HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.04.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 11, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and SargentPresent6 -
LoftisAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.March 14, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
meeting minutes with the following amendment:
>Item 9a - 1580 Barroilhet Avenue, in last bullet under Commission comments/questions
clarify 33 exterior lights in the combined overhang/soffit and landscaping.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.March 28, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
The March 28, 2016 meeting minutes were not reviewed because there was not a quorum of
commissioners who had been present at that meeting.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.433 Chatham Road, zoned Unclassified - Application for a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to install light at an existing private tennis facility (Duncan Grenier,
applicant; Zeiger Engineers, designer; Peninsula Tennis Club, property owner) (44
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor at 753 Plymouth.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Terrones visited the site and notified a club member that he was visiting the site for this
purpose. Commissioner DeMartini toured the property with the applicant.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Can the tennis club mark the parking spaces at Burlingame High School if there is no formal
agreement? (Keylon: The spaces were marked with permission from the school district. There is a
long-running agreement between the two parties.)
>What is the CEQA status for this project? (Keylon: It has not yet been determined since this is a
study meeting. Staff will make a determination based on the meeting.)
>Is this land not zoned? (Keylon: It is zoned Unclassified. It is a designation found around town for
both private and government uses. The zoning code has few standards for Unclassified properties other
than that they need to come before the Planning Commission for review.)
>Does the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit apply to membership expansions? (Keylon:
Would need to review the conditions of approval. This amendment would include review of the prior
conditions.)
>Does the City have a definition of daylight hours? (Keylon: The City does not have a definition, but it
is commonly used in the park facilities. Could define this more specifically when this returns for action.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Duncan Grenier represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is there an arrangement to use other parking at the school beyond the 10 spaces? (Grenier: It is an
open parking lot with no gates or posted hours. The spaces are labeled for staff and students for school
hours. Teams hold practices after hours and people park at-will.)
>How to address concerns with noise into the evenings? (Grenier: Open to modifying the plan to
make some of the changes requested by neighbors. Winter months when the lights would be used are
the quietist and would carry the least social component.)
>What is the total membership now? (Grenier: 240 equity members, less than 10 associate members,
a few emeritus members.) Is the limit self -imposed? (Grenier: Yes. There is not enough court time for
current members so would not increase members further.)
>How often are courts used concurrently? (Grenier: Estimates approximately 20% of the time all
courts are being used.)
>During winter months when does play typically stop currently? (Grenier: Depends on light - as early
as 5:30 p.m.)
>Is there anywhere close by with a similar installation? (Grenier: Cupertino tennis center has the
same lights.)
>Has there been consideration of solar panels to light the poles? (Grenier: Has not yet broached that
with the membership.)
>There have already been changes since the neighborhood meeting? (Grenier: Listings on USTA
website has been changed to direct parking to back of facility. Will also change the website with changes
to directions and parking instructions to park in back.)
>Would there be willingness to change the timings for the winter months? (Grenier: Yes, has heard
that 9 p.m. is too late for some, would be willing to look at alterations.)
>What is the understanding of hours of operation for the courts and other activities? (Grenier:
Understanding is that the club has been functioning as a social club with no restrictions on the operating
hours. The Conditional Use Permit hours would apply to the tennis and pool facilities as daylight hours -
dawn to dusk.)
>How many people came to the neighborhood meeting and what changes have been proposed?
(Grenier: Three residents from Chatham Street and one from Lexington Street came to the meeting .
Primary concern on Chatham Street was parking. Some noise concern from adjoining neighbor.)
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Had there ever been a promise made that there would never be lights? (Grenier: Has never come
across anything like that, and members have not reported or promoted to his knowledge.)
>Has photometric analysis been done to determine impact on neighboring properties? (Grenier: Has
not done a study to that depth. Photometrics were done to show effects of the light on the ground. Light
would not bleed off the court in many areas because of light and windscreens to keep light from bleeding
off the court.)
>Has there been discussion of adding windscreens to the tops of the fences? (Grenier: Would
probably not have much effect since the poles would be taller than the fences.)
>Any analysis of soundproof windscreens? (Grenier: No.)
Public comments:
Suzanne Lee, 437 Chatham Road, spoke on this item:
>10 feet from the clubhouse.
>Washington Park courts do not appear to be used when lit.
>Why would the court furthest from the homes not be lit?
>Request that the court closest to her house not be lit.
>Noise is from overall activity, social noise but not tennis specifically.
>Had spoken to city when purchasing house, believed lights would not be constructed given proximity
to houses.
Mr. Nowlin spoke on this item:
>Parking has been a long-term problem prior to BHS construction.
>The lights are not the issue, it is everything that goes along with them: traffic, parking, people, noise.
>Concern lights will be on longer for special occasions.
>Already has lighting from high school. Tennis court lights will compound the issues.
>Lights will not benefit the neighborhood.
>Rental equipment, catering, entertainment people for special events.
>Not clear SMUHSD wants more parking on property.
>Tennis club should eliminate courts to build parking.
>Concern with expansion of membership.
Dan Barsanti, 463 Chatham Road, spoke on this item:
>High school parking in the neighborhood all day long.
>Did not know about neighborhood meeting.
>Acquatic center shines lights at 5 a.m.
>People from tennis club who park on street create problems. Moves garbage cans.
>Problems will not go away until school builds a 2-story parking garage.
>One-lane street.
Bob Stamatatos spoke on this item:
>Issues with parking and noise have been isolated incidents. Concern there will be additional issues
from the court itself.
>Sometimes can't park in front of house, or driveway.
>240 member club with 10 parking spaces. Conditional Use Permit for daylight hours and they are
operating in the evening.
>Concern with membership increasing.
>There has been a lot of construction already from high school and PTC.
Bryan Wear spoke on this item:
>Lives on Lexington Way.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Concern with noise from pool and tennis courts. Is a problem in the summer, goes past 9:00.
Concern with same if courts are lit.
>Rare to see all courts in use at the same time.
>Concern membership will need to grow to pay for expense.
Rose Land spoke on this item:
>PTC member, lives directly behind.
>Parking and noise concerns.
>Concern with safety in balmy summer evenings with kids jumping fences.
>After tennis there will be outflow.
Greg Land, 760 Lexington Way, spoke on this item:
>Closest neighbors, do not have screens.
>Lighting has stadium quality.
>OK with high school lights.
>PTC has been good neighbors in past, installing fences before. Had not heard of current proposal.
>9 p.m. seems late, especially in winter.
>A lot of unknowns. Needs to investigate impacts.
>The new culinary classroom and institute at the high school may need more parking.
Jyoti Palaniappan, 749 Lexington Way, submitted a comment on this item (read by Greg Land):
>Concern with lights on until 9 p.m.
>Children go to bed at 7:00 p.m. Would be OK with lights staying on until then.
Jennifer Ellison, 753 Plymouth Way, spoke on this item:
>Lives adjacent to front three courts.
>Is a member of the club.
>In full support of the lights.
>Does not think there will be impact from the tennis court lights. High school lights already impact the
neighborhood.
>Does not expect there will be late socialization in winter months given weather.
>Parking issues in the neighborhood are not all related to the tennis club. High school creates parking
impacts.
>Members play tennis in the morning, might play after work if there are lights.
>Many members live in neighborhood and walk to the club.
>Club is capped at 240 members and there is a waiting list of more than 20 families.
Marisa and Brian Wachhorst, 745 Lexington Way, spoke on this item:
>Does not believe there will be impacts. Already parking and lights from the football field and park.
>Alleyway has had some safety issues. Having activity might help the issue.
Jeffrey Tsu spoke on this item:
>Currently plays until daylight hours.
>Members would like to play at night.
>Lights would be like an umbrella over the club.
>There is ample parking at the high school.
>Not all of the parking issues are club issues. Airport parking, swim meets, baseball.
>Tennis is adults playing, not having crowds rooting.
Duncan Grenier spoke on this item:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Court 4 (furthest from the homes) was not planned to be lit because it is not a regulation sized court .
Used for ball machines and practice.
>Club has own tables and chairs for events. Does not hold events that require the rental of
equipment. Occasionally a catering truck.
>Only outside event held is an annual teachers' luncheon for the high school.
>Membership went from 230 members to 240 members 7 years ago when last CUP was issued .
Condition was from bank to assure solvency. There is no plan to increase members, is an equity -based
club and will be self-funding this project.
>Not familiar with incidents such as moving garbage cans. On-site manager available for problems.
>Have been working issues of teenagers making their way into the club. Have chained back gate,
and a local neighborhood member can handle anyone who is in the club after hours making noise.
>Open to discussing change in hours.
>Lights will be set with on -off switches and timers to go off automatically. Will be on a master timer so
can enforce a hard limit to make sure the lights go off.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>State of unease in the neighborhood. Can’t accept argument that winter hours would be the same as
summer. Neighbors are likely grateful for some relief of activity with shorter hours during off months in
winter.
>Needs to determine environmental/CEQA status.
>Needs summary of how Code Section 18.16.030 (light pollution) would or would not apply.
>Needs to have specifics of current CUP brought forward and clarification of hours of operation.
>Issues do not appear to be from light pollution as much as parking issues.
>Will represent an expansion of operating hours in the winter months.
>Lights will compound existing issues, particularly the noise. Will go later in the winter.
>Parking is a big issue, will exacerbate the issue. Should carve out some space for parking.
>Increasing hours might attract more members; policy might change.
>Wants better understanding of agreement with high school.
>High school has a bigger membership than the tennis club.
>There is a parking problem all over town. Can't throw onus of problem onto the club.
>Club is amenable to changes in hours, could consider a sliding scale.
>Even though there are other sources of the parking problem does not mean application should get a
pass. Extension of hours will contribute to the parking problem.
>Difficult to make Conditional Use Permit findings - particularly being detrimental to public health,
safety, general welfare or convenience.
>Needs to understand light impacts on the homes, not just the courts.
>Needs to understand the sound implications, or keeping activity later in the evening during winter
months.
>Consider parking implications of increasing hours of operation.
>Should look at other examples such as Cupertino.
>Should come back as a study item given amount of work to be done.
>Wants to know how often the club is rented for private parties.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1430 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit Amendment
for changes to a previously approved application for accessory living quarters and a
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure and Conditional Use Permits for a
new window and skylight in an existing accessory structure (Rich Sargent, applicant
and property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item since he is the applicant.
All Commissioners had visited the property.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Work from June 2013 approval was completed, but work from November 2015 approval was never
initiated? (Keylon: Correct.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Sargent represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Back wall and lower wall of garage are staying where they are, but front and yard side are being
brought in? (Sargent: Yes. Right now garage takes up 1/3 of back yard.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Likes application because it is reducing the size of the garage. It is not losing a parking space, it is
creating a conforming parking space.
>Neighboring property line is so far away, window and skylight will not be an issue.
>Neighbors are in support of the project.
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
b.225 California Drive, zoned HMU - Design Review for an application for Environmental
Review and Commercial Design Review for a new 4-story commercial building (DLC
225 California, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (168 noticed)
Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones, Bandrapalli, and DeMartini met
with the applicant. Commissioners Gum and Sargent met with the applicant and with the neighboring
business owner (Joan Endo).
Contract Planner Ah Sing and Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report, with
environmental review consultant Caitlin Chase in attendance.
Questions of staff:
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Can anything be done to mitigate construction noise on the adjacent business during the lunch hour
and dinner hour? Could construction be during the evening instead? (Gardiner: All projects are required
to adhere to the same construction hours. The same standard is applied to all uniformly. Nighttime
construction has been found to be disruptive to residents .)(Kane: The construction hours are in the
Municipal Code and are not within staff's authority to wave.)
>As mitigation measures are conditions of approval, how are they enforced? (Gardiner: Building
inspectors and public works staff are familiar with the conditions of approval and will address any
violations during construction .)(Kane: Conditions are monitored by staff during inspections; separately if
a property owner, resident or neighbor is aggrieved by a violation and staff is not onsite to observe it can
be called in for enforcement. During construction work can be halted until a violation is corrected, and
there are code enforcement options as well. Complaints during construction should be submitted to the
Building Division.)
>There are two options for vibration mitigation. The second option only appears to address damage to
buildings but not impacts on occupants. (Chase: Acoustical consultants evaluated sensitive receptors
nearby. Mitigation would either restrict equipment within a certain distance of adjacent buildings, or
develop a monitoring program that would keep a record of any potential damage or vibration impacts
associated with construction. A person would be onsite monitoring the construction.) If the vibration limit
were exceeded would work be stopped? (Chase: Yes.)
>Has the traffic study been revised to reflect the change in the design from the original submittal?
(Gardiner: Yes, a revised Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted after the design was changed. There
was also a peer review of the traffic study by a third party. Intersections that were studied were those
that would possibly be impacted by the project; the Howard Avenue /California Drive intersection was not
included since traffic exiting the project would be required to turn right on Howard Avenue, in the
opposite direction from California Drive. The Howard Avenue /Highland Avenue intersection would not be
included because it is not signalized or controlled with a 4-way stop sign. Intersections were initially
identified by Engineering staff.)
>Is this scope considered a "complete" traffic study, or a "limited" study? (Gardiner: This is a Traffic
Impact Analysis which is typical in scope for a project of this size. It does build upon previous studies,
particularly the traffic analysis prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan.) If the commission felt there
was a need for further study of traffic, could that be requested at this time? (Gardiner: It is the
prerogative of the commission. Initially there was an environmental scoping meeting, and the scope of
the traffic study was developed from input received then. There was also a peer review by a third party
which evaluated the scope of the study and identified some areas that needed further analysis.)
>What is the status and mitigation of the underground storage tank and removal of soil? (Chase:
Known contaminants have been disclosed. The site is being actively monitored by the San Mateo
County Health Department. Soil and ground water samples are taken periodically. Mitigation measures
require full compliance with OSHA regulations, and the applicant is required to submit a soil
management plan to the County. Any risk would be during construction, and would need to comply with
the soil management plan; there would not be risk during occupancy.)
>Elaborate on the geotechnical report and underpinning? (Chase: The details of the underpinning are
described in the project description and evaluated in the geology section including mitigation measures
derived from the geotechnical report to monitor adjacent properties.)
>How will the parking and traffic from the construction workers be addressed? (Gardiner: A mitigation
measure requires a traffic and parking plan for construction to be submitted and reviewed by City
departments. The plan would need to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit, and is required
to address traffic circulation, delivery and unloading of materials, and parking.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Ryan Guibara represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Will construction workers be parking off -site? (Guibara: Yes. Have not worked out details but have
looked at different options including renting a lot off site, having workers take transit, and running an
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
off-site van service. Will submit a plan for review per the environmental review requirement.)
>Have the neighbors seen the revised plans? (Guibara. Yes. Has been in contact with neighboring
business owner to mitigate as much of the construction disruption as possible. Has made an agreement
in a letter to take care during the lunch hour to make sure there would not be loud demolition noises,
also provide a generator for the neighboring building during construction.)
>A geotechnical engineer will be engaged during construction as part of the excavation, as a
supplement to the typical building inspection? (Guibara: Yes, there will be a team including a vibration
consultant, surveyor and geotechnical engineer. They work in concert with the other monitoring.)
>What is envisioned in the retail space? (Guibara: Patterning it on examples in San Francisco where
there is a cafe in the lobby. The cafe tables spill out into the lobby area and activate the space.) 1,800
square feet of retail seems small compared to the amount of office space, was hoping for more retail on
the ground floor. (Guibara: As much of the ground floor as possible has been devoted to retail but is
balanced with other requirements such as emergency access and exiting, and garage access.)
>Where will drop-offs be accommodated? (Guibara: There are parallel stalls in front of the building .
Deliveries would be driven by the tenant, and if they needed a loading zone they would need to
approach the City in the same manner as any other business does.)
>Has there been consideration of paying in -lieu fees for the parking rather than building the garage?
(Guibara: Had discussed internally what would be the best project. Given feedback that parking is a top
concern, believes it would be hard to propose a project that did not provide parking.)
>Is the extension to the island at California and Highland to discourage left turns from the project?
Has this been vetted with the Engineering department? (Guibara: Yes, and also to address existing
condition of drivers making illegal left turns from northbound California Drive onto Highland.)
>Look at truck staging with removal of dirt so trucks are not cued up on Highland. (Guibara: Traffic
plan is a mitigation measure requirement.)
>Could the offers to limit demolition during lunchtime and end of the day be put in writing as a
condition of approval? (Guibara: Is willing to put it in writing, and has sent a letter to neighboring
business owner. Predominant construction will be completed by 4:30 p.m. except for some days such as
big pours where they may need to go later - those would be the exception rather than the rule.)
Public comments:
Joan Endo spoke on this item:
>Has submitted letter to Planning Department.
>Owns Sakai restaurant next door.
>Will experience most of the collateral damage from the build.
>Has received phone calls, letters from applicant and met with applicant.
>Needs commission to mitigate some of the construction conditions for business to survive.
>Needs commission to read letters, and remember what has been said before the council previously.
>Needs commission to read the letter from the attorney.
>Wants a meeting and in writing to know the commission respects her business and will work in her
interest. Has been in Burlingame for 21 years.
>Has tried to get meetings.
Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Lives in the neighborhood.
>Appears applicant has made a sincere effort to accommodate concerns of neighboring business
owner.
>Was opposed to the earlier design that was proposed; it seemed it would be a better fit for the
Bayfront.
>Applicant has been very responsive to critique.
>Elegant building from all respects.
>Could consider soundproofing within adjacent building.
>Highland intersection is poor already. Believes there may be funding allocated for signal at Primrose;
could look at Highland. Could require vehicles stop at Highland.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Brad Vaugn, 843 Crossway, spoke on this item:
>Leases office space in downtown Burlingame.
>Has watched design evolve into a much better project. Fits into Burlingame.
>Burlingame does not have offices like this. City has redone avenue, best retailers, best food venues
but does not have offices like this.
>Project would be a great statement for the city.
>130 parking spaces would be an asset.
Ron Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, spoke on this item:
>100% in favor of the project.
>Time, energy and level of input put in by the developer has not been seen in years.
>Has had a retail listing next door for over 1 year, but no interest. Has only had interest in schools,
travel agencies, hooka - no demand for retail on this street.
>In-lieu fee for parking would take much longer.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Disappointed to see small amount of retail space compared to what is being replaced.
>Would have preferred in -lieu fee for parking to help get one of the City's parking garages off the
ground.
>Not sure it successfully links between Howard Avenue and Burlingame Avenue.
>Concern with traffic.
>Applicant has been responsive to the concerns of the community and the feedback from the
commission.
>Concern with impact to neighbors during construction. The building will be a benefit to the
restaurants and other businesses in the area after construction, so key is getting through the
construction period. Should incorporate the developer's offer to limit construction hours into the approval.
>Project has been vetted through environmental scoping, and the environmental reports have been
vetted and peer reviewed. Impacts are being mitigated through the mitigation measures.
>Technical documents and engineering will need to be put forward to obtain building permits.
>Impressed with developer to take steps to limit impact on neighbors.
>Commercial office space is needed, particularly downtown. It will help restaurants downtown.
>Design is respectful of the neighbors.
>Parking has been dealt with sufficiently.
>Impressed with the concern for the adjacent neighbor - the mitigations built into the conditions will
address those concerns.
>Project has come a long way. Beautiful building that fits in well. Developer has done everything that
was asked and more.
>Outreach from the project team has been outstanding.
>The cafe model referenced by the applicant makes sense.
>Traffic study has been vetted by experts.
>The on-site parking is needed to attract a quality tenant. Would expect a project without onsite
parking would not be supported by the community.
>The neighboring restaurant will benefit from the building when it is completed. The community
supported merchants during Burlingame Avenue construction and expects the same will occur here.
>Commission has been responsive to concerns of neighboring business owner. The mitigations are
put in place to address the potential problems that might be encountered with construction.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
Environmental Review for the application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6 - DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Absent: 1 - Loftis
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>The applicant shall submit a letter to the Planning Commission memorializing the agreement
with Sakae, Inc. to limit demolition activities and preponderance of other work as presented in
the public hearing. The letter shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior
to issuance of a building permit.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent5 -
Nay:Gaul1 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.Considerations of Amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code for
amendments to covered porch regulations.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Comments from Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee members:
>Has found that the addition of a porch has improved ability to interact with neighbors. Anything that
can be done to encourage this through the zoning code is important.
>Concerns with side and rear porches can be addressed through design review.
>100 square feet is not enough for a porch; 200 square feet is more appropriate.
>Commissioners Auran and Yie initiated this.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Regulations make sense.
>The three subcommittee members are the most experienced on the commission.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to recommend the
item for approval to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1337 California Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling and new detached garage (Tony Nguyen, applicant, property owner
and designer) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Do the zoning regulations prevent cars from being parked in the front yard? (Gardiner: Yes, parking
may only be on driveways leading to the garage.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Tony Nguyen represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>What construction is taking place on the property currently? (Nguyen: Stucco was cracked when
they moved in, will be repaired.)
>Where will the laundry room be? (Nguyen: Not decided. Either garage or second floor.)
>What will the window material be? (Nguyen: Has not decided.) Encourages aluminum -clad or wood
windows, should be specified on plans.
>Will there be window boxes? (Nguyen: No, that is just trim, not a box.) Needs detail on that piece of
trim.
>Needs better specifications on materials.
>Concern with lots of paving in the back yard. Why so much paving? (Nguyen: Conserve water.)
>Since there will be a fence along the property line, will there also be a gate? (Nguyen: Not planning
to have a gate.)
>Landscape plan needs to be more detailed to show what landscaping will be in back yard, and
where fences will be.
>Shared plans with neighbors? (Nguyen: No.)
>Plans indicate no eaves will extend within 2 feet of property line, but existing eave on right side is 18
inches. (Nguyen: Eaves will be cut back to 1 foot.)
>How much does lot slope from front to back? (Nguyen: Does not know.)
>Consider adding grids to the windows to add to detail.
>Will there be a closet in the master bedroom? (Nguyen: Closet from IKEA.)
>Top floor extends into Declining Height Envelope on both sides, creates tall walls. Were other
options considered? (Nguyen: Yes, but wants all three bedrooms upstairs.)
Public comments:
Richard Helser spoke on this item:
>Neighbor directly behind.
>Back yard gets flooded when it rains.
>Previous owner had built another building in back, had to be torn down. Now back yard is a big slab
of concrete. Concern with amount of paving being proposed, that water will end up draining off into
adjacent properties.
Steven DeBono, 1339 California Drive, spoke on this item:
>Had not been notified with plans.
>2-car parking plus lots of paving in the back yard.
>Lots are narrow; setbacks should follow zoning regulations and not be granted exceptions.
>Will there be plumbing into the garage for laundry, could become a second unit? Would expect
laundry to be in the house.
>Be sure square footage does not exceed what is allowed for the lot size.
>Driveway on left would be very narrow if a fence were built on the property line. Parking on street is
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
already limited.
>Most houses are one-story except houses on corners.
>Water needs to drain to the front.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Although lot is narrow, has trouble with exceptions to Declining Height Envelope on both sides of the
house. Needs more justification that there are not other alternatives.
>Side setback is already very narrow, so encroachment accentuates that. Would like to find a way to
bring it back into conformance.
>Square footage is within what is allowed for the lot.
>Project needs clarification in details, materials, and ensure programmed spaces are addressed such
as closets and laundry.
>Massing of front of house is OK, but there are blank planes along side. Needs additional detail and
articulation.
>Landscape plan needs to be detailed better. Does not currently show landscaping along the building
line, needs to be softened similar to what exists now and be indicated on the plan.
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.223 Clarendon Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two -story single family
dwelling (Chu Design Associates, James Chu, applicant and designer; Chris Bush and
S. Jane Woolley, property owner) (66 notices) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Applicant needs to revise Special Permit application to correct references to craftsman design and
detached garage.
Secretary Gum opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Jane Woolley.
Commission questions/comments:
>Presentation said the house was not at maximum square footage but total square footage is 4,300
square feet. Was garage not included because it is attached? (Woolley: Had described livable space,
and did not include basement.)
>In last meeting Spanish /Monterey Revival style was suggested to help break down massing. Why
not Mediterranean rather than Tudor? (Woolley: Considered it but it was not what we wanted. There are
other styles on the block. Thought the Tudor would be a compromise.)
>Fits in better than the previous submittal. The block is not a 100% pure enclave of Spanish /Monterey
Revival homes.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Why a stoop and not a porch? (Chu: Minimize the massing. A gable would make the house stand
out more.) Would be a nice gesture to the neighborhood.
>Consider adding some side windows to the front bedroom.
Public comments:
Debbie Grewal spoke on this item:
>Burlingame is known for a mixture of architectural styles.
>This block is unusual that most of the homes are Mediterranean, but one block does not define a
neighborhood. Surrounding blocks have a mixture of styles.
Maura Pratt Hagmueller spoke on this item:
>Lives on 300 block of Dwight Road.
>Burlingame has built its charm on diversity of community.
>Applicants have worked with neighbors.
>Home is beautiful, style has been changed to accommodate input.
Secretary Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Project fits in better with context. Previous craftsman submittal was out of context.
>City does not have historic districts which dictate needing to adhere to a particular style.
>Massing has been handled nicely.
>Attached garage fits in with context, is the pattern of the neighborhood.
>Special Permit for basement would not have any impact on the neighborhood.
>Concern that block has a preponderance of an architectural style.
>Community has not designated historic districts; ordinance does not mandate a particular style .
House needs to fit in in terms of scale, character, design, detail, etc.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the
item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent4 -
Nay:Gum1 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
c.1116 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer;
Dustin Finney, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
JoAnn Gann represented the applicant with property owner Dustin Finney.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission questions/comments:
>Will the trim on all the windows match? (Gann: Not intended to be different. They will be matched to
the existing windows.)
>Have the plans been shared with neighbors? (Finney: Yes, the neighbors to the north are in support .
Have also discussed with people walking by who have seen the lawn sign.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Appreciates that the style of the existing house is being kept.
>Appreciates that a single family home is being kept even though it is an R-3 zone.
>Design fits in with the existing home and with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
d.2117 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Variance for Floor
Area Ratio and Special Permit for an attached garage and an addition to the main
floor and lower level (Dale Meyer, applicant and architect; James Berta and Thuy
Vinh, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Given that the parking requirement is not increasing, could the existing parking condition remain
as-is? (Keylon: Yes. It is existing non-conforming, but the applicant wants a second conforming parking
space.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant with property owner James Berta.
Commission questions/comments:
>Applicant would want to have the additional parking even if they were allowed to maintain the
existing condition? (Meyer: Yes. Shortage of on-street parking.)
>On Sheet L-1 it looks like some trees are being removed but on L -2 they are still there. (Meyer: Has
received a permit to remove a couple of the trees.) Will there be new trees? (Meyer: Yes, olive trees.)
>Foundation appears degraded - this will basically be a new house.
>How tall are the retaining walls in the front? (Meyer: 3 feet high.) This would be tall along the
sidewalk. Any thought given to sloping the terrain?(Meyer: Existing house has small rock walls with hill
sloping upwards. Retaining walls allow a flatter yard. The neighboring houses along Hillside Drive also
have retaining walls stepping up to their front yards.)
>How does the architecture fit with the neighborhood? Contemporary style, flat roof, 9-foot plate
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
heights. (Meyer: Existing house behind on DeSoto has a contemporary design but does not have a flat
roof. Different styles along Hillside. This style was requested by the clients.)
>Is the window over the garage going to all be glazing? (Meyer: Yes.)
>Why is yard not currently maintained? (Meyer: Owners have only lived there a short time. Yard is
much less overgrown now than previously. Has been slowly cleaning up the yard.)
>Difficult to read the lettering on the landscape plans.
>Why no planting in the planting strip? (Meyer: People park along the street, step on grass in planting
strip. Street trees will provide greenery.)
>Consideration of noise from the front patio /fire pit? (Meyer: Given traffic on Hillside it would need to
be a late party for it to be a disturbance.)
>Consideration of garage doors being same size rather than one small and one large door? (Meyer:
Garage door is related to the window above and mass of the wall. Wanted additional garage door to be
smaller and stepped back to reduce impact on neighborhood.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Concern with large window on Master Bedroom. Gives commercial appearance.
>Details feel a bit commercial; consider broader overhangs and more narrow fascia, would fit in better
with context.
>Difficulty with the FAR variance, particularly to add a garage that is not required. Would think the 29
square feet could be pulled out from the addition somewhere.
>Concerns with the compatibility with the neighborhood, particularly with the scale. Plate height is 9
feet in front but higher in other places, gives it a commercial feel. Hard to argue that the massing fits in
with the neighborhood.
>Variance could be supported since the house is built into the hill, garage is being buried into the hill .
From the natural grade it looks like a one-story house.
>Likes style, and that it appears as a one -story house perched on a hill. Could revisit windows,
overhangs and fascias to make it more residential.
>Would like landscaping to soften the scale of the retaining walls along Hillside.
>Plate height should be reduced; windows look very tall otherwise.
>If scale of window above garage were reduced, size of garage door could also be reduced.
>Landscaping mimics the design of the house rather than the neighborhood; the retaining walls are
cold and fortress-like. Along Hillside the stone walls vanish into the landscaping.
>Does not like lack of planting in planting strip.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Next meeting for the Community Center CAC is scheduled for April 20th.
The most recent General Plan CAC meeting was March 23rd. It discussed land use alternatives, and
good progress was made. Next meeting is April 27th and the main topic will be circulation.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016
April 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Meeting adjourned 12:04 a.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on April 11, 2016. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 2016, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of $533, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016