and its
construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction management plan for review and
approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan must include at least the following items
and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic and parking
congestion during construction:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck
trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure
procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes;
b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would
minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and
safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets
in the project area;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance.
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
Effective October 4, 2018
Page 12
c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel
regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur;
d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage
and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the
project applicant.;
e. 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; 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.
48. MM TRAFFIC-2: Driveway Safety Enhancements: The project applicant and its
construction contractor(s) shall implement the following safety enhancements:
a. Flashing light sensors shall be placed within the project parking garage and rear
surface parking areas to alert motorists outbound from the project parking areas that
vehicles are inbound from Douglas Avenue (these could be video or loop detected);
b. Signs shall be placed at the proposed project's Douglas Avenue entrances that
indicate: "Caution—Watch For Outbound Vehicles"; and
c. The project design shall be modified to allow for 12-foot access on the eastern-most
driveway, except as necessary to avoid impact to the two significant trees. Toward
the rear of the lot, that would require either loss of landscaping, further setback for
the building (at least on the first floor), and/or loss of a parking space.
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
� " COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
���} ;I — , BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1128-1132 DOUGLAS AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Amendment to a previously approved Design
Review project and Side Setback Variance for a new five-story,
21-unit multi-family residential building with below-grade
parking at 1128-1132 DOUGLAS AVENUE zoned R-4. APNs
019-132-180 & 029-132-190
Mailed: September 14, 2018
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlin ame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other sideJ
1128-1132 Douglas Avenue
APNs 029.132.180 & .190
500' radius
0�� n
.' is;f «.
,~.'t j ^� ` �' +.; `E a
� �+M1 .,�.
,� ;i} y i� 4 � $M^� ,.. .
3 \ 6.j' "'._
'F�ic'. [ € _.�Ss M1 c . .�
-�, y�� q„ � v -
�. � �4 a .�q 9 � D�a
�a � Q a , .
W � "� �,a Q a�3ac�
a `�6
' . , a��
, a ry Q� Q� �
Q�' �� q p
[� O cj
r� �
a � � �, °a ���
a� �4c �
D�Jf� i
S4� 4 `'�� �`�P
�� b��
V`�a W�' f! `� f
D � %��
�a� d �
� �
� D a� P� i
Jd �d� O� ( ��O
D G
a� C^,q ,U �O �'�- ,J � b�u
Q Q p � fl t-, i>
�p 6y Q Q � � �
d0 C
�cl „ �
� ��
�Q QQ£! �� d r�
� ��� �� d
�� o � D g e�
fl. ��p � c� a �p ''�d
��4 p� p� � dca��P �
� 90FJ fl � �,� �
� 44��3 b
�'� � � ��'"d �� �,n� � �
Uw �
�j n e� c� �
QQai7 ���ao
44pq � �e��' �,
+Ul O C�7+ O t ;
�4ilfl � �G� p � � ���a�
° ,_ �`C
���
b_ �d
�
,.�,� .
� �
..:i ,.
�:�� \
� ��� ��
� ��� ��9
51
�� ^t.4 . ,��� w flQpO
r7� �p ij
D �Q
'�b/.J �u�'' `��E
�7�� a� ��';
� �,��
qq�A
��F
r. ���..�
O �J
d �fj�,���,i�. fi� � �Qq
��� q� ��i.; �.. ' G�
`� �v 64j
� ,. �� , 43 c�,
� ,�'�'�J,zi i7t� � n 1;_i ?�