HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.09.23
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, September 23, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sargent called the September 23, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell
III. MINUTES
The minutes of the September 9, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be reviewed at the
October 15, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
No one spoke from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items for discussion.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
1a. 2205 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES AND LORETTA
STEPHENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES MCFALL, MCFALL
ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
1b. 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP (KEN
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
2
RODRIGUES, KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JIM
HANNAY, RECTOR MOTORS CAR CO., PROPERTY OWNER) (17 NOTICED) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Chair Sargent called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:01 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 2346 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (AUDREY TSE, INSITE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; JOHN TAM AND LANA LEE, PROPERT Y OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA
STROHMEIER
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff
report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Audrey Tse and Lana Lee represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Believes the revisions look great. The changes work better with the overall design.
Thanked the applicant for continuing to review the project design and to continue to make
improvements.
Clarified that the wall on the left side deck wall is in the same plane as the left wall. (Tse – yes.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
The changes enhance the design.
Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
September 9, 2013, sheets A1.0 through A2.6.0; and date stamped March 12, 2013, survey;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
3
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Lot Coverage
Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
5. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 18, 2012, memo, the Chief Building Official's
February 25, 2013 and December 4, 2012, memos, the Parks Supervisor’s December 7, 2012
memo, the Fire Marshal's December 3, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 4,
2012 memo shall be met;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
10. 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;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
4
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. 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; and
15. 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.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m.
3. 748 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACK RESTRICTIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE
REAR 40% OF THE LOT (MAXWELL BEAUMONT, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GORLAT BAINS
PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
All Commissioners had visited the property owner. Commissioners Yie and Bandrapalli indicated that they
had spoken to the property owner. Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments.
Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Questions of staff:
Why is a special permit required for the garage? (Hurin – explained that the garage is placed within
the rear 40% of the lot.)
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Maxwell Beaumont represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Design is a big improvement from the initial submission.
With respect to the front and rear grid patterns; will they be consistent with the three over one
pattern? (Beaumont – yes.)
Why didn’t the porch make it into the design? (Beaumont – the front porch was existing non-
conforming and wasn’t useable to the property owners. Rather than try to increase the non-
conformity by extending the setback and requiring a change to the roofline. The owners requested
the current design without the porch so they could have more space inside the building.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
5
W ill all of the window sills match? There are a couple of different styles shown on the plans. Likes
the sills and aprons shown on the side elevations. (Beaumont – the sills will all match what is shown
on the side elevation.)
Requested clarification regarding the porch column design; will it have a base as shown on the front
elevation? (Beaumont – yes.)
Would be nice to have a porch, but the stoop into the house is a nice gesture.
Are the two second story windows on the front elevation the same size? (Beaumont – they are to be
of the same size.) On the plan it appears that the bedroom 3 window is larger than on bedroom 2.
Wouldn’t the gable on the left front be better matching the right?
The stone base should be of a horizontal design. Has an alternate design been considered?
Want to be certain that the construction plans show the windows will match the design of the side
windows. Wants to see the window design shown on the plans.
Need clarity of the details on the plans. Want to be certain that it is clear what is being approved so
there is no confusion while the project is being built.
Belly band is different on the rear elevation than on the left and right side.
On right elevation, there is a line that appears to go to the rear elevation; should be clarified.
Appears that there is more than four inches between the rails and the deck; need to clarify the
dimension.
On the front elevation, what are all of the vertical lines? Needs clarification.
There is a different datum line relative to the brick on the elevations.
Chimney on front elevation appears to be floating.
The massing is great, but another round of edits to the plan to fine tune the details is needed.
The trim around the windows needs to be consistent and details of the window trim needs to be
provided.
Need a specification sheet for the stone to be used.
With respect to the garage; show the divided lights, knee braces and other features to better tie the
structure to the main house.
Perhaps provide glass in the top panel of the garage door to create a cohesive design with the
house.
Second floor balcony; the post extends beyond the handrail; clarify this detail.
Specify the details of the exterior doors; they should match the window design. Will the rear sliders
be metal clad wood? Clarify these details.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Lack of clarity would leave it to the contractor to design; which could lead to a later FYI and a
potential delay.
Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the application to the October 15, 2013 meeting with direction to
the applicant, as stated in the Commission’s discussion.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The
Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
6
4. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 25-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (BEJHAN RAZI, CAMELLO INC., APPLICANT; CHATEAU
TROUSDALE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND TOBY LEVY, LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff
report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Toby Levy represented the applicant.
Made the changes in response to dealing with other Building Code comments; were not intended to
revise the project.
The plan checker needed the area of the herb garden to be ADA accessible.
Commission comments:
Appreciates the enumeration of the changes.
Understands the reasons for the changes.
Appreciates reinstalling the landscaping on the two sides.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
August 22, 2013, sheets A0.0, A0.3, A0.5, A0.7, A0.8, A0.9, L1.1 through L4.2, A1.0, A1.1, A2.1 and
A2.7, and date stamped September 16, 2013, sheets L5.1, L5.2, A2.2 through A2.6, A3.1, A3.2 and
A4.1;
2. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 102.93'' as
measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Trousdale Drive (42.58') for a
maximum height of 60'-4", 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;
3. 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 Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be
determined by Planning staff);
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
7
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that the backflow prevention device and post indicator valve (PIV) shall be located and screened by
landscaping so they will be hidden from both the street and project residents;
6. that the conditions of the Building Division’s February, 2013 and December 4, 2012 memos, the
Parks Division’s February 8, 2013 and December 7, 2012 memos, the Engineering Division’s
December 27, 2012 memo, the Fire Division’s December 3, 2012, memo, and the Stormwater
Division’s December 12, 2012, memo shall be met;
7. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall
be prohibited;
8. 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;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the Public Impact
fee in the amount of $98,586.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the
Planning Division;
10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the
North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $9,818.37, made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
11. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall
pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of
$9,818.37, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
12. that this project shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements in Municipal Code Chapter
25.63; the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the sale, rent or lease of
the affordable unit with Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley at least 120 days before the
final inspection;
13. that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on the
final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and
maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for
parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the three
guest parking stalls, and one service vehicle parking stall, 53 parking spaces shall be available on
site for owners, and none of the on-site parking shall be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does
not own a unit on the site;
14. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require
that the three guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by
condominium residents;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
8
15. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of
escrow on the sale of each unit;
16. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of
the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and
address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees
of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of
the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and
furniture;
17. 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;
18. that the security gate system across the right side entrance driveway 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;
19. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building envelope;
20. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
21. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
22. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height;
23. 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;
24. 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;
25. 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;
26. 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;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
9
27. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
28. that in lieu of meeting the requirement specific to fire apparatus access required by Section 902.2.1,
Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by Burlingame Municipal Code 17.04, the project applicant shall
extend the required Class I Standpipe outlets to garage stair landings in accordance with fire
department approved locations, and install Quick Response Sprinklers throughout the garage; (Land
Use, Fire Dept)
29. that the proposed project shall comply with construction standards and seismic design criteria
contained in the Building Code as adopted by the City; (Geology and Soils; Building Division)
30. that before construction of the proposed project, per the Building Code, the project applicant shall
obtain a site-specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as
expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for
foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The
recommendations made in the soils report for ground preparation and earthwork shall be
incorporated in the construction design. The soils evaluations shall be conducted by registered soil
professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. The
design for soil support of foundations shall conform to the analysis and implementation criteria
described in the Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33; (Geology and Soils, Building Division)
31. that a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions required by the City shall be completed as part of the
building permit process and shall contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork
specific to the project site that would become an integral part the construction design.
Recommendations shall be included in the excavation and construction plans for the proposed
project; (Geology and Soils, Building Division)
32. that although the proposed project would be exempt from preparing and implementing a project-
specific SWPPP, because the City of Burlingame is a member of the STOPPP, the proposed project
shall obtain coverage under STOPPP’s Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit and comply with
performance standards set forth by STOPPP’s Stormwater Management Plan. The City Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.14; Ordinance
1503 Section 1; June 20, 1994) would also be applied to the proposed project. In addition, the
project applicants shall perform the following actions as uniformly required conditions of project
approval, as identified by the City’s NPDES Coordinator upon submittal of project applications to the
City:
a. Implement appropriate stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pesticide
usage in accordance with the City’s New Development/Redevelopment Landscaping Fact
Sheet.
b. Incorporate applicable structural source control measures to minimize stormwater pollutants
in accordance with the City’s Model List of Structural Source Control Measures.
c. Identify the responsible party who would be responsible for the operation and maintenance
of the permanent post-construction stormwater treatment measure(s).
Prior to issuance of a final building permit, submit a completed, notarized Stormwater Treatment
Measure Maintenance Agreement; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
10
33. that the proposed project shall comply with City grading requirements specified in Section 18.20 of
the Municipal Code; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department)
34. that the proposed project shall comply with the City’s Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 18.17.001; Ordinance 1476 Section 1; January 4, 1993), thereby reducing
the amount of project site runoff polluted by landscape chemicals; (Hydrology and Water Quality;
City Arborist)
35. that the project applicant shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during
project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain
at least two feet of freeboard.
c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
at construction sites.
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets; (Air Quality; Building Division)
36. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic
management plan that defines how traffic operations would be managed and maintained during
each phase of construction. The plan should be developed with the direct participation of the City of
Burlingame. To the maximum practical extent, the plan should:
a. Detail how access will be maintained to individual properties where construction activities
may interfere with ingress and egress. Any driveway closures shall take place during non-
business hours.
b. Specify predetermined haul routes from staging areas to construction sites and to disposal
areas of agreement with the City prior to construction. The routes shall follow streets and
highways that provide the safest route and have the least impact on traffic.
c. During construction, require the contractor to provide information to the public using signs,
press releases, and other media tools of traffic closures, detours or temporary displacement
of left-turn lanes.
d. Identify a single phone number that property owners and businesses can call for
construction scheduling, phasing, and duration information, as well as for complaints.
e. Identify construction activities that must take place during off-peak traffic hours or result in
temporary road closures due to concerns regarding traffic safety or traffic congestion. Any
road closures will be done at night under ordinary circumstances.
If unforeseen circumstances require road closing during the day, the City of Burlingame should be
consulted; (Traffic; Public Works Department)
37. that in order to improve the ability of vehicles to turn from the lower level ramp to the driveway, the
project has been revised so that the west driveway is 12 feet wide; (Traffic, Public Works and
Planning Departments)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
11
38. that the proposed project driveways shall be secured with an automatic gate system that would allow
delivery vehicles to enter and exit the driveways with an opener. The entrance gate shall also
provide an intercom system that would allow delivery vehicles to call from the entrance.
Furthermore, rolling dumpsters shall be acquired by the project applicant, which can be maneuvered
outside of the parking garage to the curb, to facilitate garbage pickup from Trousdale Avenue;
(Traffic; Public Works Department)
39. that the project applicant shall include in the proposed project a bicycle parking area that is 12 feet
by 21 feet, in the lower level of the parking garage, as indicated in the site plan which is sufficient
space for approximately 25 bicycles; (Traffic; Public Works and Planning Departments)
40. that the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1
through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is
proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the
nesting period, a survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no
earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading,
or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey. The area
surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas
within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the
biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats
within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least
two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the
nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; (Biological Resources; City
Arborist)
41. that the trees proposed to be removed shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist whose report shall
be reviewed by the City arborist to determine whether they are “protected trees” per Section
11.06.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and whether a tree removal permit is appropriate. If
any trees proposed to be removed are protected trees, the City Arborist shall make a determination
regarding the removal and replacement of these trees. As the proposed landscaping plan includes
the planting of 16 new trees, the City Arborist may determine that the proposed landscaping plan is
sufficient and no other replacement trees are required.
a. The Municipal Code includes the following requirements regarding replacement trees.
b. Replacement shall be three 15-gallon size, one 24-inch box size, or one 36-inch box size
landscape tree(s) for each tree removed; and
c. Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 24-inch box size, or two 36-
inch box size landscape trees for each tree removed; and
d. Replacement of a tree may be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on
the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection
Ordinance; and
e. Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and shall be
based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed; and
f. If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be
made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree-planting fund to be drawn
upon for public tree planting; (Biological Resources; City Arborist)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
12
42. that the project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and protecting the existing on-site
trees to be retained. The following specific actions shall be followed to maintain the health of the
remaining trees:
a. Any pruning shall be done according to the direction of a certified arborist and all pruning
shall comply with International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter Standards or other
comparable standards deemed acceptable to the City Arborist.
b. Any abandoned utility lines (water, electrical, etc.) in the root zones (radius of ten times the
trunk diameter) shall be cut and left in the ground to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
c. Any surfacing material inside the root zone shall be pervious and installed on top of the
existing grade. As an example, pervious pavers are acceptable provided the base material is
also sufficiently pervious. Base rock containing granite fines is not sufficiently pervious.
d. Temporary construction fencing shall be erected to protect the retained trees of a size to be
established by the City Arborist. The fencing shall be placed at the perimeter of the root zone
unless the pavement is supervised by a certified arborist. The fencing shall be in place prior
to the arrival of construction materials or equipment.
e. The landscape irrigation shall be designed to prevent trenching inside the root zones of
retained trees.
f. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided during construction. Approximately 10 gallons of
water for each inch of trunk diameter should be applied at or near the perimeter of the root
zone every two weeks during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall
on average).
g. Retained trees shall be thoroughly mulched with a 3-inch layer of bark chips with the
exception of a 6- to 12-inch area around the base of the root collar, which must be left bare
and dry; (Biological Resources, City Arborist)
43. that as required by BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, the proposed project shall implement
preventative measures during demolition and removal of all asbestos containing materials (ACMs) to
prevent emissions of asbestos into the air. The proposed project shall also remove and dispose of
all asbestos and PCB-containing materials according to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
regulations and comply with the Cal/OSHA guidelines for worker safety during removal; (Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, Building Division)
44. that the project applicant shall abide by its declared building height as specified in the FAA
determination for the proposed project. The project applicant shall also ensure that construction
equipment for the proposed project (e.g. cranes) shall not exceed the maximum height restriction
specified in the San Francisco Airport Land Use Plan for the project site; (Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; Planning Department)
45. that if markings or lighting are to be included in the proposed project, the project applicant shall
ensure that they are installed and maintained according to FAA guidelines; (Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; Planning Department)
46. that the applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be
implemented by the project contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control
devices (e.g. mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g.
surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), all of which would not require major
equipment redesign.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
13
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
• Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly
noisy areas of the site or around the entire site;
• Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit
transmission of noise to sensitive receptors;
• Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and
• Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used
on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact
equipment, shall be used whenever feasible.
d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction
with the Burlingame Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including
residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.
f. The project applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities.
The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding
construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or
vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.
g. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50
feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site; (Noise; Planning, Public
Works)
47. that the project applicant shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to
be implemented by the project contractor. The project applicant shall require that loaded trucks and
other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing
residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; (Noise, Building
Division)
48. that the project applicant shall include in the final project design noise insulation features that would
effectively maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less; (Noise; Planning and Building)
49. that the existing sanitary sewer on site shall be examined by the City after project construction to
evaluate the pipe’s condition. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe is substandard or if the
pipe has been damaged by project construction, the pipe shall be replaced or repaired by the project
applicant to the City Engineer’s satisfaction; (Utilities and Service Systems; Public Works
Department)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
14
50. that if the project applicant does not provide a 12-foot wide driveway, the project applicant shall be
required to purchase maintenance equipment for the City that can access the on-site sewer
easement through the proposed 9.5-foot-wide driveway; (Utilities and Sewer Systems; Public Works
Department)
51. that per the City’s Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement, the project applicant
shall submit a waste reduction plan that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of the construction
and demolition waste can be recycled; (Utilities and Service Systems; Building Division)
52. that the project applicant shall design and locate all exterior lighting so that the cone of light and/or
glare from the lighting elements is kept entirely on the project site on or below the top of any fence,
hedge, or wall at the site’s property line, as required by the Burlingame Municipal Code Section
18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas). All wall mounted
up-lighting shall be excluded from the proposed project. All project lighting shall comply with
requirements of the California Energy Commission and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America for illumination levels; and (Aesthetics; Planning and Building)
53. that the following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to
address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources:
a. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel
shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried
cultural and paleontological resources, including training to recognize such possible buried
cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are
encountered.
b. Retain Project Archaeologist. Since the project area contains a portion of one recorded
Native American archeological resource, and other previously unknown prehistoric or historic
cultural deposits may be encountered elsewhere in the project site during excavations, the
City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant meeting federal criteria
under 36 CFR 61, and who has expertise in California prehistory and urban historical
archaeology.
c. If potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction,
all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended and alteration of the materials and their
context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural
resources consultant retained by the project applicant. The immediate vicinity wherein work
shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an
appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant.
Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources
consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance,
and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the
further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical
resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered.
d. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if
avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources
consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site
that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of
sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important regional
research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural
resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
15
submitted to the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction
in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional
standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed.
e. The project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting
significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of
the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert
or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing
shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can
include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits.
f. If human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the
discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains
until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions require that the County Coroner shall be
notified immediately. If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner
shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely
descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given
the chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to
identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours,
remains may be re-interred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location
not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not
accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. (Cultural
Resources; Planning)
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m.
5. 1512 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AUTOMOBILE SALES IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (ENRIQUE RAMIREZ, CONTI AUTO
SALES, APPLICANT; DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER; WILLIAM SPENCER
CO., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had spoken to an
employee of the adjacent tenant (Coca-Cola). Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with
attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Questions of staff:
No drive aisle required in the building? (Hurin – No, the plans have been reviewed by the Fire
Department and were approved.)
Noted that the existing driveway curb-cut is more on the adjacent property, it is not a full vehicle
width. Seems odd that the driveway is partially on the adjacent property. (Hurin – it is not
uncommon for driveways in the Rollins Road area to be shared between properties.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
16
Could the applicant be asked to widen the approach? (Hurin – may ask the applicant which
driveway will be used most. Meeker – there is no nexus to require the widening of the driveway
given the nature of the application.)
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Dale Meyer, Franco Gonzalez and Nathan Demosthenes represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Noted that parking spaces 103 through 106 are shown as dedicated spaces for this tenant, is this
correct? (Meyer – yes.)
Is there a plan for where employees will park? Will they park in the large lot that surrounds the
property? (Gonzalez – possibly, but not planning on more employees at this time.)
Will not likely be a parking impact, but need to ensure that the parking for the tenant is available.
An employee of Coca-Cola indicated that there may only be two parking spots left and also that the
large parking area is gated off.
There are a lot of spaces in theory, but the adjacent tenant’s employee indicated that the spaces are
full. (Gonzalez – employees of Coca Cola park where the trucks are that they use during the day.)
Will likely need to work with the property owners to ensure that the parking spaces shown as
dedicated to this use will be available.
Noted that the prior tenant was involved in car sales and had the spaces available. Suspects that
the spaces are being filled up now because the tenant space is empty.
The parking area that accesses David Road was virtually empty when observed today.
Noted that the guest parking spaces are labeled as Coca-Cola parking only. Seeks clarification
regarding the parking that will be available to the tenant. Doesn’t want a situation where the parking
spaces are assigned to specific tenants. Requested a letter from the property owner ensuring that
the parking spaces shown on the plan are available to this tenant. (Meyer – have been told that the
spaces are available to this tenant. Were also told that parking is available at the rear of the
property. Not certain why the Coca Cola sign is on the spaces. (Demosthenes – can obtain written
assurance that the spaces will be available to this tenant.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Wants to avoid an inadequate parking situation, but confirmation of that parking spaces 103-106 are
available to the tenant space may come to the Commission as an FYI.
Stipulate that the employees park in the rear. May a parking plan be required? (Kane – can’t
impose conditions upon an existing lease, and cannot impose conditions upon the landlord’s
behavior; may only impose conditions that are within the control of the applicant. The permit may be
conditioned upon providing adequate parking. Meeker – noted that the applicant indicated that
written confirmation is available.)
The use will not create a huge impact.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date
stamped September 11, 2013, sheets A1 and A2;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
17
2. that the applicant shall provide a parking plan that addresses employee and visitor parking as an
FYI to the Planning Commission;
3. that vehicles for sale may not be displayed outdoors or in any required on-site parking spaces,
driveways, drive aisles or fire lanes;
4. that no vehicles shall be loaded or off-loaded from trucks, trailers or vehicle carriers on Rollins Road,
David Road or any other public right-of-way; vehicles shall be loaded and off-loaded on-site; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:59 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion
regarding Agenda Item 6 (1533 Meadow Lane) as she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the
City Council Chambers.
6. 1533 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING (SETH BROOKSHIRE, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; SHARON O’BYRNE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the neighbor at 1532
Westmoor Road. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 23,
2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Seth Brookshire represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Need to do something to bring down the mass a bit more.
On the south elevation, other than the vine trellises, needs a bit more
Thinks the massing is generally handled nicely.
Large windows flanking the French doors on the rear elevation make the façade seem more
massive. Other large windows looking into the rear add to the massive appearance and could
impact the neighbor’s privacy.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
18
Looks like a house on top of a house. Some elements make the home seem like it has three
stories. Was this massing selected because you didn’t want to get into the declining height
envelope issue? (Brookshire – No. Have created a non-occupiable balconette on the second floor
to tie it in to the existing features on the first floor. Is purely an aesthetic approach to the design.
The second floor is stepped back so it will not appear quite as dramatic.)
Could more of the massing be moved over to the right? (Brookshire – there are two other examples
of similar additions on the cul-de-sac. Those designs do not complement the original architecture of
the home. The height of the two adjacent buildings is quite similar. As the building terraces back,
the impression of height is brought down.)
Why is a window on the rear being blocked by the trellis? (Brookshire – owner wishes to retain the
existing roses at that window that exist on the trellis.)
Other additions in the neighborhood have a bit more articulation.
Feels the chimney in the living room is floating and sticks out like sore thumb.
May be able to address the chimney and other massing issues by shifting the design to the right side
of the existing home.
There are exceptions to the design guidelines that could be applied to marry the chimney to the
addition better.
Doesn’t feel the addition fits with the neighborhood. Doesn’t feel that the design fits in with the
design of the neighborhood. Have huge concerns about the design. Feels the design would
change the neighborhood.
Feels the flaw in the design approach is the echoing of the design of the original house that results
in a house stacked on a house design.
Was a first floor addition explored? (Brookshire – yes. The split-level design makes it challenging
to create a useable floor plan.)
Would prefer a variance request from the declining height envelope to allow the addition to be
shifted to the right. Would like to see what happens when the design is shifted to the right.
There are also neighbors on the side that need to be treated sensitively by reducing massing of the
design.
Feels that with some work that the design could be refined. Has developed a design that presents a
three-story design in a neighborhood where three-stories are not present.
Public comments:
Janine Poimiroo, 1532 Westmoor Road and Shannon Delucci, 1545 Meadow Lane:
Agrees with all comments made by the Commissioners.
Will look out on the design from her kitchen.
Her privacy will be affected in her rear yard.
The design is not consistent with the neighborhood.
Would likely be the tallest house in the neighborhood.
Offered the opportunity to visit her property to view potential impacts.
If the project is approved at the proposed height; is it possible to require trees to be planted to shield
the neighborhood from the design? There is no place in her yard to plant trees to provide a shield.
Echoed prior speaker’s concern.
Protect the quaintness of the street.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Feels a referral to a design review consultant could be helpful.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
19
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to refer the project to a design review consultant.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Bandrapalli recused). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:39 p.m.
Commissioner Bandrapalli returned to the dais.
7. 1317 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NATALIE HYLAND, HYLAND DESIGN
GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JENNIFER PANOS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
Noted that the landscape and irrigation plans were omitted from the project plans.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Natalie Hyland and Jennifer Panos represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Concern regarding the scale of some of the elements.
Stucco belly bands are quite difficult; wants to see a sample of what is proposed. Synthetic stone
could be used.
There is little hierarchy to the arrangement of windows and doors on the front elevation.
The columns could perhaps be brought down in scale.
The porch should be made more substantial and friendlier to the neighborhood.
The left hand side is just one long wall. Important to look at design touches to help break up that
wall. Consider articulation, perhaps with a dormer element.
The pediment element across the first floor French doors on the rear appears out of scale; the plinth
over the beam elements is too thin.
Details and scale need a bit more charm.
The belly band is in the same plane as the wall; should be more dimensional.
Feels that the front elevation is tortured. The door is not emphasized. The entry doesn’t have
enough presence and is overpowered by the elements on both sides.
Prefers the rear elevation to the front elevation.
Front elevation needs to be a bit more cohesive.
Perhaps only have an arched window at the entry and flatten the arches at the top of the other
windows.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
20
Visual language and roof elements need to be simplified.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
8. 832 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE AND REAR
SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (CONSIDERED TWO-
STORY AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE) AND A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (DONALD YU, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; MARC MANISCALCO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of Staff:
Would a carport be acceptable? Could it be in the setback? (Hurin – the applicant could build a
carport, but it must have a solid covering. If it is detached, it could be in the rear 30% of the lot
without required setbacks. However, there is a 4-foot minimum distance requirement from the home
for a detached garage that cannot be met in this instance.)
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Donald Yu and Marc Maniscalco represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Tough lot, there are grounds for the variances.
Substandard Lot due to area and width.
Adding covered parking where none is available.
Simple application.
In the future he may wish to consider other development options.
Why not add more to the garage as a second story. Did the applicant look at adding a second story
at the front of the lot (Edgehill side). (Maniscalco – would add significantly to the cost. Yu – hasn’t
been considered.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
21
Why isn’t the garage attached to the house? How will the area be maintained? (Maniscalco – there
is a small gap between structures. Yu – the garage will still need to be fire rated.)
Has a problem with the view from California Drive. Is there anything that can be done to the
California Drive wall to make it appear better? (Yu – currently no plans to alter this area.
Maniscalco – can continue the stone from the front of the house at this location.)
Seems like it would be pretty easy to just ask for a second story rather than ask for so many
variances. (Maniscalco – better for the family to keep everything on one floor. Has an elderly
mother. Wants to minimize the amount of stairs.)
If the garage is pulled forward, would eliminate the view from California Drive and provide a useable
rear-yard. How do you get to the rear yard? (Maniscalco – is an alley that provides access to the
rear. The area will be redone as some form of patio, but not that desirable due to the presence of
the railroad and California Drive.)
Having a rear yard could provide a place for more greenery to shield the view from California Drive.
Doesn’t believe the rear yard will be used in this instance.
Is there a place to install an interior stair to the rear yard? Could access be through the garage to
the rear yard?
Why is there no landscape plan provided with the plans? (Hurin – since there are no changes to be
made to the landscaping, and due to the minor nature of the addition, a landscape plan is not
required.)
Is there a hardscape limitation? (Hurin – no.)
Does the project meet the minimum requirement for trees? (Hurin – yes.)
Could move the garage forward to provide yard space without impacting the window for the
bathroom.
Would provide the opportunity to provide a closet and access to the rear yard.
Could extend a hallway to the rear yard that would make it more usable. Would be a means of
encouraging the future use of the area. (Yu – would the Commission be willing to accept an
additional variance? Hurin – would be subject to setback requirements if a stairway is above 30-
inches high.)
Would consider an additional variance as it would provide a means of access to the rear yard and
enhance the livability of the property.
Why not have the garage share the wall with the house? (Yu – cheaper to build a new wall. Feels it
could be a water issue.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Accepts the variances necessary for the garage. Sees other options to adding a bedroom to the
house. Likes the idea of providing a path to the rear yard. This is an example of taking the easiest
path for the bedroom addition, but not the best solution for the addition. The justification for the
variances for the addition are not adequately justified.
Could be adding a car by adding the bedroom.
Is compelled by the argument regarding the CR zoning on the property requiring no rear setback.
This is the sole remaining single-family home in the area and is required to comply with the R-1
setbacks.
Noted that the other side of Edgehill includes only single-family residences.
The California Drive frontage is purely commercial.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
22
If the garage were pulled forward, then the potential may exist to place commercial development on
the California Drive frontage.
Noted that the excavation cost would be so expensive that the presence of the garage would not be
a deterrent.
Could the lower level have been excavated to allow more space to be built there?
Could a garage have been built with frontage on California Drive? (Hurin – Public Works would not
allow a new curb-cut on California Drive.
Garage should be pulled forward. There should also be a connection from the interior of the house
to the rear yard.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1-0-0 (Commissioner Davis
dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
9:25 p.m.
9. 847 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (THORNTON WEILER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
OUSSAMA MANNAA, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project
description. There were no questions of staff.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Thornton Weiler and Shirley Azzghayer represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
The massing has been handled nicely.
Feels it is the correct design solution; there is an argument for exceeding the height restriction. Glad
the designer didn’t flatten the ridge of the roof in order to stay within the height limit.
Will there be a door to the tool shed area shown on the elevation? (Weiler – there will be a door. It
is currently covered with lattice.)
Will there be window trim below the windows as shown on the front? (Weiler – are planning to
remove the historic trim. Going in the direction of a decidedly flat trim that is more consistent with
Craftsman architecture. The shingles will tie closely to the bottom of the window sill.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
23
The apron below the windows would hide the staple line for the shingles. Would be a good detail to
add.
Is the ceiling flat on the second floor? (Weiler – there will be a flat spot as there is a need for
insulation. The ceiling heights will vault up to 9 or 10 feet.)
Suggested exploring the lower pitch roof. Can the vaulted ceiling be achieved without the additional
roof height? Is really only the tip of the roof that exceeds the height.
Could ask for story poles to be installed to give the neighbors a sense of the height proposed.
The additional height is not likely to obstruct anyone’s property. (Hurin – noted that the finished floor
elevation is around 6 feet above the existing curb level. Weiler – the first floor already has 9 foot
ceilings.)
Was the lower pitch explored? Really likes the gables on the front. If a lower roof were proposed,
then perhaps an eyebrow-type dormer could be done without requiring the additional height.
Doesn’t like the loss of the existing gables. Handsome design, can certainly accept it, though.
(Weiler – considered adding behind the gables, but the street-facing windows would be sacrificed.
Small rectangular windows would result.)
What would happen with a lower pitch? (Weiler – would result in a more wedding-cake look with
walls stacked upon walls.)
Will the Wisteria stay on the pergola? (Weiler – yes.)
Likes the front and the Edgehill elevations. One concern is that the rear elevation is such a drastic
change. Did the applicant meet with the neighbors at 1315 Edgehill? (Osgeyer – met with the
neighbors across the street, but did not meet with the neighbor at the rear. Meeker – noted that the
property owners were notified.)
The neighbor to the rear will be the most impacted by the addition.
The neighbor may wish to know that the removal of the garage will not impact their existing fence.
May wish to substitute the wall of the garage for a portion of the existing fence.
May be helpful to consult with the neighbor to the rear to affirm that they do not object to the
proposal. (Meeker – noted that a letter from the neighbors cannot be required and that the owners
were noticed and a placard has been present on the property.)
Consulting with the neighbors now could avoid future delays caused by the neighbors prior to action
by the Commission.
Asked the applicant to review the height restrictions for shrubs – the Jasmine on the corner is
currently obstructing vision at the corner.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Asked if justification for the special permit must be made like for a variance? (Meeker – there is not
as high a bar for justification of the special permit. Connecting the special permit with the desire for
design consistency is adequate.
Provide the apron on the window trim and show the door on the tool shed area.
Not certain if the apron under the windows is absolutely necessary.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013
24
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:51 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of September 16, 2013:
None.
FYI: 1207/1209 Burlingame Avenue – Clarification of requested changes to a previously approved
Commercial Design Review project:
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary