Assisted living facility's plans scaling back in Burlingame - Residents want developer to reduce center's size even more (by Mark Abramson /
Daily News Staff Writer)
Residents' and the planning commission's objections to a four-story assisted living care center in Burlingame have sparked the developer and architect to scale the project back, but some say the new design does not go far enough.
New plans for the proposed center at 755 California Drive reduced it to a 34-feet-6-inch-tall, three-story building with 46 units for elderly residents with 20 underground parking spots. The facility was 51 feet 6 inches tall and four stories before the architect, Dale Meyer of Dale Meyer Associates in Burlingame, changed the design.
"When we were at the last planning commission meeting (in December), the planning commissioners and the neighbors seemed to be telling us that the building is too large, and we scaled it back," Meyer said Wednesday.
The new height eliminates the need for the building to have a conditional-use permit for its size, but it would still need a permit or a general plan amendment to be used as an assisted living center.
Planning commissioners will review the revamped design Monday before the environmental work on the project can start. The facility would be a joint project by the Sacramento-based Cimino Care and the Yerby Co. of San Francisco.
Although no vote will be taken by the commission, commissioners' and the public's input could be incorporated into any additional changes to the building before the environmental work gets under way, Meyer said.
Other changes to the building, which would be built after the existing building on the site is torn down, includes the elimination of a covered driveway area for drop-offs and pickups.
The city will review the final design and could ask for more revisions to the project, which needs several exemptions from Burlingame's existing planning requirements, Burlingame Planner Ruben Hurin said.
The prospect of a four-story assisted living center alarmed residents and led them to show up en masse to planning commission meetings on the project. More than two dozen residents weighed in on the building at the planning commission's last meeting on it in December.
Residents argue that an assisted living facility is not appropriate in an area that has a variety of shops and services, like laundry. Another concern of residents is that the city is not doing any planning for the area, like it is doing with the downtown specific plan and a specific plan for the north side of town that maps out what future development in those areas should be allowed.
About 120 households have indicated they oppose the facility, and residents have even set up an e-mail address -
[email protected] (SEE CORRECTION BELOW) - for the cause, Palm Drive resident Brian McGinn said. He lives within hundreds of feet from the property.
"The city has not planned for this; they are just trying to jam it in there. I think if the city did the planning, we could do something we are all proud of," McGinn said. McGinn said that unlike some of his other neighbors, he does not object to having an assisted living care center on the property, but he thinks 46 units on three floors is too much, and he would prefer a two-story building.
Commissioners indicated they agreed with residents that the building was too massive in a neighborhood that has several one- and two-story buildings.
"I thought it was just too large and too ambitious, so I'm hoping it has been toned down," Planning Commissioner Tim Auran said Wednesday. Auran said he has no qualms with an assisted living facility where a women's fitness center used to operate. But he would like to see it brought closer to California Drive and farther away from people's homes. "We said bring it up forward (toward California Drive) and take some pressure off the neighbors in the back ... and then bring the height down," Auran said.
Despite residents' concerns, Meyer and the developers said it is centrally located, is near the Caltrain station, and it makes sense to build a care facility on the site. "There is a difference of opinion between the neighborhood and us as to the appropriateness of the use on this site," Meyer said.
- Written by Fiona
The article got our e-mail address wrong, the address is "[email protected]".
Posted by: Brian Mcginn | April 28, 2008 at 02:42 AM