HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 04.27.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, April 27, 2009 — 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the April 27, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:14 p.m.), Cauchi, Lindstrom, Vistica (arrived at
7:04 p.m.) and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Terrones
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Ruben Hurin; and City
Attorney, Gus Guinan
III. MINUTES
(Note: the minutes were approved following Commissioner Brownrigg's arrival at 7:14 p.m.)
Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner A uran to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2009
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted.
Motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica abstaining; Commissioner Terrones absent).
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 Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent
Calendar. There were no requests.
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Apri127,
2009
1a. 1412 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED 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 YANG
MIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
1b. 1715 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE
FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (AUDREY
TSE, INSITE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JIM AND DARLENE JAWORSKI,
PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Auran 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 Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Terrones and Brownrigg absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:06 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (ORA HATHEWAY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ADIB AND SYLVIA
KHOURI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 27, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Emmanuel Jacobo, 100 Cambridge Street, San Francisco (contractor) and Adib Khouri, 2700 Summit
Drive; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
None.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica 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 July 7, 2008, sheets A-1 through A-10 and C-1, and date stamped April 2, 2009, sheets A-
1 through A-8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of
the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
2. that the detailing of the rear stairway shall have a stucco base with a wood rail, and shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to construction;
3. that the existing fence shall be modified to be made of stucco with brick caps and all light elements
shall be removed, and the revised fence shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI,
prior to construction; further, the fence shall not be extended unless the design of the extension is
first reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's April 6, 2009 memos and the
NPDES Coordinator's April 7, 2009 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
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 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
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
13. 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.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
The changes enhance the design.
Appreciated that the changes came forward before they were installed.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners
Terrones and Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m.
3. 2538 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (AUDREY TSEI
INSITE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND STEVE AND SHANNON CANNON, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 27, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Audrey Tse, 1534 Plaza Lane and Shannon Cannon, 2538 Hayward Drive; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Noted that there should be an emphasis on the design of the garage doors, given the dominance of
the garage door; the approved design was better. (Tse — have retained the existing garage door
due to financial considerations.)
Understands the property owners desire to save cost; but the existing doors do not compliment the
design; encouraged saving money on some other aspect of the project; this is a prominent element
of the design. (Tse — the owner and architect feel that people are "welcomed" by the design of the
home. Have upgraded to wood windows at the request of the Planning Commission at a significant
cost; feel they have already responded to the need to meet the design interests of the Planning
Commission; the home is not dominated by the garage. The garage door and color matches the
trim of the house.)
The curve of the street allows the garage to stand out; the design of the garage is not up to par with
the rest of the design; perhaps paint the door the body color of the home. (Tse — it could be painted
to match the home.)
Questioned the removal of the "starburst" pattern from the door. (Tse — could replace with a new
grid and paint the color of the body of the home. Cannon — grids are on order and will look similar
to the grids in the windows.)
Questioned the material of the garage door. (Cannon — made of vinyl.)
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Apri127,
2009
Verified that the doors have been retained since they are in good condition. (Cannon — the doors
are less than 10-years old. Don't want to throw them into the landfill.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Would like to see what the grids will look like; could be an acceptable solution, particularly if the
door is painted to match the house.
Suggested a continuance to permit the applicant to submit plans reflecting the final proposal.
Also requested that the applicant determine if the doors may be "routed out" to provide the illusion
of the "board" look similar to the front door.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to prepare plans that
reflect the installation of grids and a determination whether or not the doors may be "routed out" to provide
the illusion of individual boards.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner
Terrones absent). The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m.
4. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED SL—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION TO
ALLOW OPERATION OF A CAR RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY (MARK HUDAK,
APPLICANT; VANGUARD R/E HOLDINGS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 27, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
None.
Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant.
Preservation of the Conditional Use Permit would allow re -instatement of the car rental use at the
location while the property is being marketed.
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
Noted that the applicant would reappear before the Commission if another user, such as WeCar,
were to open on the site.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Asked for explanation of the request for a 10-year extension. (Hudak — would allow amortization of
the improvements to the property.)
■ Are rental car operations targeted as the user of the property? (Hudak — desire is to bring the use
back on the property on at least a temporary basis.)
■ Were extended -stay hotels explored for the property? This could be another group of parties that
may be interested in the site. (Hudak — doesn't know if any of the potential buyers interested in
developing a hotel had that format.)
■ Asked if an amendment would be required for WeCar? (Meeker — clarified that an amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit is not possible given that the use is non -conforming. Staff would
continue to negotiate with Enterprise regarding the future occupancy of the site by a car rental use.)
■ Asked what revenue would accrue to the City if WeCar were to locate on the property? (Hudak —
not sure but hope some revenue would go to City)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
Noted that car rental is a good use for the site.
CommissionerAuran moved to approve the extension of the term of the Conditional Use Permit for a period
of 10-years.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
Discussion of motion:
Does not support extending for 10 years; though an extension can be supported, a two-year
extension is appropriate given the unknowns about the future use of the site; may be comfortable
with a 5-year extension.
Noted that a car rental agency has operated at the location for 24-years.
Commissioners Auran and Lindstrom agreed to an amendment to the motion to extend the term of the
Conditional Use Permit for a period of 5-years, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped January 3, 2003, sheets A0.1, A1.0, Al. 1, A2.1, and A22.1, site plan, partial site plan,
second floor -administration, and building C floor plan, kiosk floor plan and reflected ceiling plan;
2. that the car rental, maintenance and storage facility may be open for business from 6:00 a.m. to
10:30 p.m., seven days a week , and that there shall be no more an 50 employees and 25
W
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
customers on -site at any one time;
3. that there shall be a maximum of 600 cars stored on the site at any one time, this number shall
include cars that are on -site for maintenance and there shall be a maximum of 2 car carriers on -site
to deliver vehicles at any one time;
4. that no trucks delivering or picking up cars at this site shall arrive or depart between 7:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, and all such deliveries shall be made on -site with no
impact on the public street or right-of-way;
5. that the required number of handicap stalls for employees and/or customers shall be provided and
designated at 778 Burl way Road as per the California Building Code, 2001 edition, and all
employees shall be required to park in the 78 space employee parking lot in the southwestern
portion of the site, employee parking shall be designated and employee cars shall have sticker
identifying them as belonging to employees on -site;
6. that all employee parking shall be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the south end of
the site;
7. that the car rental operation at this site shall pay to the City of Burlingame $36,500 per year; the
annual payment shall be payable in advance no later than April 30 of each year during which this
permit is in effect. When one percent (1 %) of the total gross rental for any vehicles for lease or
rental originating from this site, whether those agreements are signed in Burlingame or adjacent
jurisdictions exceeds $36,500 during any calendar year, the applicant shall then pay one percent of
the total gross rentals to the City of Burlingame on a quarterly basis for the duration of the permit;
this amount shall be due and payable no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar -year
quarter. For purposes of this condition, agreements for rental from San Francisco International
Airport car rental facility shall not be included in calculating the 1 % payment to the City. In addition
to making the payments required by this condition (either annual/flat amount or quarterly), the car
rental operation shall file quarterly statements with the City of Burlingame Finance Department
documenting the number of vehicle rental agreements signed at the site per month during the
quarter on such forms as may be required by the City, and shall include a
8. breakdown of the monthly vehicle rentals from the 778 Burlway Road site. In addition, the City of
Burlingame shall accrue any sales tax revenue from rental contracts written in the City of
Burlingame. Whether paying a fixed fee or 1 % of the gross rental rates, the car rental operation on
this site shall keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all records as may be necessary to
determine the rentals from which the one percent (1 %) payment calculation may be derived. Such
records shall be available for delivery to the City for review with fifteen (15) days after request
therefore;
9. that no cars shall be loaded, unloaded or stored on any public street, in any public right-of-way, or
in any public access area;
10. that any change to the rental of cars, number of employees, amount of auto storage, addition of
services or secondary business to the site, or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental
business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit;
11. that the fire lane from the east end of the site to Burlway Road shall be provided and maintained,
unobstructed, on a permanent basis as required by the Fire and Public Works Department of the
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
City of Burlingame;
12. that the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the public access trail and
improvements adjacent to the subject property for the life of the project and shall be liable for any
damage caused to the public for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard, including that
the applicant shall remove volunteer vegetation at the narrowest point of the trail and call for an
inspection by the Planning Department within 10 days (January 21, 2005) and fill the area of
vegetation removal and all pot holes in the Bay Trail and call for an inspection by the Planning
Department within 90 days (April 10, 2005);
13. that the property owner shall install and maintain on a regular basis as prescribed by the city's
NPDES inspector, petroleum filter pillows in all parking lot catch basins throughout the site, that all
water used for washing cars on site shall be recycled by a method approved by the City Engineer,
and that failure to install these systems within 90 days of approval of this use permit amendment or
failure to maintain the effectiveness of these systems on an on -going basis shall cause this
conditional use permit to be review by the Planning Commission;
14. that this approval shall expire in five (5) years and all said uses on the site shall cease unless the
applicant applies for a permit extension by February 22, 2014, to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission; and
15. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Code, 2001 edition as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to extend the term of the Conditional Use Permit for a
period of5years. The motion passed 5- 1-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting, Commissioner Terrones
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:51 p.m.
5. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) TO ALLOW
UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUBAREA A OF THE
BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR "READY -TO -EAT FOOD
SHOP". AND TO CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
Reference staff report dated April 27, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Clarified location of property at 329 Primrose Road.
Public comments:
Kirk Syme, 330 Primrose Road; Riyad Salma, 1375 Burlingame Avenue; spoke:
Would like 329 Primrose Road to be included within the area for new full -service restaurant use.
Supports goal of enhancing the economy of the downtown.
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
Restaurants are struggling downtown; businesses are cannibalizing each other; should not increase
the number of new full -service restaurants.
Ready -to -eat category would add more competition and could hurt the other businesses downtown.
Suggests limiting "ready -to -eat" food shop to a maximum 1,000 square feet.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission Comments:
■ Perhaps 1,200 square feet is too large for a "ready -to -eat" food shop; could be tempted to install a
kitchen; perhaps smaller space of 750 or 1,000 square feet is appropriate; there was consensus for
establishing a 1,000 square foot limit.
■ There was consensus for adding Primrose Road, north of Burlingame Avenue into the area for new
full -service restaurants.
■ Could food services occur on Safeway property? (Meeker — the application does not include any
new food service uses at this time, other than the typical uses within a modern Safeway
supermarket.)
■ With respect to single-family parking; could there be a need for greater parking requirements for
homes with more bedrooms, e.g. 7 or 8 bedrooms? (Meeker — encouraged recommending the
"clean-up" of the parking standards as outlined in the staff report; but could have future discussion
of need for greater parking for larger homes by subcommittee.)
Commissioner Vistica moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the amendments, with the
following modifications:
Reduce the "ready -to -eat" maximum floor area to 1,000 square feet.
Include properties lying within Subarea A on Primrose Road, between Burlingame Avenue and
Chapin Avenue, within the area for an additional 5 full -service restaurants.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Appreciated Mr. Salma's expert input on this matter.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner
Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAND PARKING VARIANCE FORA PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL IN EXISTING
BUILDINGS (JERRY WINCES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND SHINNYO-EN, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 27, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the
project description. There were no questions of staff.
Commission comments:
E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
Asked if Shinnyo-En has already vacated the property? (Meeker — yes.)
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Jerry Winges, 1290 Howard Avenue; and Kevin Sved, Los Angeles; represented the applicant.
■ Plan to open in September 2009 with 60 students; the number of students will increase to 180 in the
future.
■ No new buildings are proposed; there will only be minor changes to the interior of the buildings.
■ Students will not be allowed to have cars; they will be bused to the site from a dormitory in South
San Francisco.
■ The school will be a college -preparatory learning environment.
■ The school is committed to being a good neighbor.
■ The applicant initiated a community meeting to address any concerns that may arise.
■ Want students to understand the importance of city government.
Commission comments:
■ Exciting project.
■ Clarified that one-half of students will be boarders; other half will be commuting; why make the
students drive to the dormitory to catch the shuttle to the school. (Sved — attempting to minimize
impacts of traffic within the neighborhood; if someone lives within walking distance, they may
choose to walk to school.)
■ Why reduce the number of parking spaces when there is no clear use for the space? (Winges —
didn't want to create more paved area on the site; the area could be used as a basketball court, for
example, or a small sport court. In an overflow situation, the space could be used for overflow
parking. Sved — are working with the Burlingame Sports Center as a recreational location; could
also be used as a drop-off location.)
■ How will the amphitheatre be used? (Sved — will be used for readings, performances, etc.)
■ Clarified that the property will be surrounded by a chain -link fence. (Winges — the fence and other
improvements are already on the site; there will be no fence added.)
■ Asked if there was a way to connect the road through to the rear of the site? (Winges — not
feasible.)
■ It is surprising that a boarding facility is not proposed on the campus; students will be boarded
many miles away. (Winges — not being considered at this time; the site doesn't lend itself to
building anything additional. Are respecting the existing zoning of the property. Sved — analogous
to a university setting.)
■ Asked when recreational services would occur; would they be staggered when the student
population increases? (Winges — could be staggered.)
■ Has there been consideration to using other shuttle services? (Winges — some other arrangements
could be made, depending upon circumstances. Are wishing to be sensitive to the neighbor's
concerns.)
Public comments:
David Simson, 2850 Canyon Road; Warren Donald, 2202 Summit Drive; Paul Lynch, 2845 Canyon Road;
April Glatt, 10 Belvedere Court; Liese Sand, 7 Belvedere Court; Sarah Jang, 2260 Summit Drive; Diane
Haggerty, 2265 Summit Drive; Robert Regan, 1585 Hillside Circle; Ron Kaponat, 2109 Summit Drive; and
Lily Wu, 2855 Canyon Road; spoke:
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
■ Concerns about students driving to school have been allayed, but mini -buses maneuvering through
the area could be a disturbance.
■ Site is at the juncture of Hillsborough, Burlingame and Burlingame Hills area; should elicit input from
each community's residents.
■ Traffic is a concern, the roadways are pretty "tight"; concerned about the number of mini -buses and
traffic generated by taking students to the gym.
■ There will be parents that will drop off students in the area.
■ Would almost prefer homes on the property.
■ Concerned that students will park away from the site and walk into the site; impacting the adjacent
neighborhoods.
■ There are no sidewalks in the area, except right in front of the school.
■ Shinnyo-En has been a good neighbor; the site hasn't been a school for 30-years.
■ What special occasions would occur on the property; what are other uses that the site would be put
to when school is not in session? During Summer and Winter breaks?
■ There is no lighting in the area; this is a concern with respect to the hours of operation.
■ Received a letter about the community meeting 4-days prior to the meeting; not enough notice was
given.
■ There is no indication on the plans regarding any tree clearing that will occur on the site; this should
be clarified.
■ Concerned regarding high-school children wandering onto private properties.
• Are shuttling people back and forth from another community; how does this relate to the Burlingame
"community"; will the children and parents be patronizing the local businesses?
■ The neighborhood is quiet; the school will impact the neighborhood and do nothing for the
community.
■ How will the deer and other wildlife in the area that will be disturbed by the activities on the
property?
■ Noise from amphitheatre could be an impact; when will activities occur at this location?
■ Fire -safety risk; fire spreads quickly within the hills.
■ Not a place for teenagers; a bad choice for the area.
■ Cannot support placing a school back on the site.
■ The amphitheatre has been a problem due to activities after hours from unsupervised children.
■ Students would walk to the area when it was Hoover School, with some bused from within the
neighborhood; was an elementary school with a little over 100 students; not suitable for a high
school.
■ Don't trust a teenager to drive in the area due to the street system.
■ The property is so large that the student population could grow beyond what is anticipated.
■ Will the school be co-ed?
■ Feel the traffic trips are conservative numbers; need a realistic evaluation of traffic impacts.
■ The streets are already damaged; more traffic from buses will cause further deterioration.
■ The high-school concept is awkward; given that the students are being brought in from a remote
location.
■ The plans don't provide much area for physical activities on the site.
■ Need more information provided to the citizens around the school about the operation.
■ Concern with respect to parking on the street in front of the school; the expanse is void of cars
currently, since people don't presently park there; there is limited opportunity for parking. Limiting
the number of parking spaces on the site could force people to park along Summit Drive.
■ Concern that people may be living on the property full-time; need this to be clarified.
■ Can understand turning it back into a public school, but not into a private school.
II
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
Will create traffic jams in the area; and will be dangerous.
There is conflicting information about the proposal.
Additional comments from Applicant:
■ 20-person buses would be used and would turn -around on the site.
■ The school is a conditionally permitted use in the R-1 zone.
■ Will obtain more information about the use of the amphitheatre.
■ Believe there is enough room on the property in the event of a fire drill.
■ Believe the original Hoover School was approximately 230 students, with larger faculty.
■ John Wilson, San Francisco (traffic engineer) — provided a worst -case scenario for traffic into and
out of the site. Assumes that some of the teachers will pick-up some children. The types of
vehicles used for shuttles is up to the Commission; felt the smaller buses would be less of an
impact; assumed 15 in -bound and 15 out -bound bus trips per day. The roads in the area aren't
meant to carry heavy amounts of traffic.
Additional Commission comments:
■ How will the buses queue up? They could obstruct traffic. Would like this analyzed further.
(Wilson — 5 of the buses will likely make multiple trips, circulating through the parking lot. Asked
what size vehicle provides a comfort level for the Commission?) It is not the Commission's job to
provide direction regarding vehicle size; the expert needs to analyze this and provide information for
the Commission to consider.
■ Feel there is a lot of extra driving that is not been accounted for; e.g. trips to sports fields, etc.
■ The worst -case traffic scenario has not been analyzed.
■ Is parking allowed on the streets in the area? May need to be made "no parking". (Wilson —
parking is not restricted, but is not used for parking due to the constraints of the streets.)
■ May need specific conditions restricting driving to the property and parking.
■ The area is very congested and dangerous from a traffic standpoint.
■ Show the traffic flow into and off of the site when the project next appears before the Commission,
include traffic circulation on the property.
■ Provide some sort of understanding of the functioning of the intersection of Easton Drive and
Summit Drive, and how traffic from the school would impact the intersection. The intersection could
become impassable during student peak periods; it must be evaluated.
■ Clarified the maximum number of students; why 180? If this is too large, what would be the impact.
(Sved —180 is the maximum number of students that can be appropriately housed during the day.
Being more restrictive could be a challenge. The students will be focused, given the type of
curriculum. Knew that getting students to and from the campus would be a challenge. Trips could
be reduced with larger buses; assumed mini -vans in an effort to reduce impacts upon traffic flow.
Students would not arrive all at one time. Committed to doing whatever is needed to make the use
work in the area.)
■ Asked if the Accelerated School of South Central Los Angeles is a boarding school? (Sved — is
charter school.)
■ Hoover school operated differently in that era; not sure if the neighborhood environment is the
correct place to place a high school population. (Sved — most of the time the students will be inside
the buildings on the property.)
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Aprii 27,
2009
Further Commission comments:
■ Required Mercy High School to provide a detailed documentation regarding all activities on the
property; will need the same level of detail for this application.
■ Address light and glare impacts from the use.
■ Provide a clear sense of how the school will operate; what will happen during off-season; on special
events.
■ What is the school schedule?
■ Open or closed campus?
■ What are the hours of operation?
■ How will security be handled?
■ How will athletics be addressed; which fields will be used in the area?
■ Need to think through where the dormitory is located.
■ Model based upon full capacity; will likely be a "hard" cap if the use is approved.
■ What are the visa requirements for overseas students?
■ How will the children be monitored at the off -site dormitory?
This item concluded at 9:40 p.m.
7. 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR FAQADE CHANGES TO AN
EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KENT PUTNAM, APPLICANT; PUTNAM TRUST, PROPERTY
OWNER: AND HUGH HYNES. PROTO INC.. DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 27, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the
project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Kent Putnam, 345 Miramontes Road, Woodside; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ None.
Public comments:
■ None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 27,
2009
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:46 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 20, 2009:
Adopted the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the properties at 1008-1028 Carolan
Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road.
Denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's approval of the project at 2843 Adeline
Drive; and allowed the developer to reinstate the deck off of bedrooms 2 and 3 at a depth and width
that are one-half of the dimensions indicated on the plans presented to the Planning Commission.
FYI: 1718 Adeline Drive — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project:
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
14