HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.11.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
January 11, 2010 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Terrones called the January 11, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Strohmeier; Planning
Manager Maureen Brooks; Civil Engineer Doug Bell; and City Attorney Gus Guinan
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the December
14, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
■ Page 1, Roll Call; replace one "Terrones" with "Cauchi".
■ Page 2, move "Chair Terrones opened the public hearing" to immediately after "Commission
Comments" section.
■ Page 3, thirteenth bullet from top of page; replace "whimsical element' with "public art piece"
Motion passed 6-0. This item concluded at 7:06 p.m.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
No one spoke from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no study items.
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.
Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
consent calendar. There were no requests.
1a. 1860 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 250, ZONED ECN — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (KIMBERLY
STRATTON, APPLICANT; AND 1860 EL CAMINO REAL, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
1 b. 1221 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; AND BOB AND CINDY GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Auran indicated that he would abstain from voting on item lb since he had a business
relationship with the applicant in the past.
Commissioner Lindstrom moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Terrones called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0 (Item 1 a), 5-0-1 (Item 1 b)(Commissioner Auran abstaining).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 1420 —1450 HOWARD AVENUE & 249 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1 AND R-3 — REPLACEMENT OF
THE EXISTING SAFEWAY WITH A NEW SAFEWAY STORE, A NEW RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING AND
RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING (DEBORAH KARBO, SAFEWAY INC, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER; LOWNEY ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; AND BKF ENGINEERING,
ENGINEER) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS
a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, EL
CAMINO REAL SETBACK VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HEIGHT,
24-HOUR OPERATION OF A GROCERY STORE, SALE OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AND TAKE OUT SERVICES;
b. REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM R-3 TO C-1; AND
C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION
Reference staff report dated January 11, 2010, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-two (32) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission comments:
With respect to Caltrans letter; it appears that they recommend that the Eucalyptus trees be
removed. (Brooks — not recommending removal as part of this project.)
Would like to consider a condition prohibiting removal of the Eucalyptus trees as part of this project,
unless there are extenuating circumstances that warrant removal. (Brooks — clarified that a
separate process would be required for removal of the trees.)
Clarified that the Commission's action will be a recommendation regarding all aspects of the
project.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
Noted error in resolution adopting development impact fees; requested clarification. (Brooks —
noted that the resolution transposed fees for retail and office development.)
Asked about the requirement for installation of the traffic signal. (Brooks — Clarified that the future
traffic signal required is at the intersection of Primrose and Howard, the changes to signal timing at
Howard and El Camino Real will be done by Caltrans as part of a larger signal timing and phasing
project.)
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Deborah Karbo, 5918 Stoneridge Mail Road, Pleasanton; Ken Lowney, Lowney Architecture, 360 171n
Street, Oakland; and Bruce Jett, Landscape Architect; represented the applicant.
■ Reviewed a "fly -through" image of the site.
■ Provided a slide show overview of the revisions made to the project since the prior hearing.
■ Reviewed the design criteria for the site.
■ May be open for business by January 2011.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Will construction occur concurrently on all three parcels? (Karbo — yes.)
■ Will the commercial building be sold to another entity; will it be built by Safeway? (Karbo — all
buildings will be built at the same time. The building could be sold separately at some point in the
future.)
■ Requested clarification of the fee waiver request. (Karbo — the open space provided on site
satisfies the requirement. All on -site stormwater will be treated; none is treated on site today. Felt
the traffic fee could be reduced due to the contribution to the traffic signal installation.)
■ The quantity of stormwater being generated is the same; will it impact storm drainage? (Bell — No.)
■ Requested clarification regarding the material to be used for the pedestrian pathways. (Karbo —
could be stamped asphalt or stamped concrete; are showing stamped concrete on the plans.)
■ How will the "striped" area in front of the loading dock be treated? Is there a more visually
appealing means of delineating the area, should not be delineated by paint. (Lowney — would be
painted, not intended to be used for pedestrian circulation. Karbo — will look at other options.)
■ Felt the number of site lighting fixtures are too few, and quite tall; is it the most efficient in terms of
energy, could use more, shorter fixtures to provide more comfortable light distribution and a more
pedestrian scaled light fixture, may be more energy efficient. (Karbo — studied closely in order to
prevent spillage into the neighborhood. Jason Gomes (Safeway) — have strategically locate them
based on the location and size of trees to ensure the best coverage.)
■ With respect to the design of the trash enclosures; is there a means of screening them better with
landscaping? (Karbo — will look into perhaps installing a green -screen on the enclosure.)
■ Is any accent lighting to be provided at the corner element? It should carefully designed accent
lighting. (Karbo — is certainly proposed, but haven't yet thought it through. There could be up -
lighting highlighting the street name signage.)
■ Will deliveries be made from the store? If so, vehicles should be efficient. (Karbo — not planned for
this store. Special delivery trucks are used for the "dot-com" delivery service; not certain if energy
efficient vehicles are used.)
■ With respect to the roof deck; has the ability for vehicle lights to project through the perimeter
screening been evaluated? Will the screening protect the adjacent residents? (Jason Gomes — the
architect is specifying the material to be used to ensure limited ability for light to project through the
screen. Karbo — want see how it goes, don't know how many cars will park there at night, could be
addressed in the future.)
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
■ What is the plan for shopping cart storage within the surface parking lots? (Karbo — now proposed
in front of the store and in roof parking area. Cart storage areas are not currently shown within the
parking lot, but can look into providing areas.)
■ Near the ramp to the rooftop parking, is concerned about the potential for the trees in the area to
obstruct lines of site. (Karbo — perhaps change the tree choice to ensure that visibility is not
impacted.)
■ Will the Cork Oaks grow large enough to preserve visibility? (Jett — will grow large enough to
ensure that views are not impacted.)
■ How quickly will the trees grow to the projected height? Who will maintain them? (Jett/Karbo — will
be installed as 24-inch box trees; will be pruned to preserve lines of sight.)
■ Should there be a four-way stop at the base of the ramp? Safer to have a three-way stop at the
location. (Karbo — probably wouldn't want a stop at the entry from Howard Avenue to the ramp;
perhaps a "yield" sign. Jason — clarified the stop sign locations. Jett — the pedestrian path would
be obstructed by vehicles stopping near the speed table.)
■ Is more traffic anticipated from Howard Avenue or Primrose Road? (Karbo — presumes more traffic
will come from Howard Avenue.)
■ Commended the applicant on the responses to issues raised since the prior hearing; though still not
in favor of the design of the rear fagade; but don't know what else could be done given site
constraints.
■ To the extent that the roof garden will be a gathering place; could a water fountain be provided?
(Karbo — a drinking fountain can be provided.)
■ With respect to the fountain on the corner; is the background to the street signage stucco?
(Lowney — is proposed to be concrete or sandstone.)
■ There are a number of items that have been identified that could require review as an FYI, or other
form of action item.
■ What will be the size of the trees along Howard Avenue when they are mature? (Jett — Sunset Red
Oak will be roughly 40 to 50 feet high and 30 feet wide.)
Public comments:
Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Dolores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus
Avenue; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; Cathy Schmidt, 1512 Howard Avenue;
■ A lot of the trees are ornamental trees; if the trees are taller to conceal the vertical bulk could make
the store more successful; what is the ultimate size of the trees?
■ With respect to the Cork Oaks; there are two on Howard Avenue and two on North Lane at the train
station; doesn't think the trees will block lines of sight; happy with the choice of trees.
■ Appreciates the changes on the materials on the corner building.
■ Not fond of the fountain on the corner of Howard Avenue and El Camino Real, looks like an office
park.
■ Would be nice to have a green screen on the rear of the Safeway building, or the City could install
trees in the City parking lot.
■ Were non -deciduous trees considered? (Jett — have a number of evergreen trees proposed, with
deciduous trees to provide fall color. With respect to the green screen on the rear wall, would need
a wider planter area at the base than can be provided. Also clarified that the Cork Oaks are similar
in scale to Live Oaks. The Chinese Hackberry trees will have canopies that reach 20+ feet wide.)
■ There is an opportunity to provide some sort of mosaic or other feature on the rear, or consider
plant material that will drape down the side of the building.
■ Hope for more than just a plaque to memorialize the de Anza expedition.
■ Doesn't feel a bench is necessary at the corner of Howard Avenue and El Camino Real.
51
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
Additional Applicant comments:
Could also consider a "boulder" option for the monument on the corner.
Further Commission comments:
Was any thought given to a seating area on the corner? (Karbo — didn't think it was appropriate
because of traffic on El Camino, would need to compromise something else on the corner to
provide seating.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
See several remaining details that still need to be worked through, could be brought back to the
Commission as an FYI item prior to building permit issuance: Paving materials for pedestrian
walkways, delineation of the no parking area in front of the loading dock, pedestrian and site
lighting, trash enclosures, shopping cart storage, treatment of rear of the building, details about the
gateway feature, and the recognition of the de Anza Expedition (perhaps on the rear of the
building).
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped December 23, 2009, sheets A0.1 through A5.3 and sheets 1-0.1 through L1.2; and revised
sheets Al. 1, A1.2 and L1.1 date stamped January 11, 2010;
2. that the following refinements shall be made to the project design and shall be brought to the
Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of building permits for the project:
a. Specify the paving material to be used for the pedestrian pathways;
b. Specify how the no parking area in the truck turnaround area will be identified,
C. Provide details on the overall site and pedestrian lighting;
d. Provide details on the trash enclosure design;
e. Provide details regarding the gateway feature, the materials used for the fountain and
wall, include accent lighting, and provide details regarding the recognition of the Anza
Expedition, consider using a boulder with a commemorative plaque;
f. Look for opportunities to provide shopping cart storage within the parking lot, and
g. Provide more detail regarding the treatment at the rear of the building, look for ways to
break up the fagade such as a mural, landscaping, vines cascading from above;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of buildings, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. 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);
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 10, 2009 and April 28, 2009, memos, the City
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
Engineer's December 28, 2009, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 27, 2009, memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's November 26, 2007, memo shall be met;
6. that the applicant shall pay public facilities impact fees as outlined in the Public Facilities Impact
Fee calculation dated December 23, 2009, and that the Parks and Recreation fee ($2011.03), and
the Storm Drain fee (7,929.95), shall be waived; the total remaining fee due shall be $73,057.32;
the required fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the project;
7. that the grocery store may include take-out service and may be open 24 hours a day, seven (7)
days a week;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
11. Exterior lighting for the project would be designed to meet the requirements of Burlingame
Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential
areas), the California Energy Commission, and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America for illumination levels. Compliance with these performance standards would minimize the
dispersion of light in a manner that reduces the glow or aurora effect to acceptable and allowable
levels. In addition, the project area already contains numerous sources of exterior lighting, and is
not adjacent to uses that would be sensitive to light spillover.
12. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
13. 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;
The following three (3) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the
inspections noted in each condition:
14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
15. 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 Department;
16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
Mitigation Measures from Initial Study:
Hydrology and Water Quality
17. Preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan Incorporating Low Impact Development (LID)
Practices. In order to ensure compliance with the existing Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and expected Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, the
Applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project that
incorporates LID practices to the maximum extent practicable and required BMPs, as identified in
the Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit tentative order. In addition to site design consideration,
source control Best Management Practices (BMPs), and non-structural BMPs, this WQMP shall
identify the required treatment volume (or rate) and the selected stormwater quality treatment
BMPs, sizes, and locations for treating required flow volume (or rate), in accordance with both the
existing and tentative Stormwater NPDES Permits. Runoff from the entire project site must be
treated. The WQMP shall be prepared in compliance with the expected Regional Stormwater
NPDES Permit conditions, which will also ensure compliance with the existing Stormwater NPDES
Permit. It is not likely that the final, adopted Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit would include
substantially different requirements than the current draft version.
18. Existing Storm Drain Protection. During construction, any damage to the existing concrete slab over
the box culvert storm drain, or the storm drain culvert structure itself, will be immediately repaired by
the Applicant. The new structure overlying this culvert shall be structurally bridged over the culvert
to ensure adequate conveyance. Access to this culvert for maintenance and repairs shall be
provided in the site design and site plan.
Air Quality
19. Implement Feasible Control Measures to Minimize Emission of PM10 during Construction. The
project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project
construction, in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standard
mitigation requirements:
■ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
■ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.
■ All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
■ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The phone number of the BAAQMD shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
19. Implement Energy Efficiency Measures above 2005 Title 24 Standards. The project sponsor shall
implement energy efficiency measures, such that efficiency is at least 10 percent above the Title 24
standards promulgated in the 2005 California Energy Code.
Traffic
20. Install a Traffic Signal at the Howard Avenue/Primrose Road Intersection. The project sponsor shall
pay a proportionate share, as determined by the Public Works Department, toward the future
installation of a traffic signal at the Howard Avenue/Primrose Road intersection.
Biological Resources
21. Pre -construction Nesting Bird Survey. Construction of the proposed project shall avoid the March
15 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the
nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no
earlier than 14 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction
areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined
by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be
postponed within 250 ft. of the nest until a wildlife biologist has determined the nesting avian
species and consulted on further measures with the CDFG. If the avian species present is protected
under the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code, further mitigation could entail
postponement of clearing or construction activities within 250 ft. of the active nest until the young
have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting
attempts. If the avian species is not protected under the MBTA or the California Fish and Game
Code, no further action is required and construction activities may proceed.
22. Protection of Street Trees and Protected Trees. The project sponsor shall submit an application to
the City of Burlingame's Parks and Recreation Department for a tree removal permit and meet the
regulations of the Municipal Code, Chapter 11.06 (Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection) and
Chapter 11.04 (Street Trees), including any tree replacement requirements. Included with the permit
application shall be a landscaping plan that illustrates species, numbers, and sizes of replacement
trees. The City's General Plan — Conservation Element, encourages the planting of "indigenous
materials." While the planting of nonnative, ornamental species in landscaping the project site
would not violate any policies, the project sponsor shall give reference to planting species native to
the project site.
Biological Resources
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
23. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise. The following practices shall
be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor.
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
■ Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly
noisy areas of the site or around the entire site;
■ Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit
transmission of noise to sensitive receptors;
■ Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and
■ Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
C. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically -powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be
used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using
impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible.
d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
e. Select routes for movement of construction -related vehicles and equipment in conjunction
with the Burlingame Planning Division so that noise sensitive areas, including residences
and schools, are avoided as much as possible.
f. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" for construction activities.
The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding
construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or
vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.
Cultural Resources
24. Undiscovered Cultural Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural
resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past
human activity ("midden"), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone,
fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction
related earth -moving activities, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be
halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The project applicant shall hire a qualified
archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the
archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level through data recovery or other methods determined
adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Archaeological Documentation.
25. Unique Paleontological/Geological Features. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of
construction, the project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery
and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The project applicant shall retain a qualified
paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to a less -than -significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project applicant
shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the
paleontologist and approved by the City.
9
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
26. Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any
phase of construction, all ground -disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the
City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section
5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety
Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the
NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant
shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a
field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified
by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most
Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of
Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate,
taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e)
and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved
mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground -disturbing
activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered.
Improvement Measures:
27. Provide a "Keep Clear" pavement legend within the entrance drive aisle accessing Howard Avenue
to keep outbound vehicles from blocking access to the adjacent drive aisle to the west.
28. The City should monitor the driveway access to the project site from Howard Avenue. If regular
queuing to the El Camino Real/Howard Avenue intersection is identified, the City should restrict the
Howard Avenue driveway access to right -turns in and out only. Left -turning vehicles would then be
required to utilize the Primrose Road driveway.
29. The trash enclosure in front of the retail and office building should be relocated one space further
inside the lot.
30. One on -street parking space on either side of Fox Plaza Lane should be removed to improve
visibility for outbound Fox Plaza Lane vehicles.
31. Pavement markings indicating "No Parking" should be added as shown in Figure 26, to prevent
drivers from blocking the aisle needed for delivery truck turn around.
32. The City should monitor potential conflicts between delivery trucks and vehicles on Howard Avenue.
If needed, the City might consider limiting deliveries to off-peak hours to avoid conflict with
eastbound traffic on Howard Avenue.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
■ Agrees with the thought of some sort of item on the rear wall to commemorate the de Anza
Expedition.
■ Commended Safeway for their work on the project.
■ Adequate findings have been demonstrated for the Variance and Conditional Use Permit requests,
due to the unique nature of the use and the shape of the parcel.
■ Believes there may be a standard de Anza display that can be incorporated into the design.
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
May need to see specific drawings on the corner element.
A contribution to landscaping within Parking Lot K could be an alternative to treatment of the rear
wall.
The area will be transformed by both this project and Walgreens.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and non -appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
3. 309 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
CRAIG SUHL, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated January 11, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo and Craig Suhl, 493 Edgewood Road, San Mateo;
represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Noted a discussion regarding meeting with the neighbors at the prior hearing; did the meetings take
place? (Suhl — meetings took place; the neighbors are actually pretty happy at this point.)
Public comments:
Frances Morris, 1608 Ralston Avenue and Tina Ashamalla, 301 Occidental Avenue;
Had a constructive meeting with the applicant regarding all of her issues; he will address all issues
and make every effort to save the existing Ivy plants. Feels confident that the project can proceed.
Has a concern regarding privacy of her property; applicant has agreed to install trees on her
property to protect privacy, but Suhl will incur cost of the trees.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped December 23, 2009, sheets A.1 through A.6, Landscape Plan and Boundary and
Topographic Survey;
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;
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
4. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures as defined in the arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated December
17, 2009;
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 13 and October 2, 2009 memos, the
City Engineer's October 5, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 2, 2009 memo, the City
Arborist's December 22 and October 5, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 1,
2009 memo shall be met;
6. that demolition for 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
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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
11. 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;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
12. that prior to scheduling the 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;
13. 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
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
4. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND BUILDING
HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE
GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND JANICE
GUMAS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated January 11, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue and John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive; represented the applicant.
Majority of the garage has been redesigned, and the roof height has been lowered in order to
address the concerns of the neighbors.
Commission comments:
Noted that the architect and applicant had not visited the neighbor at 2606 Summit Drive, since the
installation of the story poles whose, view of the East -Bay hills will be blocked by the addition.
(Geurse — did not visit the site, and had not seen the photos. Gumas — the Commission previously
allowed the Ngai's to build the addition that has a window that is now blocked by the proposed
addition; the photos are not accurate. That addition is now preventing him from constructing an
addition.)
Confirmed that from the main window of the Ngai's bedroom, the view is blocked by the turret; was
a concern previously. Believe the aesthetics of the design are good, and that the turret is a
beautiful element of the design, but the turret addition blocks the view of the East -Bay hills and of
the airport. The turret is only a circulation space.
The neighbor would like to sit down with the applicant and work out the problem.
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
Large trees on the property at 2600 Summit Drive block the view to the south from the Ngai's
property; maybe applicant could open up southern view to allow other options with the neighbors.
Public comments:
Chris Ngai, 2606 Summit Drive;
Regrets that the neighbors are having the problems with the addition, but quality of life is important;
asking for a design that will not obstruct views; willing to work with the applicant.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Asked what latitude the Commission has with respect to blocking even a portion of a view. (Guinan
— the intent of the ordinance will be met by substantially preserving protected views.)
Commissioner Vistica moved to deny the project without prejudice.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
If there is some form of compromise that can be worked out, should be considered by the
Commission.
Applicant assumed the view to the south was the more important view, emphasizes to meet with the
neighbors to review impacts.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 6-0.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m.
5. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A
BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (KENDRICK LI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated January 11, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-four (24) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Commission comments:
With regards to the automatic gate, where did that condition come from? (Meeker — came from a
prior Commissioner.)
Discussion on driveway gates was concerning manual gate versus automatic gate.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Kendrick Li, 2212 Hillside Drive; represented the project.
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
■ Noted that the project is eco-friendly; discussion is limited only to the automatic gate and additional
paving.
■ Doesn't have any money left to make additional changes to the project.
■ Properties in the area do not include automatic gates.
The patio in the rear is larger than planned, and can be used for additional parking; is limited to only
one additional parking space.
Commission comments:
■ Will any type of gate be installed? (Li — no gate will be installed.)
■ There is a gate on a driveway directly across Hillside Drive.
■ The paving in the rear yard is not much more than a normal patio.
■ Supportive of the proposed amendments.
■ There is enough landscaping on the property to mitigate the additional paving.
■ There is conduit present to accommodate a future gate, if a future property owner desires it.
Public comments:
Dennis and Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue and Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut Avenue;
■ Soil has fallen through on neighboring property; their tree was broken; have had problems with
applicant.
■ There is a lot of water in the area.
■ If a car parks on the additional paving area, lights will disturb them because they will shine into their
bedroom window; there is plenty of parking on the driveway to accommodate multiple cars; don't
need more paving at rear.
■ Supports the Commission's past action; objects to the Commission considering making a change
after violations have occurred. Reviewed the history of the project and their repeated objections to
having the paving area extended along the side of the garage.
■ In Burlingame, you try to get vehicles off of the street; people tend to park on the streets and not in
the driveway; doesn't feel that anyone will actually park in the paved area.
Additional Commission comments:
■ How did applicant come to pave more than what was approved? (Li — discrepancy between
architect and landscape architect, only a minor change.)
■ Concerned regarding changes that were made outside of the approval of the project.
■ Cannot prevent people from parking on the area if it can easily be used for parking; neighbors will
be left with impact of project after the fact.
■ There does not appear to be an issue with the automatic gate.
■ What will happen if the additional paving is not permitted? (Meeker — cannot condition final
inspection upon removal of pavers. The area must be restored consistent with the approved plan,
or the applicant will need to file an amended request for any design that does not comply with the
approved plan.)
Additional Applicant comments:
Ben Behravesh, project architect; indicated that the paved area is 25-feet from the neighbor's
property; will not create an impact.
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
More Commission comments:
The paved area was specifically addressed when the project was first considered; was a conscious
decision to prohibit paving in the area, based upon the neighbors' concerns. (Li — cannot fix the
problem; impervious surface was the issue raised by the Commission previously.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
Agrees that it is difficult to get cars off of the street; doesn't see an issue with headlights from the
paved area; the adjacent property is uphill.
Not much different from if there were a two -car garage present.
Feels that amount of paving added is offset from an area of paving that was removed.
Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped March 14, 2007, sheets DD-1 through DD-7.0, date stamped May 21, 2007, sheets DD-1
through DD-6; and date stamped December 21, 2009, Layout Plan; that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit; that the spiral staircase from the sunken garden shall be eliminated and replaced with a
ladder per California Building Code requirements; and that only the lighting along the left side shall
be landscape lighting directed to the ground, with the cone of light kept on the site as required in the
Burlingame Ordinance;
2. that based on the requirements of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.28.037, the basement
area shall never be used for sleeping purposes as a bedroom;
3. that if it is possible under the regulations in the California Building Code, the egress door from the
basement area shall be replaced with an egress window;
4. that any street tree roots of one inch diameter or larger that are encountered during installation of
the new sidewalk and driveway are not to be damaged or cut prior to inspection and approval by the
City Arborist or the Park Department Supervisor;
5. that if it is determined during construction or after that the two existing Magnolia street trees need to
be removed, they shall be replaced at the property owner's expense with an appropriate species
selected from the City's street tree list as determined by the City Arborist, the tree selected shall be
the largest sized determined appropriate by the City Arborist;
6. that all windows except the picture window on the front elevation shall be simulated true divided lite
windows with a consistent horizontal grid pattern;
7. that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce night glare;
8. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Arborlogic Consulting Arborists, dated
August 3, 2006;
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
9. that construction protection measures shall also be determined and installed before a building
permit is issued for the existing Pittosporum hedge along the left side property line on the
neighbor's property at 1400 Columbus, and these measures shall remain in place until the
occupancy permit is issued for the project;
10. that landscaping shall be added along the right side of the house in protected planter bays
wherever possible to maintain a 9'-6" clear driveway width, plant materials shall be selected to
provide screening;
11. that the conditions of the City Arborist's March 21, 2007 memo, the Chief Building Official's
November 27, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's November 27, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's
November 29, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's November 27, 2006 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's June 12, 2006 memo shall be met;
12. that demolition for 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;
13. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building footprint;
15. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
17. 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 Department;
18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall 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;
19. 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;
20. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
21. 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;
22. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
23. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
24. that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
■ Approval of the request for the additional paving goes against the intent of the original approval, will
potentially affect the neighbor. The change was made without prior approval.
■ Have seen too many instances where changes are made irrespective of the Commission's prior
approval.
• Doesn't accept that the applicant cannot afford to remove the excess paving.
■ Removal of the gate is acceptable.
■ The paved area was previously denied by the Commission.
■ Is not clear that the previous concern was with the amount of hardscape on the site, or with the
desire to park in the area.
■ Applicant acknowledged that the addition is small.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 2-4. (Commissioners
Auran, Cauchi, Terrones and Lindstrom dissenting).
Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application for deletion of the automatic gate, but not for the
additional paving, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped March 14, 2007, sheets DD-1 through DD-7.0, date stamped May 21, 2007, sheets DD-1
through DD-6; and date stamped December 21, 2009, Layout Plan; with the exception that the
additional paving shown adjacent to the garage that expands the area beyond that shown on the
original approved plans, shall be restored consistent with the originally approved plans; that any
changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an
amendment to this permit; that the spiral staircase from the sunken garden shall be eliminated and
replaced with a ladder per California Building Code requirements; and that only the lighting along
the left side shall be landscape lighting directed to the ground, with the cone of light kept on the site
as required in the Burlingame Ordinance;
2. that based on the requirements of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.28.037, the basement
area shall never be used for sleeping purposes as a bedroom;
IN
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
3. that if it is possible under the regulations in the California Building Code, the egress door from the
basement area shall be replaced with an egress window;
4. that any street tree roots of one inch diameter or larger that are encountered during installation of
the new sidewalk and driveway are not to be damaged or cut prior to inspection and approval by the
City Arborist or the Park Department Supervisor;
5. that if it is determined during construction or after that the two existing Magnolia street trees need to
be removed, they shall be replaced at the property owner's expense with an appropriate species
selected from the City's street tree list as determined by the City Arborist, the tree selected shall be
the largest sized determined appropriate by the City Arborist;
6. that all windows except the picture window on the front elevation shall be simulated true divided lite
windows with a consistent horizontal grid pattern;
7. that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce night glare;
8. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Arborlogic Consulting Arborists, dated
August 3, 2006;
9. that construction protection measures shall also be determined and installed before a building
permit is issued for the existing Pittosporum hedge along the left side property line on the
neighbor's property at 1400 Columbus, and these measures shall remain in place until the
occupancy permit is issued for the project;
10. that landscaping shall be added along the right side of the house in protected planter bays
wherever possible to maintain a 9'-6" clear driveway width, plant materials shall be selected to
provide screening;
11. that the conditions of the City Arborist's March 21, 2007 memo, the Chief Building Official's
November 27, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's November 27, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's
November 29, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's November 27, 2006 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's June 12, 2006 memo shall be met;
12. that demolition for 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;
13. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building footprint;
15. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
19
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
17. 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 Department;
18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall 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;
19. 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;
20. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
21. 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;
22. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
23. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
24. that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m.
6. 2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE -STORY ADDITION TO
AN EXISTING PHYSICAL EDUCATION BUILDING AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT
20
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
AT THE EXISTING MERCY HIGH SCHOOL (DARREL JUSTUS, APPLICANT; MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,
PROPERTY OWNER; AND DES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated January 11, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-five (35) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Commission comments:
Is there any requirement for replacement trees on the property?
With regards to Conditional Use Permits for schools, are there any specific caps for enrollment on
any of the other schools in Burlingame? (Meeker— don't know if that would be a good guide for this
particular request.)
Do we know if the school has exceeded the 500 student enrollment at this point?
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Laura Held, Principal - Mercy High School, 2750 Adeline Drive; Jean Hastie, Campus Administrator -
Sisters of Mercy, 2300 Adeline Drive; Leigh Prince, attorney for Mercy High School, 1100 Alma Street,
Menlo Park; and Mark Hudak, attorney for Sisters of Mercy, 215 Park Road; represented the applicant and
Sisters of Mercy:
■ Have studied this proposal extensively to ensure that an amendment only needs to be requested
once.
■ The small parking and traffic increase is due to parents and faculty.
■ Have reached out to the neighborhood and have heard concerns regarding traffic impacts; will
continue to encourage safe driving and parking.
• Have already made progress implementing several of the measures suggested by the traffic
analysis; carpooling and alternate forms of transportation are used.
■ May look at decreasing the number of student parking permits for the next year.
■ Have heard concerns regarding additional traffic and noise attributable to the additional bleacher
seats; do not anticipate additional persons at these events.
■ Sisters of Mercy support the requests for the changes by Mercy High School; do not believe that the
changes will affect the Sisters of Mercy or the Mercy Retreat Center.
■ Sisters of Mercy also accept the City's request to treat the site as one site.
■ The City has requested a formal covenant tying the properties together; this is being studied closely
by the Sisters' attorney. The covenant will be required before a building permit is issued.
■ Sisters of Mercy asks the Commission to approve the requests, subject to agreement on the form of
the covenant.
Commission comments:
Requested clarification of enrollment numbers. (Held - Current enrollment is 497 students. Last
year were over -enrolled at 510 students.)
Public comments:
Judith Carle, 2300 Adeline Drive; Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive; Linda Abby, 2415 Adeline
Drive; Chelsea Morton -Jones, 675 Kellmore Street, Moss Beach; Georgene Carambat, 440 Hazel Avenue,
Millbrae; Michael Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Meaghan Osborne, 75 Crestview Avenue, Daly City; Joe
21
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
Galligan, 2404 Easton Drive; Randy Vandenbrink, 1412 Alvarado Avenue; Paul Denning, 1425 Alvarado
Avenue; Bill Coenday, 1476 Alvarado Avenue; Katie O'Brien, 2244 Poppy Drive; Jok Legallet, 1474
Alvarado Avenue; Robert Morton -Jones, 675 Kellmore Street , Moss Beach;
The application materials have been reviewed by the Sisters of Mercy and they encourage
approval.
■ Against the proposed amendment; the original Conditional Use Permit set forth the basis for all
other elements of the Conditional Use Permit; all items should be revisited as part of the permit.
■ From 7:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and in the evening, vehicles are stacked 15-cars deep on surrounding
streets. They don't obey traffic laws. Students park on the streets at all times.
■ A 5% increase of student enrollment and a 9.5% increase in staffing was approved with the original
permit, as opposed to prior year's numbers.
■ Why does the school now feel an additional 40 students are required?
■ The school could reduce enrollment to comply with restrictions.
■ Have admission files been reviewed by the City?
■ With respect to the trees and landscaping, many trees have been removed, stumps remain. Would
like a new Oak planted for every tree removed.
■ Shouldn't be allowed to increase the number of people that can use the bleachers.
■ Against allowing additional traffic and parking; but not opposed to an increase in enrollment.
■ There are multiple unreported vehicle accidents in the area due to parents and students at the
school.
■ Opposed to outdoor seating increase; will bring too much traffic to the service road; should be
reserved for more open space.
■ Make all past and current accident reports a part of the hearing.
■ Provide all background regarding the Conditional Use Permit.
■ Requested an Environmental Impact Report be prepared.
■ Request actual number of spectators at facility in the prior months.
■ The use of Kohl Mansion is not appropriate within an R-1 area.
■ Requested a one-way traffic pattern in the area.
■ Imperative to remember that other students of other schools are walking through the area.
■ Has attended Mercy High School and will graduate this year; supportive of the school.
■ Board member at the high school; have looked closely at the number of students that can be
accommodated; increasing enrollment could help to keep tuition costs down.
■ Adding 10 students to each class will not create a significant impact.
■ Traffic at Mercy High School is easier to navigate than traffic at Burlingame High School.
■ The proposed addition will not be a visual impact from anywhere outside the property.
■ Difficult to pin down enrollment; never certain how many will actually enroll at the facility.
■ Very few times that all students are present on the campus.
■ There is no more space available beyond 540 students.
■ The budget being proposed is only for 500 students; but want a buffer.
■ Are concerned about ensuring traffic safety.
■ Mercy High School existed prior to the homes on Adeline Drive and on Alvarado Avenue.
■ People on Alvarado Avenue want to use the street for parking, but problems could be lessened with
no parking on the street.
■ Have not exceeded noise restrictions at events.
■ Disagrees that noticing was only restricted to 1400 block of Alvarado for one-year review.
■ Traffic is out of control in the area.
■ Mercy has been called multiple times over the years; they have not been responsive; has had to
stop traffic so his wife can get out of the driveway.
22
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
■ There have been multiple suggestions for other traffic patterns; Mercy has refused to consider any
of the suggestions.
■ The change will impact the neighborhood.
■ There needs to be mitigation of the impacts; the entire use needs to be evaluated again and other
reductions should be imposed to mitigate impacts.
■ Mercy traffic has become more problematic over the years; has become more difficult to get out of a
driveway.
■ Automobile traffic is the main form of transportation for students.
■ Doesn't appear to be much of an effort being taken to promote use of public transportation.
■ Witnesses parents speeding a lot.
■ Was not notified of the amendment request; the 1400 block of Alvarado Avenue is one of the most
impacted areas.
■ Consider looking into a speed strip to monitor how fast vehicles are traveling through the area.
■ Traffic is the main problem.
■ Has chased a person that hit his car in order to get the driver to stop; traffic speeds through the
area; should be allowed to park in front of your house if you're a resident.
■ Traffic is horrendous.
■ With any school, there is a traffic problem.
■ Doesn't observe a major traffic jam on Adeline Drive during school hours.
■ People need to move their cars out of the street.
■ Mercy is good to its neighbors.
■ Public schools have greater enrollments as well.
■ More traffic will be generated by the requested amendments.
■ Students aren't supposed to be dropped off outside the campus; but it is happening.
■ People are now parking on Benito Avenue and Adeline Drive.
■ Send the matter back to the neighborhood for further input.
Additional comments from Applicant (Leigh Prince):
• No problem regarding requesting an amendment.
■ Have self -policed themselves, this is why an amendment is requested.
■ Referenced CEQA exemption categories; falls below thresholds.
■ There is no change in use.
■ Reiterated that the tree in question is only in fair condition according to the arborist.
■ With respect to parking; students are required to park in designated spaces.
■ Conditions in the Conditional Use Permit limit events.
■ Parking is allowed on the service road.
■ Make efforts to inform parents and students to drive safely and stop if there is a problem.
■ The principal is responsive to neighbors when contacted.
■ Mercy High School sent out a notice to neighbors in advance of the hearing.
Additional Commission comments:
How do we ensure that the increased enrollment is not exceeded? (Held — 540 is an absolute
maximum capacity; would like to reach 520 ideally. Cannot handle a greater number facility -wise.)
Were students turned away to get back down to the enrollment number? (Held — several factors
resulted in a drop in enrollment.)
With respect to traffic; can specific drop-off routes be given to parents. (Held — ask parents to drive
carefully. Have security patrols at gate and interior of campus.)
23
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
■ How many students live in Burlingame? (Held — probably have larger number of students from
outside Burlingame.)
■ What types of activities occur at the pool? Is it sufficient to support water polo? Are more activities
anticipated? (Held — only water polo practice and meets and regular swimming practice. No
increase in activities anticipated.)
■ What are the school hours? (Held — 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. with after school activities ending at 6 p.m.)
■ Could school hours be amended to start at a later time? (Held — have not given consideration to
such a change; but would need to factor into overall scheduling.)
■ Has Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission reviewed the traffic and circulation in the area?
(Meeker — unknown.)
■ Discussed circulation patterns on the site. (Held — some roads through the site are not suitable for
traffic and are restricted in use by the Sisters of Mercy. Abby — some of these roads were used for
many years for circulation. Hudak — must understand that two separate parcels exist. Hastie —
doesn't know what the fire road was used for in the past; but has been deemed only available to
emergency traffic. Rebuilding the road is cost prohibitive. The lower Columbus/Hoover Gate Road
travels through areas of the Sisters of Mercy property; is used by the Sisters who have decided not
to open them to traffic.)
■ How many traffic incidents are heard of per year? (Held — this year, three occurrences. Have
phoned and/or e-mailed with neighbors to gather information on the event for follow-up; if
information is received, she follows -up.)
■ How many students attend classes off -site? (Held — approximately 25 students.)
■ There must be some solution to help move traffic along; is there a traffic pattern that can be devised
to alleviate problems?
■ Has there been any type of outreach/community meetings to attempt to resolve this issue. (Held —
want to be good neighbors; are open to working together with the community to attempt to find a
solution. There was a prior discussion regarding creating traffic patterns to improve conditions.
Have contacted Burlingame Police Department to manage traffic problems. Willing to have
neighborhood meetings.)
■ How much parking is available to the High School? (Held - 99 spaces for students and 72 for
faculty and staff. Doesn't believe that additional parking can be created.)
■ Drop-off and pick-up are also issues.
■ Doesn't have much of an issue with the gym and bleachers changes.
Additional public comments:
Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive; and Dennis Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue;
An increase in student enrollment should not be considered until traffic problems are resolved.
Consider a staging area for students in order to reduce traffic impacts.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
■ Ok with the gym and bleacher changes, wait on the enrollment question until mitigations can be
evaluated.
■ Believe traffic problem only exists on Alvarado Avenue; suggest some kind of traffic mitigation
research to relieve traffic on Alvarado Avenue.
■ Demonstrate what can be done to help traffic circulation; should consider various alternatives.
■ Need to extend themselves beyond the campus with traffic monitoring.
24
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
Commissioner A uran moved to approve the request for a Hillside Area Construction Permit, and amend the
Conditional Use Permit, without an increase in the maximum student enrollment, subject to the following
conditions:
that Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, from August to mid -June, with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80
faculty/staff members;
2. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday;
3. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on -site in designated parking areas;
no student parking shall be allowed to occur in the surrounding residential streets; Mercy High
School staff or representatives shall supervise and monitor campus traffic and parking at the
beginning and the end of each school day during the school year;
4. that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on -
site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools;
5. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275
participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Monday through Friday;
6. that Montessori Preschool shall be open only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students;
7. that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites or picking
students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to the
site and drop students off or pick them up on -site at locations designated by each school;
8. that in addition to service deliveries, any parking along the service road (shown as "EASEMENT" on
Plot Plan attached as Attachment 1 to 2-21-07 City staff report) and the service road parking area
shall be limited to parking for faculty and staff of Mercy High School and the Montessori school only;
no student parking shall be allowed along the service road or in the service road parking area;
9. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school,
number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number,
which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use
permit;
KOHL MANSION
10. that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise limits and
other requirements for operation established in these conditions of approval along with the
requirement that the contractor shall comply with each of these requirements or cease its event on
the Kohl Mansion site;
11. that the base line for defining noise problems used on the Mercy High School site shall be the
established City standard which includes: any noise which is five (5) decibels over the ambient
25
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
noise level at the time of the event at property line; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code;
12. that in order to monitor and document noise at the Kohl Mansion:
a. Mercy High School shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s), as appropriate, designed
for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors; the security and other appropriate staff
shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters;
b. The School shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise
level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along
the property line of the Mercy High School site;
C. During each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year, the noise levels at these
established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log. The log shall document
which events used sound amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside,
including those events with music. This data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall
be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of
approval; and
d. Noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High
School student body events;
13. that Kohl Mansion events shall be limited as follows:
a. No more than 125 events shall be conducted at Kohl Mansion during any calendar year that
are in addition to Mercy High School events and "Music at Kohl Mansion" events;
b. During any calendar year, no more than six (6) non -school events shall be held during the
day while school is in session, and most guests at such an event shall arrive by bus; and
C. The only sound amplification that shall occur outdoors shall be limited to the amplification of
normal speaking voices during speeches, ceremonies, services, and Mercy High School
rallies and presentations;
14. that events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end:
a. No later than 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, with holidays and evenings before
holidays excepted; and
b. No later than 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, holidays and evenings before
holidays;
15. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take -down" for outdoor parties shall be
limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property
located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039;
however, in no event shall tents be taken down between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.;
MERCY CENTER
26
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
16. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings
and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include
an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average
of three (3) days and a maximum of ten (10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants;
17. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities
such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel
and prayer groups; evening services, including, but not limited to, the Friday evening Taize service;
Sunday mass; non-profit organizational meetings; Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events
shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more
than 150 participants;
SISTERS OF MERCY
18. that the Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset;
19. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of
50 residents;
20. that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40
residents;
21. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents;
22. that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the
Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School. It shall be open for conduct of classes and business only
during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees;
ENTIRE SITE
23. that the maximum, cumulative number of guests for all events occurring at any one time at the Kohl
Mansion, Mercy High School, Mercy Center, and the remainder of the facilities and property subject
to this conditional use permit shall be 300. The maximum, cumulative number of event support staff
for all events occurring at any one time at the Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School, Mercy Center, and
the remainder of the facilities and property subject to this conditional use permit shall be fifty (50).
Any changes in the nature of the events, maximum number of guests and support staff, or any other
provision specified in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit;
24. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided
regarding available parking for the event; participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur
on site; there shall be no overflow parking allowed on the surrounding public streets;
25. that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7
phone number for emergencies and complaints. This telephone 'hot line' shall be answered by an
individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received, and,
in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion, a process shall be instituted that would convey
information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the
authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security;
26. that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing
27
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 11, 2010
online to the public a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties
owned by the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, and a copy of the calendar shall also be
provided to the Burlingame Police Department. The calendar of events shall include, at a minimum,
the nature of the event, the duration of the event, the date of the event and the contact number for
someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; that this calendar shall be compiled,
updated, maintained and posted regularly throughout the year;
ADDITION TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION BUILDING AND BLEACHERS
27. that the addition to the existing physical education building and replacement and addition of new
bleachers shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
December 17, 2009, sheets G0.01 through G0.03, G 1.01, A1.01, A2.01, A2.02 and A5.01;
28. that prior to issuance of a building permit, a covenant or deed restriction, in a form approved by the
City Attorney, shall be recorded which addresses the extension of the proposed building addition
and bleachers across property lines;
29. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit from the
Parks Division for removal of the existing 17.9/13.5 inch diameter coast live oak tree;
30. that any changes to the size or envelope of the addition or bleachers, which would include changing
or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
31. that the conditions of the City Arborist's July 27, 2009 memo, the Chief Building Official's June 10,
2009 memo, the City Engineer's June 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 9, 2009 memo, and
the NPDES Coordinator's June 11, 2009 memo shall be met;
32. 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;
33. 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; and
34. 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.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to deny the request for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to
increase the limits on student enrollment and in faculty/staff, without prejudice.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom
m
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
Discussion of Motion:
Direction was given to ensure that if/when the request for an increase in maximum enrollment and
faculty/staff, that public noticing include all properties located within the 1400 block of Alvarado
Avenue; this requirement shall be applied to all future requests involving the use.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 6-0.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:42 p.m.
Given the late hour, the Commission determined that it would consider Item 7 (1430 Palm Drive), but would
then adjourn the meeting following conclusion of that item; deferring action on all remaining agenda items
until the regular meeting of January 25, 2010; this decision was announced to those in attendance.
Commissioner Cauchi indicated that he would recuse himself from participating with respect to Agenda
Item 7 (1430 Palm Drive) since he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the Council
Chambers.
7. 1430 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR ANTENNA EXCEPTION FOR NEW WALL -
MOUNTED ANTENNAS ON THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING (T-MOBILE,
APPLICANT; FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER; AND ZON
ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated January 11, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested
for consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Warren Bellis, Zon Architects, 660 4th Street #225, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Requested clarification regarding placement of conduit on the outside of the building. Concerned
that plans do not show where the exposed conduit will be installed on the building elevations;
concerned that the installation may not follow the plans, since it doesn't provide enough detail.
(Bellis — will be resolved through the building permit process.)
■ Not certain that members of the church community are aware of the proposal; particularly the
placement of the conduit on the exterior of the building. (Bellis — pastor has copy of plans.)
■ Asked if there is a less intrusive location for the installation? The church is a fine example of its
particular type of architecture.
■ Don't want to see the conduit mounted on the exterior of the structure; want conduit internal instead
of mounted on exterior of building; need to see details of the installation on the northwest and
southwest elevations.
Public comments:
Ellen Freed, 815 Fairfield Road;
Concerned about the affects of the installation's aesthetics upon her property. Doesn't want to see
the installation.
29
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
Concerned that the pastor may not be aware of the proposal; the church has multiple pastors.
First Baptist owns the church and should be aware of visual impacts of project.
Additional applicant comments:
Will work with the neighbor to address the aesthetic concerns.
Additional Commission comments:
Provide details of installation and work with the neighbor to resolve her aesthetic concerns.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to provide additional details
regarding the installation, particularly the conduit installation.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
Requested clarification of the ownership of the property.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner
Cauchi recused). The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 12:10 a.m.
Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais.
8. 1510 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT BEAR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA
STROHMEIER
9. 1212 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LENGTH FOR A NEW
DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CRAIG AND
PAIGE HEDGES, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
10. 814 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE AND MICHELE JACKSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Chair Terrones moved to continue agenda items 8-10 (properties located at 1510 Drake Avenue, 1212 Mills
Avenue, and 814 Crossway Road) to the next regular meeting, scheduled for January 25, 2010.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
W
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion. Motion passed 6-0. This item concluded at 12:12
a.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Community Development Director Meeker noted that he would be on vacation from January 13t"
through January 22nd, but would be in attendance at the next meeting on January 25tn
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 4, 2010:
Opened the recruitment for the vacant, and upcoming reappointments to the Planning Commission;
the recruitment period will conclude on January 29, 2010. Interviews are yet to be scheduled.
The public hearing on the appeal of the Commission's approval of the project at 1441 Balboa
Avenue has been scheduled for February 1, 2010.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — December, 2009
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Yie, Secretary
31