HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.06.23
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, June 23, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the June 23, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: Commissioner DeMartini
Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; Special Project
Planner Maureen Brooks; Associate Engineer Victor Voong; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the June 9,
2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 2, Item 1; last bullet clarify what “it” refers to.
Page 4, Item 3; “Commission comments” fourth bullet should clarify “low-profile ribs on the metal
roofing”.
Page 4, Item 3; “Commission comments” sixth bullet should remove the word “it”.
Page 5, Item 3; third bullet should clarify that the neighborhood is a mix of traditional and
contemporary;
Page 5, Item 3; “Public comments” third bullet should clarify “existing” house.
Page 5, Item 3, comment from Commissioner Bandrapalli about neighbor’s noise concern should be
listed under “Commission comments”.
Page 5, Item 3; “Additional Commission comments” third bullet should mention that the
neighborhood is a transition to Ray Park.
Page 7, Item 3; vote count should indicate that Commissioner DeMartini dissented.
Page 8, Item 4; the amended conditions should be reflected in the Commission comments.
Page 10, Item 6; first bullet from applicant should reflect that the attempt to lower the height
occurred once the sewer lateral issue was discovered.
Page 15, Item 7; “Commission comments” needs to add a bullet reflecting that the shape and
location of the chimney was not accurate on the plans.
Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner DeMartini absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
2
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni spoke from the floor:
Concerned about 1480 Broadway.
Multiple applications, and each time the application ran out because they did not apply for
building permit.
Another gas station on other end of Broadway requesting similar use and license (mini-mart and
liquor license) was denied because the City Council did not find there was public necessity to
issue another liquor license. Expectation was that 1480 Broadway was in the works, but it has
not happened.
Taking out the bays will create a big store. Don’t want a repeat of the 7-Eleven controversy in
San Mateo. El Camino Real is a neighborhood, and this will be an active corner if it is open late
to sell alcohol. Concern they may come back for a 24-hour permit.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1480 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND
CONVENIENCE STORE (SHATARA ARCHITECTURE, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; 1480
BROADWAY PROPERTY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
staff report dated June 23, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report.
Commission questions and comments:
Was the ABC liquor license issued? (Strohmeier: It was approved by the City Council.) Would
like the applicant to clarify if they are currently selling liquor.
The architect’s letter says the owner’s goal is to increase sales so they can afford the extensive
station improvements required by Union 76. Would like to clarify if what is being submitted are
the improvements being required, or is Union 76 requiring other improvements that will be
coming back to the Planning Commission in the future. What is being requested is fairly minimal
in terms of alterations, and can’t recall the service bays being used much.
Would be helpful to see the minutes from the City Council meeting where liquor license was
approved.
How do we enforce the provision that only 1/5th of the square footage be allocated for the sale of
alcohol – how does that happen over time? (Strohmeier: That would be a question for the ABC.)
San Mateo County Health System has requested that Chevron upload to the State GeoTracker
database by August 29th a work plan to install a second recovery well, etc. Do we know if this
happened, or is it a question that needs to be addressed? (Strohmeier: The question should be
directed to the applicant for follow-up.)
In the previous application for this property had concerns about a light pole being a parking
hazard. Is it still there? It seems like a very narrow spot – what is the minimum width for a
parking spot? (Strohmeier: 8’-6” wide by 18’-0” deep.) Is the space next to the accessible space
wide enough? (Strohmeier: It meets the minimum requirements.)
What time do restaurants on Broadway close? (Strohmeier: Depends on their Conditional Use
Permits. Would probably all have different hours of operation.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
3
What is relationship between the owner and Chevron? The San Mateo County Health System
letter reads as though Chevron has some interest in the property? (Kane: The applicant will be
able to provide information.)
In favor of supporting local businesses, so would like to see this stay in operation. However do
not see extensive modifications as talked about in the letter.
Interested in details – what type of stone veneer? (Strohmeier: This is not a commercial design
review application. Only the use permit requests are being reviewed. Commercial design review
would only be triggered if there were going to be changes to more than 50% of the façade.)
It was a design review last time. (Strohmeier: That application proposed an entirely new building.
The determination of public convenience and necessity for the alcohol license was approved by
the City Council prior to that application. This application is only reviewing the hours, the
expansion of the convenience store, and the use permit for the sale of alcohol.)
Finding (c) for a Conditional Use Permit mentions aesthetics, so seems like some of these items
could be addressed if desired and reasonable. (Kane: As long as there is a sufficient nexus to
the use permit, the Commission could consider reasonable conditions that relate to the use
being requested.)
The proposal is based on the premise that the property is no longer economically viable. Is there
any requirement to prove that it is the case? (Kane: Commission is reviewing the project based
on the findings for the Conditional Use Permit, and can make or not make those findings. It
could express opinions about items such as finishes, but it should not be a decision point.)
Regardless of the intent and reasoning of the applicant, the Commission needs to be able to
make findings that are discoverable based on the nature of the permit.
Wants to know if there will be further alterations down the line which the applicant will proceed
into incrementally, outside of the Commission’s purview, or will it be a revised project down the
line?
Wants to know why the applicant did not go ahead with the previous approval.
This is a very prominent site, and would like to see some attention paid to the building.
Bothered that the only change to the structure is the exterior bays. Would not want to match the
existing stamped cement wainscoting.
Council suggested commitment to alcohol awareness program at Burlingame High School –
would like to see how this will be implemented.
Specifies alcohol sales will be minimized in signage and advertising – would like to see specifics
for what they mean by minimized.
Hours of operation seem OK.
This item will be set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. The Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 7:39 p.m.
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.
There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
4
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. DRAFT UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN – REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (24 NOTICED & NEWSPAPER NOTICE – THE
EXAMINER 6/13/14 AND E-NEWSLETTER NOTIFICATION) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER
Questions of staff:
Based on the statistics in the Housing Element, it appears that there are about 30,000 jobs in
Burlingame where the people who hold these jobs do not live here. Would like to know the number
of service employees who work here but don’t live here.
Would like to see a few clarifications in the chapter on Government Constraints:
Clarify that there are other methods to handle storm drainage so that some of the runoff can
be retained on site and all drainage does not have to be accommodated by the storm drain
system. Alternative solutions could help affordability.
Clarify that for energy conservation, Burlingame requires that new development must exceed
Title 24 energy conservation requirements by 15 percent.
Clarify that when several types of applications are required for a project, they are processed
concurrently; therefore, the timelines for a project would not be as long as if they were
processed sequentially.
Are there State incentives to do the update? (Staff: Preserves the opportunity to receive further
funding.)
Are there other sources for population growth? How did we come back with 10%? (Staff: Population
estimates mostly from 2010 Census.)
In addition to the sites identified in the Draft Housing Element that are already zoned for multi-family
residential use, consider adding a band of R-2 zoning behind the R-3 zoned properties along El
Camino Real to provide a transition and to add another type of housing opportunity.
Want to make sure that if in-lieu fees are established, there is a clear mechanism to show that the
fees collected are used to achieve Housing Element goals.
Housing Element refers to lots of other regulations. Are there other regulations that are related or
covered in other parts of the General Plan? (Staff: Once Draft Housing Element is adopted, zoning
implementation is put in place so that zoning is consistent with Housing Element policies.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Public comments:
Anne Wallach spoke on this item:
Want to make sure we maintain the quality of Burlingame’s neighborhoods.
There are no shabby neighborhoods now; what contributes to a shabby neighborhood is the
appearance of the buildings and congested parking.
Concerned with reducing parking standards, and how will that affect the quality of Burlingame’s
neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods that look shabby have reduced parking. Concern with reducing parking standards;
want to at least maintain neighborhoods.
Mark Haberecht, spoke on this item:
Attended workshops and read the plan.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
5
Burlingame appears to be focusing on a walkable urbanism which relies on higher density and
access to transportation. However this density would be greater than what Burlingame can sustain.
Transit oriented development relies on High Speed Rail and electrification of Caltrain in the future,
and these are not givens.
It is understandable that there is a desire to increase the tax base, but this can be done either
through hyper-development or through enhancing what already makes the community unique.
Should look at the Bayshore area as another alternative for locating housing.
Carol Eldridge spoke on this item:
Peninsula Interfaith Action merged with SF organizing project.
Represent a coalition of community groups that promote best practices to address affordable
housing need, and many of these best practices have been incorporated into the Draft Housing
Element.
Would like to see more robust anti-displacement policies, since rents have gone up at an alarming
rate and the impacts are profound. Would like the City to recognize this threat and include a policy to
study anti-displacement.
Cynthia Cornell spoke on this item:
Lived in an apartment building in North Burlingame, the rent went up by $800, and all but one tenant
had to move out. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.
The Housing Element states that 42% of people who work in Burlingame make less than $33,000 a
year, but there are no affordable housing options for seniors or the disabled.
The Housing Element has no muscle to affect change.
In the last Housing Element cycle, only 77 units were built out of more than 600 planned for.
Pat Giorni spoke on this item:
Without an adopted Housing Element, the community won't get transportation funds.
Do we want transit development that looks like San Mateo or Millbrae?
Not sure people will use public transit, but Priority Development Areas need transit to work.
Population in Burlingame has only changed by 1000 people, so why do we need more housing?
Senior assisted living projects should be required to include affordable units
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Growth in Burlingame is limited by availability of sites, demand is now exceeding supply, and
housing prices indicate that there is demand, so if the housing stock is increased perhaps there will
be less price pressure.
The affordable requirements the City now has seem perfunctory and it seems the City could do
more. It does not go far enough to add more affordable units.
There was a downturn in the economy during the last Housing Element cycle, there were projects
approved that didn't go forward, which could partly explain why housing production was not greater.
We are seeing more projects proposed now that the economy is improving.
Projects need to be well planned and crafted to fit into the neighborhood.
The Housing Element framework has been crafted to accommodate housing; it has to make sense
to build the units. If it doesn't make sense, the units won't be built.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
6
Commissioner Bandrapalli moved to adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission, recommending to the
City Council, that the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element be submitted to the State Department of Housing
and Community Development for review and certification.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gum.
Discussion of motion:
Public comments will be reflected in the staff report to the City Council and there will be opportunity
for comment at the City Council hearing.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed 6-0-0-1
(Commissioner DeMartini absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50
p.m.
Commissioner Terrones recused from Item #3 (1517 Chapin Avenue) because he has a business
relationship with the property owner. He left the chambers.
3. 1517 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A NEW, TW O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU
DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ZERS BEAUTY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER)
(35 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
staff report dated June 23, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant:
Sent notices with revised plans to neighbors.
Commission questions/comments:
How will the screening trees along driveway fill in? How will they impact the accessibility of the
driveway? (Chu: Width of the driveway is about 11 feet; Code only requires 9’-6”. Remainder is for
planting. It will be responsibility of the owner to maintain the landscaping.) Is that the best tree for
that purpose? (Chu: Have used this tree before on another project – it is a “lollipop” type of tree.
Branches come up to create screening. Has not heard response from adjacent neighbor to revised
plans.)
Frosting of Bedroom #4 window is good, and glad to see protected-size trees were retained.
Public comments:
Bob Gilligan, 1518 Burlingame Avenue, spoke on this item:
Has property directly behind.
Appreciate that architect added additional tree to the rear.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
7
Wants to maintain privacy between the two homes. Sight lines looking directly to the back. Originally
suggested doing a mirror image of the proposed plan, but it did not work out. Left with trees as the
solution to the privacy screening.
Choice of trees shown as Japanese maple, but they are deciduous and not very tall. It would make
more sense to have tall evergreen trees, and larger than the 18-gallon proposed.
James Chu spoke on this item:
The back of the proposed house is 51 feet from the rear property line, and the balcony is 57 feet
back. Adding in the other house's setbacks, the distance between is almost 100 feet. These are
typical Burlingame lots – they are small. Does not think privacy will be an issue.
Agrees with neighbor, can beef up the size of the tree, change the type to be taller and evergreen.
Commission questions/comments:
Any comments from neighbor to the left? Have they seen the plans? (Chu: The revised plans were
sent to them on June 6th. Did not hear back.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Applicant has responded to the Commission's comments, and the changes to the trees will be a
good further modification.
Add a condition to review the species of the rear trees through an FYI. Can assume the neighbor to
the left has viewed and approved the trees on that side.
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the Design Review 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 June 9, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1 and L.2;
2. that the size and type of trees to be planted at the rear of the lot shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit;
3. that the second floor window in Bedroom #4 shall contain stained/obscured glazing as shown on
Sheet A.5, date stamped June 9, 2014;
4. that Carolina Cherry Laurel shrubs (24-inch box container size) shall be planted along the left side
property line as shown on Sheet L.1, date stamped June 9, 2014;
5. that there shall be three Red Dwarf Maple trees (15-gallon container size) shall be planted along
the rear property line as shown on Sheet L.1, date stamped June 9, 2014;
6. 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);
7. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
8
8. that the conditions of the Building Division’s February 25, 2014 and December 16, 2013 memos,
the Parks Division’s March 31, 2014, February 26, 2014 and December 20, 2013 memos, the
Engineering Division’s December 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 16, 2013 memo
and the Stormwater Division’s December 18, 2013 memos shall be met;
9. 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;
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. 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;
13. 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;
14. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 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:
15. 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;
16. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based
on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be
accepted by the City Engineer;
17. 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
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
9
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
18. 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
19. 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 Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1
(Commissioner Terrones recused, Commissioner DeMartini absent).
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the Negative Declaration as contained in the staff report, by
resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gum.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1
(Commissioner Terrones recused, Commissioner DeMartini absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
9:09 p.m.
Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais.
4. 463 CUMBERLAND ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING (UNA KINSELLA, ARCHITECT AND
APPLICANT; BRIAN AND BARBARA KOTT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (66 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent noted that he was not at the Design
Review meeting for the project but viewed the video. There were no other ex-parte communications to
report. Reference staff report dated June 23, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Commission questions:
Is it possible the washer and dryer could be enclosed within the laundry room without it being
considered a bedroom? (Strohmeier: Would need to review specifically what was being proposed.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Una Kinsella represented the applicant:
Made adjustments to the plans in response to Commission comments.
Support from the neighbors, including three letters that were not included in the staff report.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
10
Commission questions/comments:
Would it be possible to create a connection between the garage and the laundry room? (Strohmeier:
Depends on how the Building Division would classify the room. Could be submitted in building
permit.)
What material are the existing windows? (Kinsella: Anderson 400 Series vinyl.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Comments:
Special Permit fits within the design aesthetic.
Side setback variance continues an existing condition, and a substantial portion of the original
house is being maintainted.
Variance is for 1’-2” but if was only 1 foot it would be a Minor Modification.
Applicant makes good argument that if they conformed to the 4-foot setback the visual impact might
be even greater than the simplified facade they have proposed.
Commissioner Sargent 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
June 11, 2014, sheets CS, C-1, A-1 through A-4 and L-1;
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 basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s June 3, 2014, May 28, 2014 and April 22, 2014 memos,
the Parks Division’s April 29, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s May 6, 2014 memo, the Fire
Division’s April 21, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s April 29, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
11
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 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:
11. 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;
12. 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
13. 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 Yie.
Discussion of the motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1
(Commissioner DeMartini absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m.
5. 1545 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (GEORGE NOVITSKIY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRIS SADLAK AND MEE
KWONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 9,
2014 MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted he had met with the adjacent
neighbor at 1541 Los Montes Drive, and they discussed the items mentioned in her letter. Commissioner
Sargent noted he had talked with the Design Review consultant. Reference staff report dated June 23,
2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
12
comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
George Novitskiy and Chris Sadlak represented the applicant:
Commission questions/comments:
Clarification of material on front? Wood or stone? (Novitskiy: Either stone, or tile mimicking wood, or
wood finish. Slate tile or porcelain tile to mimic wood.)
Garage had panes of glass previously. (Novitskiy: Still glass, but a less translucent material – a
milky finish.)
Likes that plate height is lowered and roofline is even.
On Sheet A.3 right north elevation Master Bedroom window looks like it is in the wrong place. Is it
skewed to the left or centered? (Novitskiy: No, there is a bump out/architectural element. The
window will be to the side of the bedroom.)
Will the bathroom window clear the top of the tub? (Novitskiy: It will clear.)
When the cable rail hits the foyer roof, what will the railing posts attach to? Does it attach to the
stucco fin build-out? (Novitskiy: The rail will attach to the roof. Will anchor to the stucco wall. Will
provide detail with building permit submittal.)
Great improvement, and this is the type of neighborhood that can support this kind of design. But in
modern design details are critical – still some other exterior details that have not been fleshed out.
Steel fascia? (Novitskiy: It is a roof element, eave covering. Will have drainage hidden on the inside
of the roof. Plate steel wrapped around to follow the eave line, painted brown. Will provide detail with
building permit submittal.)
Has an exterior window and door been chosen? (Novitskiy: Office type of construction. Still choosing
manufacturer. Aluminum frame, not clad.)
Side door next to garage? (Novitskiy: Provided sample with submittal. Wood with aluminum transom
windows built in.)
Accent colors? (Novitskiy: Accent color will be hot orange, the rest of the house sandy.)
Still concerned about the 10-foot plate height downstairs and 9-foot pate height upstairs, particularly
on the left elevation. (Novitskiy: Will have screen trees. Will be shorter because using flat roofs, not
gable or hip roofs.)
There is a deep cut for the driveway, and an oak tree on the right-hand side beside the property line.
Would be surprised if it can survive such a deep cut for the driveway – about three feet away. Have
you talked to an arborist about whether the tree can be protected? (Novitskiy: Tree is not very large.
Will want to consider that in the civil study for excavation.) Worried about deferring this until later –
should have arborist report prepared prior to approval,
Oak tree in rear looks like the construction will be in drip line of the tree. The oaks are protected-size
trees.
Not clear what is wood, what is stone. (Novitskiy: Only wood is on the doors and garage. There is a
possibility for some of the accent trim to be either tile or wood – whatever is chosen will have a
woody finish. Everything else is stucco, and metal fascia.)
What is material around the garage door? (Novitskiy: Smooth stucco finish, with metal trim around
the door consistent with windows.)
Hot orange seems extreme. (Novitskiy: Will be subtle, will use the same tones and color spectrum.
Sandy color and wood behind.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
13
Taking low-slung single-story building, making it two-story and adding large bands of hot orange.
Does not seem subtle. (Novitskiy: Has provided a color rendering – it shows it is subtle.)
Smooth exterior color finish for base coat? Integral color? (Novitskiy: Yes.) For clarity should specify
that smooth coat will be finished coat.
Garage doors not indicated as glazed on plans. Should be noted.
Not comfortable that decision has not been made between porcelain tile that mimics wood, or stone.
Not how things are approved. There are examples in the neighborhood at 1551 Los Montes, and
3105 Margarita that both use actual wood as siding, and it works well with the contemporary design.
(Novitskiy: Shows on rendering.) The plans are what are being approved, not the rendering. To carry
the design forward and know what is approved, the notes need to be on the plans.
If plate steel is being used, should be noted.
Needs arborist report for the trees.
If using aluminum-framed windows, should say so on the plans – not aluminum clad.
Have the revised plans been shared with the neighbors? (Sadlak: Yes, contacted both neighbors on
the sides. One is supportive, the other has submitted a complaint letter.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Should continue the item to see a materials board or samples. The wood/stone is an important
feature and needs to see what it will be.
Obtaining the color rendering will help.
There needs to be more clarity on the drawings.
Needs to have enough time to obtain an arborist report.
The letter received is from a neighbor a distance away from the property, downhill and not
obstructing distant views.
Commissioner Bandrapalli reopened the public hearing:
Confirm July 14th date? (Sadlak: This has already been going for several months. Would have
preferred to have these requirements earlier.)
Design review consultant asked the applicant for these details several times verbally and in his
letter, but they were not provided with these plans and the information on the application.
Materials would need to be received noon Wednesday next week (July 2nd).
Needs clarity – the more clarity, the easier it is to make decisions. Needed to certify what is built is
what was approved.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application to the July 14, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, by
resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Include the arborist report, in addition to material samples, color rendering, and specific call-outs for
all materials on the plans.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
14
Concerned with colors, and plate heights.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-0-1
(Commissioner DeMartini absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This
item concluded at 9:57 p.m.
Commissioner Sargent recused from Item #6, 2202 Summit Drive and 2220 Summit Drive because he owns
property within 500 feet of the subject property, and Commissioner Terrones recused for non-statutory
reasons as he has a business relationship with the adjacent Hoover School property. They left the
chambers.
6. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE AND 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL
PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT AT 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE; AND APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE AND 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE (WARREN DONALD, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; WAYNE
HASS, B & H SURVEYING INC., LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR) (82 NOTICED)
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Reference staff report dated June 23, 2014, with attachments. Associate Engineer Voong presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-two (42) conditions were suggested for consideration.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Warren Donald represented the applicant:
School approached applicant for lot line adjustment to provide area for crosswalk. 30 feet of
frontage provides area for crosswalk, and also better turning radius to get into the school.
Plans show potential building footprint to show something could be built there.
Bottom of lot is a blight, difficult to maintain. No water or power to maintain anything.
Commissioner questions:
Who will own private road? (Donald: Sold the property last year, with option to subdivide. 14-foot
access to the rear lot. Driveway meets the fire code. Also this will add one more unit to the City’s
total.)
Public comments:
Carla Iverson, 2841 Canyon Road, spoke on this item:
Has easement agreement with 2202 Summit. Concerned will need to realign driveway.
Splitting the lot implies there will be development. Don’t know what the development will look like or
how nonconforming construction will impact the neighborhood, the school, daily traffic, fire, and first
responder safety, utility reconfiguration, existing easement, possibly rerouting existing driveway.
Applicant sold property, wrote letter dated February 19, 2013 that the property looked like a vacant
lot, and that loiterer and weed abatements were issued in the past.
Previously had a parking lot on the site with 8-12 cars, which was dug up and covered with dirt. Had
been the entrance to the school. Should restore to parking.
Though the letter says splitting the lot will solve the issue of maintaining it, it will continue to look like
a vacant abandoned lot.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
15
Proposed lot meets minimum requirements, but concerned doesn’t know what development will look
like.
Elmira Kaponat, 2109 Summit Drive, spoke on this item:
Lives directly across the street.
Every winter there is significant water flow down the driveway of 2202 Summit.
Wants drainage of new driveway to be taken into consideration, otherwise will create flooding
problems.
Street will be very narrow. Multiple stop signs.
Traffic on street.
Valerie Carlos, 2818 Easton Drive, spoke on this item:
The area is problematic for the drainage.
Creek in the back of 2202 Summit – water runoff.
Removing parking and adding dirt gave some relief, but not sure what the impact will be with a
house.
Steve Epstein spoke on this item:
President of Burlingame Hills Improvement Association. Represents 423 households, including
approximately half of the parents who will be attending Hoover Elementary in the fall of 2015.
Best use of lot would be as additional off-street parking for staff and parents. This was how it was
used before the school district sold the property.
Feasibility of the school will depend on how much off-street parking is available.
Off-street parking benefits the school district by increasing the chance that the traffic plan will be
able to convince the judge to allow the school to open.
Susan Chilton, 2840 Canyon Road, spoke on this item:
Concerned with density: lot is approximately 6,000 square feet, is a small lot for this neighborhood.
The lot split and developing a house would be incongruous to the neighborhood.
Feels like it is shoehorning a house into the end of a driveway.
School had wanted lot line adjustment previously, but now waiting for results of the environmental
review.
Fred Chilton, 2840 Canyon Road, spoke on this item:
Has not seen a situation like this where all the neighbors adjacent to a piece of property are
questioning the value of the project.
Supports the school, but it seems odd to place a house next to it.
Timing is odd, given the court order with the school. Should not be building a house when the school
may need the property.
Warren Donald spoke on this item:
Has not offered to sell the property to the school, and the school has not asked to buy it. School just
wanted to the crosswalk location and the 30 feet of frontage. Not sure how much parking could be
accommodated.
Even if it were sold to the school, would still need to be subdivided.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
16
With the easement there is no reason the driveway at 2841 Canyon Road would need to be
realigned.
When school was sold, parking reverted to 2202 Summit property. Taking out parking has helped
alleviate some of the drainage problems, and building a house may alleviate even more.
School has plenty of room for parking with 6 acres.
Commission questions:
Requested clarification that the applicant is currently not the owner of the proposed lot, but will
acquire the property if the lot split is approved? (Donald: Yes, if the lot is split.)
How was the size of the lot determined? (Donald: Just the way it worked out. City explained
standards, surveyor drew up a lot that would conform to standards. Minimum lot size is 5,000 square
feet – this lot is larger.)
Does the applicant need to be the property owner? (Strohmeier: No. Mr. Donald is the applicant but
does not own the property.)
Would it be possible to approve one but not both applications? (Strohmeier: Could not approve the
lot split without the lot line adjustment.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission questions/comments:
The Commission is not reviewing the development application, it is reviewing the lot split.
(Strohmeier: Correct. TRG study was to demonstrate that a home could be built on the lot, that it
would conform with setbacks and lot coverage regulations, and it would stay outside the various
easements. Planning requires this before a lot split may be approved.)
Would there be a requirement to control runoff from a project? (Voong: Would look at how water is
drained from the property.)
Development of the lot could improve the condition – would require proper drainage.
The design review process would make sure the development is appropriate and fits in with the
neighborhood. The owner could also choose to develop it as parking (Strohmeier: Would need to be
sold to the school to use the lot as parking. Surface parking is not a permitted use in the R-1 District,
but school property is under state regulations.)
Staff requested that the item be continued to follow up on some of the items presented, such as the
drainage and easements. Staff would like to obtain some additional clarity for when the application moves
on to the City Council for review.
Commissioner Gum moved to continue the application to the July 14, 2014 Planning Commission meeting,
by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 4-0-2-1
(Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused, Commissioner DeMartini absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:34 p.m.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
17
Commissioners Sargent and Terrones returned to the dais.
7. 1524 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR CHANGES TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL
RECREATION FACILITY (TIM AND KELLY MANNING, APPLICANT; THE ROBERTS TRUST, PROPERTY
OWNER) (20 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Reference staff report dated June 23, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-two (42) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Staff report says 30 spaces were provided previously, but 32 are shown on the site plan.
(Strohmeier: Two of the spaces do not meet the code requirements.)
With previous changes to the business did they have to come back to the Planning Commission for
review? (Strohmeier: If a new use comes in, it must comply with all the Conditions of Approval from
the previous business, or come back for an amendment.)
What are the ramifications of extending the hours in an industrial district like this? (Strohmeier: This
is a light-industrial area. They don’t usually stay open to these hours, or on the weekends. Noise
would not be a factor since there are no residential uses adjacent.)
What is to prevent another commercial recreation use that is higher occupancy coming in later?
(Strohmeier: There have been instances where the approval is conditioned on a specific type of use,
such as an indoor trampoline facility.)(Kane: CUPs in Burlingame run with the land. They can be
conditioned on a maximum occupant load.)
Findings from parking study seem believable for this specific use, but may not be applicable to a
different type of commercial recreation use.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Kelly Manning spoke as the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
Aware of any customers ever parking in the lot across the street? (Manning: No. There is a sign up,
but people don't park there.)
Extended hours can be supported. It is good to be able to have wholesome activities for kids and
teens on a Saturday night. No impacts on anyone.
There is some symbiosis between the commercial recreation uses and industrial uses in the Rollins
Road area because of the differing periods of activity.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
The argument for reducing the parking is compelling, but should be conditioned on this specific type
of use – indoor trampoline facility.
Conditions of Approval specify maximum number of occupants and employees. If a future business
moves in that does not conform to these conditions, will need to come back for an amendment.
Parking variance supported due to the information in the parking study.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
18
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the indoor trampoline facility shall have regular business hours from 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM
Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 AM to midnight on Friday and Saturday;
2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date-
stamped June 4, 2014 (Sheet A1.1), June 27, 2008 (Sheet A2.1), and May 29, 2008 (Sheets A0.1,
A2.2, and A3.1);
3. that the maximum number of clients in the indoor sports facility at one time shall not exceed 100
persons; that the maximum number of employees, including the business owner, in the indoor sports
facility shall be limited to 9 persons; and that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation,
or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an
amendment to this conditional use permit;
4. that demolition or removal of any existing walls 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 variances for on-site parking spaces and total on-site landscaping shall expire with the
termination of the conditional use permit for the indoor sports facility; shall be reviewed with any
amendment to the conditional use permit granted to the indoor sports facility; and shall expire should
the building on the site be deliberately demolished or destroyed by a natural catastrophe or disaster
or should a major remodel of the building be proposed;
6. that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed as shown on the Proposed Site Plan
(Sheet A1.1), date stamped June 27, 2008, and that all areas of landscaping shall be irrigated by an
automatic sprinkler system on a timer and shall be maintained by the property owner in good
operating condition at all times;
7. that the indoor sports facility shall be limited to 27,825 SF of existing floor area and that outdoor
areas shall not be used for any activities associated with the indoor sports facility;
8. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s April 7, 2008 memo, the Chief Building Official’s April 4,
2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 4, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator’s April 10, 2008
memo shall be met;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
10. 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.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of the motion:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
19
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1
(Commissioner DeMartini absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
Commissioner Sargent recused from Item #8 (1441 Drake Avenue) because he lives within 500 feet of the
subject property. He left the chambers.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1441 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ATTACHED CARPORT W ITH A NEW ATTACHED
CARPORT AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING HOUSE (JEANNE DAVIS, DAVIS ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JEFF AND LESLIE HOLZMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum noted that he had spoken to neighbors,
and Commissioners Terrones and Loftis reported that they had had conversations with the applicant.
Reference staff report dated June 9, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented
the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
Jeanne Davis and Leslie Holzman represented the applicant:
House is in need of improvements.
Will result in reduction in mass and bulk of the existing house.
Goal is to emphasize the porch and de-emphasize the parking.
Allow for more green screening along the property line.
Replace the rear sunroom with something that seems like more of an extension of the original
Craftsman design.
Houses in neighborhood have a mix of attached and detached garages, as well as carports. Feels
there is context for retaining existing carport feature.
Studied options for avoiding a variance, but existing condition dictates optimal location and height of
proposed carport. The carport structure and columns are well within the buildable envelope – it’s just
the front overhang that intrudes 16 inches into the front setback.
The proposed mass and bulk of the carport is less than if it was an attached garage.
Cannot push the carport further back without it intruding into the dining room.
Commission questions/comments:
Project is supportable – taking existing conditions and making them better.
Is front gable detail changing? (Davis: Yes. Owners felt the existing pattern was too “gingerbread.” It
was not an original element; it was a continuous shed along the front. The gable was added later.
Proposed detail is to be consistent with other gable ends on the house.)
The project is an improvement: taking front setback and making it better, and meeting side setback.
The size of the carport is being made smaller, and the FAR and lot coverage are being reduced.
Neighbors love it, but neighbor to the left said they would like to have the pine tree trimmed or
removed. (Davis: Wants to preserve all trees in general. Will try to trim it and clean it up, but wants
to keep as much green screening as possible rather than start over.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
20
In back yard there is a large tree in front of the trampoline area. Is it significant? (Holzman: It is a
walnut tree). The existence of the tree is a mitigating factor for the location of the carport. (Davis:
Both the walnut and a lemon tree would have to be removed to allow a driveway to the back.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
None.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
Commission discussion:
There is a variance and a special permit, so would need to make the findings now. (Kane: Should
come back on Regular Action so the findings for the variance can be made at that time.)
Commissioner Yie made a revised motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli 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 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner DeMartini
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:06
p.m.
Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
21
9. 1008 – 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007 – 1025 ROLLINS ROAD – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY
USE AND BUILDING HEIGHT, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS WITHIN THE 20-FOOT
SETBACK ADJACENT TO SOUTH PROPERTY LINE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 100 FEET OF SOUTH
PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW 268-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING AND 22-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (SUMMERHILL APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, APPLICANT;
SEIDEL ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; STUCKER FAMILY TRUST AND OSCAR F. PERSON TESTAMENTARY
TRUST, PROPERTY OWNERS) (130 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum noted that he had talked to neighbors
along Toyon Drive. Reference staff report dated July 23, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager
Gardiner briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
How are school fees calculated? (Brooks: Based on the square footage of units in the project.)
Public hearing:
Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Apartment Communities, represented the applicant, and Alex Seidel, Seidel
Architects, represented the architect. Each provided an overview of various aspects of the project. Elaine
Breeze noted in response to concerns with parking overflow that all apartment parking would be in the
garage, with some visitor parking in the garage and at grade near the central lobbies on the central entry
driveway. The CC&Rs for the townhomes would require that residents park their vehicles in their garages.
Commission questions:
Are parking spaces assigned? (Breeze: There are 27 spaces outside the gate in the garage; behind
the gate, all parking spaces are assigned. Have followed the City's code but are providing more
parking than we would typically provide in communities like this.)
How do the arcades along the street frontages work, what is being accessed along the arcade?
(Seidel: Arcades are 8-feet deep, 15-feet high, there is a lobby along the frontage, the rest of the
arcade consists of porches for each unit.)
Are the trees fronting Carolan and Rollins street trees, or are they on the property? (Breeze: Within
public right-of-way, so they are street trees.)
Public comments:
Peter Fairclough, 905 Azalea Ave:
Doesn't see enough parking for the project, 1.8 spaces per unit does not seem believable.
Once this is built will have overflow cars on our streets, no recourse, already can rarely park in front
of my house, streets will be like North Beach.
Marianne Saucedo, Larkspur Drive:
Parking has gotten worse in the area. Are there parking issues at other SummerHill projects?
No one has mentioned High Speed Rail, don't know if it will ever come, is that an issue?
The Burlingame train station is open but not Broadway, so people will still be driving. Doubt
someone will walk to downtown Burlingame.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
22
Parking on Larkspur Drive has been a problem for 15 years, don't think there is recourse.
Project is beautiful, but concerned with parking. Creates narrow streets making it difficult for fire
trucks to access the neighborhood.
Elaine Breeze:
We are evaluating our own projects as well as others to look at parking demand.
Have no comment regarding High Speed Rail, but there is a free shuttle on weekdays from the
Broadway Caltrain station to Millbrae BART and there is Caltrain service from Broadway on
weekends.
Commission questions:
Does the project include anything for bicycle use? (Breeze: 134 bike parking for residents in garage,
14 exterior for guests bike parking, and a bike repair shop)
Projections of residents mix? (Breeze: Primarily young professionals, but also move-downs and
empty nesters for both apartments and condos. Apartments are fully disabled accessible. Mix is
intentional.)
Will there be a playground? (Breeze: There is a small park with a playground down the street, but
the lifestyle of the complex does not generate a lot of children or the need for a playground)
Would a small grocery be allowed? (Gardiner: Yes, but is not proposed. There is a 7-Eleven one
block away.)
Linda Fairclough, 905 Azalea Avenue:
Concerned that on Friday nights when the 268 units have friends coming up, there will not be
enough parking, they will park in the neighborhood.
Would like parking permits so people can park in front of their own property.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments – EIR:
Visitor parking needs to be studied – potential mitigation with permit parking. Where are visitors
expected to park?
There is a lot of street frontage so that could also be taken into consideration. Can’t park overnight.
Concerns with Broadway intersection and the interchange and the impacts from the Anza Point
project. Currently congested, want to make sure that there is sufficient capacity for the project.
Is Carolan project going forward? (Voong: City has won a grant, looking at the design now, it will be
starting construction next year)
Traffic is fast on Rollins, look at safe ingress and egress, look at whether stop signs are needed.
Review parking policies on Rollins and Carolan with the new use.
What will elevation of underground garage be in relation to water table and sea level?
Will bicycle and pedestrian access be addressed with the Carolan Avenue project? With increase in
population, need improved access.
Commission comments – Design Review:
Solid vinyl window proposed, but given the nature of our housing stock, looking for a window with
more architectural detail and depth.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 23, 2014
23
Chair Bandrapalli reopened the public hearing:
(Breeze: Challenge with windows is that the project is between the freeway and railroad, so required
to have windows with higher insulation ratings. The window proposed can address the acoustical
issue and looks more residential than other acoustic-rated windows. Proposing the taupe color for
apartments, light gray on the townhomes.)
How do visitors arrive on Carolan, where do they park and how do they access the building?
(Breeze: Visitors can park in 27 spaces in garage in front of the gate, and have direct access to
elevator to lobby. If coming to Rollins Road side, would need to access from Carolan. If visitors enter
the central driveway at the paseo, there is some visitor parking at lobby entrance.)
Can lobby portions of the Carolan & Rollins elevations be celebrated more? Give it some identity as
an entrance.
Herb gardens are proposed at podium level. Would that be an opportunity for a community garden?
(Breeze: Could study adding a community garden on the North Park side, at ground level. Will have
some maintained gardens on the courtyard level.)
Amenity space next to leasing office, what will it be? Opportunity to create life along that paseo, add
some ground floor texture. (Breeze: Still looking at programming it. Could have a telecommuting
space.)
On Sheet A.07, the threshold going from Rollins into paseo needs to be considered, look at it
carefully for the transition to Rollins.
Sun screens above windows on townhouses look odd, look sort of alien, don’t look like they belong.
Neighbors have expressed concern with the property line, some say they have trees near fence.
How will the line be drawn and how will trees be protected? (Breeze: Varying conditions. In some
cases, will move trees, replant trees, relocate irrigation and reestablish the correct location of the
property line. Have contacted all of the neighbors, and have only heard from three of them.)
There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. This item concluded at 12:08 a.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 16, 2014:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted.
There were no appeals of recent Planning Commission actions.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 12:08 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Will Loftis, Secretary